September 28th, 2011

More from the left on why the right should dislike Christie

The Atlantic jumps on the same bandwagon as New York magazine. It almost makes me wonder whether there really is some chance that Christie might run, so eager is the opposition to be ever-so-helpful in pointing out to the right why his stances are heresies.

Heresies is an interesting word, is it not? It encapsulates so much: the idea of politics as religion, for example. The left likes to assert it’s the right that thinks that way, and that it’s the left that’s really the fact-based, reality-based community. But it doesn’t take much study of the left to observe its quasi-religious nature, and how it deals with apostates (as I’ve learned from bitter experience as the latter).

Oh, and what are Christie’s heresies anyway, as expressed in last night’s speech at the Reagan library (the mother church, as it were), according to the article’s author Conor Friedersdorf? These four:

(1) Compromise is core to politics, a necessary characteristic of good leadership, and the only way to solve problems…

(2) American exceptionalism isn’t a natural state of being or an inheritance — it is something to which we aspire, and we’re presently falling short…

(3) Americans should care what foreigners think of us…

(4) Americans cannot remake the world in our image through force.

To further eludicate Christie’s “heresies,” Friedersdorf fleshes them out from Christie’s speech in ways that make it clear that they’re mostly well within the mainstream of conservative thought. For example, for number 4, he quotes Christie as saying, “We need to limit ourselves overseas to what is in our national interest so that we can rebuild the foundations of American power here at home – foundations that need to be rebuilt in part so that we can sustain a leadership role in the world for decades to come.” When I last checked, that would be an excellent example of a conservative foreign policy principle, one to which even neocons would heartily subscribe. It just depends on what the definition of “in our national interest” is.

As for American exceptionalism, all you need do is to check out the text of Christie’s speech and you’ll find nothing about exceptionalism that should rile a conservative. Christie makes it clear that American exceptionalism is many things—a tradition and a vision that must continually be demonstrated by deeds. His point is that we can’t rest on our exceptionalist laurels:

That is American exceptionalism. Not a punch line in a political speech, but a vision followed by a set of principled actions that made us the envy of the world. Not a re-election strategy, but an American revitalization strategy.

How very controversial.

It’s all moot, anyway, because IMHO Christie’s not running in 2012.

17 Responses to “More from the left on why the right should dislike Christie”

  1. Eric Says:

    Friedersdorf composed a straw man based on a caricature of conservatives.

  2. Occam's Beard Says:

    Think JournoList is defunct?

    Think again. Note how all the Reds pivot on a dime and address the same issues, from the same perspective, in the same language. Wake up one morning and virtually every “news” source is singing from the same hymnal, today’s hymn being “Christie isn’t ready to be President.” (Rich, coming from Obamanauts.)

    Pure coincidence, I’m sure.

  3. Artfldgr Says:

    Compromise is core to politics, a necessary characteristic of good leadership, and the only way to solve problems

    every answer you want can be found in the ideology or its history…

    It is the duty of the revolution to put an end to compromise, and to put an end to compromise means taking the path of socialist revolution.

    Lenin, Speech On The Agrarian Question


    To reject compromises “on principle,” to reject the permissibility of compromises in general, no matter of what kind, is childishness. A political leader who desires to be useful to the revolutionary proletariat must be able to distinguish concrete cases of compromises that are inexcusable and are an expression of opportunism and treachery.

    ideology is about following a rule book someone else wrote… its not about thinking for ones self.

    so when dealing with ideologically bound fellow travelers, you only need to know their play book to know what and why and how they will do what they will do, or position they will take.

    (ergo their hatred of skeptics… it makes them doubt their veda and holy writs)

    the idea that one doenst care about what they read, what they believe, what they share, comment, and focus on… yet doesnt want them to make real what they read, believe, share comment and focus on…

    makes any discontent with such only a custom with no substance like Willy Wonka saying “no don’t” as the fat kid falls into the chocolate…

    now, i RETURN for the 100th time to:
    the general outline for fellow travelers and such..

    The Revolutionary Catechism
    Sergey Genadievich Nechayev

    skipping over point 14 that gives why to obamas gaffes and parapraxis (fruedian slips), the division of society and what to do with the groups..

    under the section
    The Relations of the Revolutionary toward Society

    the society can be broken up into 4 groups.
    the first are the damned, those to be removed, disenfranchised, exterminated, etc…

    once the list and means is determined (not necessarily covert), then
    no private sense of outrage should be considered, nor is it necessary to pay attention to the hatred provoked by these people among the comrades or the people. Hatred and the sense of outrage may even be useful insofar as they incite the masses to revolt.


