This incident also brings up a larger topic within the conservative sphere. With the release of South Park Conservatives by Brian Anderson, it looks as if a new conservative movement is possibly emerging that is shedding away the stiff, preppie choir boy image and are acting and looking like everyone else. A lot of the political correctness in all aspects is being rejected, and it runs counter to the traditional values of American conservatism, particularly religious influence.
That's where Malkin comes in, as she takes on the belief of South Park conservatives in her latest column:
Self-censorship is a conservative value. In a brilliant commencement speech at Hillsdale College last year, Heritage Foundation president Ed Feulner called on his audience to resist the coarsened rhetoric of our time: "If we are to prevail as a free, self-governing people, we must first govern our tongues and our pens. Restoring civility to public discourse is not an option. It is a necessity."First, you have to look at the setting where Bush was speaking. The speech was meant to be lighthearted; it wasn't a state dinner. Second, Malkin took Feulner's comments out of context. In the speech, in which a transcript is online, Feulner was discussing political debate between the left and the right in which he argued turns people away from politics. It's quite ironic, because Feulner could have been talking about her. Just look at some of the titles of her columns:
- Pandering to the Crackpot LeftAnd those are only the titles, mind you.
- Moonbats on Parade
- The U.N.'s Rape of the Innocents
- The ACLU vs. America
- Hysterical Women for Kerry
And that's not to say I agree with Feulner's message and necessarily believe we should tone down the rhetoric, but let's be realistic here. Malkin's one of the most polarizing columnists in America; in fact, probably second only to Ann Coulter.
As for her comments about conservatives and Hollywood, she says:
Rich is wrong about most things, but he's painfully on target in noting the incongruous pandering now taking place by some in the cool-kids clique on the Right. Conservatives criticize Hollywood relentlessly, but as Rich notes, "the embarrassing reality is that they want to be hip, too."and:
Lighten up, you say? No thanks. I'd rather be a G-rated conservative who can only make my kids giggle than a "South Park"/"Desperate Housewives" conservative whose goal is getting Richard Gere and Jane Fonda to snicker. Giving the Hollyweird Left the last laugh is not my idea of success.
These passages underscore an impending conflict as younger conservatives today get older. As Anderson states in his book, social conservatism is being rejected by today's younger conservatives. There's no ideal look or style for conservatism, or I doubt Ted Nugent or Gene Simmons could ever be considered one.
Hollywood, for the most part, has never been rejected by conservatives. After all, we watch their television and their movies. Just like we anyone else, we appreciate the things we like and criticize the things we don't like. Not everyone falls into the "cultural war" that Malkin and other social conservatives are trying to depict it as. I don't have to hate everything about them because I disagree with their views and some of their actions. As "Meet the Fockers" showed, Barbara Streisand can be entertaining. That doesn't mean I want her preaching to me about politics.
It's fine for Malkin to be a G-rated conservative, but to take potshots at other conservatives for their ideas and tastes comes off as a bit "unconservative". Conservatism is also about individuality and liberty. As long as people are living productive lives and aren't hurting anyone in the process, I don't see the problem with them actually enjoying entertainment.
