Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Conservative Liberals for Mainstream Anti-MSMism
At the risk of looking a gift citation in the mouth, I have to pass along an amusing case of Reason-related ideological confusion. On page 102 of Brian Anderson's brand new book South Park Conservatives: The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias, I am described like this:
Welch, who considers himself an "Economist-style" conservative liberal, [...]
Find the word that doesn't belong! On the other hand, I think there are intriguing possibilities in boiling down someone's basic political identity using the formula "[magazine title]-style [two polarly opposed political camps or philosophies]." For instance, "Parade-style vegan carnivore," or "Heeb-style ... Objectivist commie" ... I'm sure you can think of better ones.
Anderson's book, by the way, sprang from this interesting City Journal essay, arguing that right-of-center types have more effectively embraced and leveraged new forms of media.
|4.11.05 @ 12:32PM|#
Matt:
Just to let you know, the "South Park Conservatives" link takes you
to a Mitch Albom book, "Tuesday's With Morrie."
|4.11.05 @ 12:41PM|#
I suppose you mean "conservative". What do call someone who wants to conserve liberty ? A conservalibertian ? Yuck. That sounds like a word the Germans would come up with.
|4.11.05 @ 12:46PM|#
"South Park Conservative" = "Libertarian"?
Matt: Maybe I missed it, but where exactly in Anderson's article
were you referred to as an "Economist-style" conservative liberal?
Either I skimmed past it, or it has since been edited from the
article.
|4.11.05 @ 12:46PM|#
Theocrats exist. I've met some in person. Fiscal conservatives exist in small remnants here and there. Do South Park Republicans exist outside the confines of the Internet? Them and $5 will get you a cup of coffee.
Matt Welch|4.11.05 @ 12:47PM|#
matt -- Thanks, all fixed!
Drooling Richard -- Bingo! I guess I'm more of an expansionist than
a nostalgic.
|4.11.05 @ 12:57PM|#
Matt: I sit corrected. I skimmed past your description of the article. Damn adult ADD.
|4.11.05 @ 1:17PM|#
As a Mad-style fundamentalist heathen, I salute you,
Matt!
Anderson's City Journal article is quite interesting, just as you
said. It does appear as though right-wing spokesmen and interests
are becoming extremely technology- and Internet-savvy, something
that was extremely apparent during the last Presidential election,
not to mention the Dan Rather and Schiavo flaps. Much of the
article is bilge, of course - the major networks and CNN were just
as flag-waving as Fox after 9/11, and Fox's coverage of Iraq is far
from unbiased - most of it seems to be uncritical acceptance of
Pentagon and White House news releases. There are serious problems
with news coverage inside Iraq, as the recent detention of the CBS
cameraman with suspected insurgent ties makes clear, but I doubt
that the solution to those problems lies in an attitude of "the
military/government knows best."
|4.11.05 @ 1:45PM|#
Oops, this is probably more accurate for me:
The Onion-style conservative anarchist.
(No offense to the much-missed suck.com.)
|4.11.05 @ 2:24PM|#
"right-wing spokesmen and interests are becoming extremely
technology- and Internet-savvy, something that was extremely
apparent during the last Presidential election, not to mention the
Dan Rather and Schiavo flaps."
Uh, yeah, the right-wing blogs that explained that the Schiavo memo
had to be a Democratic forgery really impressed everyone with their
credibility...
This whole business of the new media being responsible for GOP
strength seems quite exagerated to me--long before blogs or even
Fox News, GHW Bush won in 1988 by a much greater margin than his
son did in either 2000 or 2004...
|4.11.05 @ 2:31PM|#
Actually, the description makes perfect sense, to readers of The Economist. They use the term "liberal" in the classical liberal sense, which, if explained to the average contemporary American, they would view as conservative (unfortunately). So while the description might seem contradictory, that style of explanation is used because of the contemporary perversion of the term "liberal."
|4.11.05 @ 2:36PM|#
Inviting some of that monkey pooh from the walls of casa Jackson
to be slung my way, I'll go with:
Reason style neoconservative minarchist
|4.11.05 @ 3:12PM|#
I suppose you could call me a punkish Cruising World
style paleolibertarian.
...unless you're a Reverse Domino Theory, National Review
style neomaxi zoom dweeb, in which case you can call me Mr.
Shultz.
|4.11.05 @ 3:22PM|#
I always considered myself a Vice Magazine Style Atheist
Catholic.
No joke either. And doesn't Camille Paglia?
|4.11.05 @ 3:26PM|#
I've always considered myself a Vice Magazine style
Atheist Catholic.
Perfect description to be quite honest.
|4.11.05 @ 4:13PM|#
Ha! I'll give you mutual exclusion.
I'm a Maxim-style organized anarchist.
Or, Miss Jackson if you're nasty.
|4.11.05 @ 7:15PM|#
I can go you one better Smacky. What about a Penthouse-style Fundamentalist Feminist?
|4.12.05 @ 5:06AM|#
"Economist-style" conservative liberal
...
The funny thing is, that is a remarkably precise and unambiguous
description.
|4.12.05 @ 2:08PM|#
If only Shakira had heeded my psychic pleadings and left her Argentine doctor boyfriend for me, I, like Kevin Federline, could be described as an US Weekly-style uncelebrated celebrity. Or as Access Hollywood newsburger helper. Even though the "Stars are Just Like Us", I am merely a DBMS-style analyst administrator.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245