    The second group comprises those who will be spared for the time being in order that, by a series of monstrous acts, they may drive the people into inevitable revolt.

    whenyou read this.. think of pelosi, and the others, ALL with dirty skeletons, and such and NONE very bright.

    The third category consists of a great many brutes in high positions, distinguished neither by their cleverness nor their energy, while enjoying riches, influence, power, and high positions by virtue of their rank. These must be exploited in every possible way; they must be implicated and embroiled in our affairs, their dirty secrets must be ferreted out, and they must be transformed into slaves. Their power, influence, and connections, their wealth and their energy, will form an inexhaustible treasure and a precious help in all our undertakings.

    ie… they are protected so they serve…
    just as those not protected are targeted…
    in this way, you know that if you beat up an oppressor, the system will consider it justice, and if an oppressor defense themselves the system will attack.

    let me put it in wwii terms and chance godwins law

    if your a german (volk) beating a jew (oppressor), then nothing much will happen to you if at all
    if your a jew (oppressor) beating up on a german (volk), then the law will come down on you disproportionatly hard.

    modernized after franfurt school created cultural marxism…

    if your a gay/black/female (volk), beating or hurting an oppressor (White male, jew, etc), the system will protect you in exchange for your support…

    if your a white male, jewish (oppressor), then the system will come down on you hard for being oppressive to the volk…

    ergo the feminist quotes and panther quotes and even gay lib quotes, that the oppressed HAVE A RIGHT to CLASS HATRED against their oppressors. (good germans have a right to hurt jews)

    but it is step 19, that covers compromise
    and IF compromise to you is step 19, when you see compromise what will you think?

    The fourth category comprises ambitious office-holders and liberals of various shades of opinion.

    The revolutionary must pretend to collaborate with them, blindly following them, while at the same time, prying out their secrets until they are completely in his power.

    They must be so compromised that there is no way out for them, and then they can be used to create disorder in the State.

    you see.. to them who have been using such as a weapon of the revolution, when they see the same thing, they want to pull the fire alarm.

    but they cant say where they got the ideas!!!!

    as for the dumb asses saying inane things to support this while hiding it for their own gain

    The fifth category consists of those doctrinaires, conspirators, and revolutionists who cut a great figure on paper or in their cliques. They must be constantly driven on to make compromising declarations: as a result, the majority of them will be destroyed, while a minority will become genuine revolutionaries.

    what was the 6th group?
    the key group?
    and what would they do for and to them?

    The sixth category is especially important: women. They can be divided into three main groups.

    First, those frivolous, thoughtless, and vapid women, whom we shall use as we use the third and fourth category of men.

    oh… so all those women who take on feminism serve the cause… and are being used. used to spread desease to create a false imperative, etc..

    DO note what the ends of the third and fourth categories are as well…

    (and that all these people whoa re serving are destined for what? rewards, or a disposable end?)

    Second, women who are ardent, capable, and devoted, but whom do not belong to us because they have not yet achieved a passionless and austere revolutionary understanding; these must be used like the men of the fifth category.

    so the strident women, putting on plays for women, marching and organizing… are dupes..

    heck… you can READ THAT THEY ARE DUPES by the people they say they are following, and believe in!!!!!!!!!!

    Kind of explains obamas regard for women, dont it?

    Finally, there are the women who are completely on our side – i.e., those who are wholly dedicated and who have accepted our program in its entirety.

    We should regard these women as the most valuable or our treasures; without their help, we would never succeed.

    anyone care to chime in on the other points and their relationship to the ideology and what someone who knows that will react like?

  4. gs Says:

    Had Romney bucked the Democratic tide and been reelected MA governor in 2006 (he chose not to run), IMO he would have been elected President in 2008. If Palin were giving brilliant speeches like the Indianola one as a sitting, emphatically reelected governor, IMO she’d be favored to kick Obama out of the Oval Office.

    Similarly, if (heaven forbid) Obama is reelected and if Christie is reelected governor, Christie will be the obvious choice for GOP nominee in 2016.

    But I see statements that his in-state popularity and reelection prospects are mixed; I hear Cory Booker mentioned as a likely opponent. Perhaps someone knowledgeable about NJ politics can comment.

  5. Artfldgr Says:

    they have not yet achieved a passionless and austere revolutionary understanding = Sociopathy… indifference to the suffering they cause all women but their collective… the willingness to knowingly make barren a whole population and make the lives of millions miserable, desese full, lost, etc… all for the “revolutionary understanding”…

    by the way… the ONLY reason i can even get away pointing this out, is that we are so far gone, we cant stop it…

    20 years ago showing that stuff would have resulted in responses… now not.. which means now it dont matter waht you do, they dont care given that their is nothing we or anyone can do…

    because we dont want to!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    we wont give up the abnormal made normal any more than the aztecs would say oh, and stop sacrifice

    any more than the hindu sans the british, would have given up sutti..

    too bad no one can think enough to understand a ideology for deliverance to a population that amounts to fashionable bad advice…

    why is sarah pregnant at 10?
    her mother said to do that, or she got bad advice?
    why is carol infertile at 40?
    because her family wanted that, or she got bad advice?

    why will there be a drove of old women sitting around getting their care rationed so they die early, not having any families, capital, or the money…

    bad advice wrapped in a sweet lie and false promises…

    anyone want to point out what the outcome of learning this the hard way is?

  6. kaba Says:

    It must be really difficult for those in the media to determine which Republican candidate they should demonize this week. Poor dears!

  7. Don Carlos Says:

    Christie is a big fat yawn.

  8. neo-neocon Says:

    kaba: this business of “Christie’s not a real Republican/conservative” could backfire, though, if he does run. It might make him seem a lot more attractive to independents and moderate Democrats.

  9. kaba Says:

    Probably true neo.

    I loved Christie’s speech last night. The right sentiments expressed with faultless tone and cadence. The man has a gift.

  10. Parker Says:

    Christie is not ‘conservative’ or strictly bound to an ideology. He is practical. He gets things done. From what I know of Christie I have some reservations about his POV on the 2nd amendment and illegal immigration which are issues where I find no room for compromise. However, he seems to be a very accomplished executive and he’s also fun to listen to, especially when he’s in an impromptu situation. I agree that he is not running, but if he was running I would choose him over Romney, Perry, Bachman, Newt, and most certainly over Hunter.

  11. Don Carlos Says:

    kaba seems to be falling into the same trap earlier set by another smooth orator, BHO, who also had (has?) a “gift.”. “Faultless tone and cadence”, indeed.

  12. Occam's Beard Says:

    Re Christie I have two words: “Presidential debate.”

    Obama would need to wear plastic shorts.

  13. Curtis Says:

    To synthesize Occam’s two comments:

    What is the smell today?

    Consult jounolist?

  14. Parker Says:

    “Obama would need to wear plastic shorts.”

    He was born wearing plastic shorts.

  15. SteveH Says:

    “”Compromise is core to politics, a necessary characteristic of good leadership, and the only way to solve problems…”"

    The problem of course is compromising between communism and capitalism pretty much describes the method by which we arrived at the cluster**** we’re in today.

  16. J.J. formerly Jimmy J. Says:

    I watched Christie’s speech and thought it was very good. I wondered if his emphasis on compromise was a criticism of Congress or the President. It seems to me that the way he talks of compromise in his efforts in N.J. has been one where he has been able to show that there was a real fiscal crisis and only limited choices for fixing it. In other words the dems, unions, etc. were given little room to maneuver and had to give in on most of their points. If that is his idea of compromise, I like it.

    Much of the problem we have in the Federal and State governments that have fiscal issues is that there has yet to be a recognition by dems that there is a problem. Therefore there is no way to arrive at solutions. Christie seems to have been able to convince N.J. dems that there is a problem -no mean feat.

    By the way that is what Herman Cain always says, “First you define the problem.” Good leaders are good at defining problems and the range of possible solutions. Convincing those who need to act that there is a problem is always the first step.

    All that said, I am concerned about Christie’s positions vis a vis immigration, gun control, and Muslims, but I want to hear his positions from him during debates, not from some writer who imagines he understands my ideology.

  17. Upstate Crunchy Says:

    “heresy” comes a Greek word meaning “choice,” which seems exactly the article’s author did–choose whatever he wanted/needed to make an anti-GOP argument

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge