Saturday, February 24, 2018

Mona Charen's courageous stand at CPAC

Over the years, CPAC has seen an increasing number of contenders for Big-Time Conservative Pow-Wow status. Red State Gatherings and Americans for Prosperity's Defending the American Dream Summits are replete with the big-name speakers, panel discussions and radio rows that are such big attractions at CPAC. Several magazines host cruises and retreats that feature big names and big ideas.

Still, CPAC's the oldest and the one that gets the most "mainstream" coverage. Since 2014, Matt Schlap has been the CEO of CPAC. His background is commendable enough - political advisor, Vice President for federal affairs at Koch Industries - but he's one of these people who became quite taken with the Very Stable Genius early on. The nature of the lineup of scheduled speakers, some later disinvited, at CPAC has skewed populist since he's been at the helm. This year the audience reveled in the presence of was subjected to the likes of David Clarke and Sebastian Gorka.

Now it's 2018, and the VSG is president and is said by his enthusiasts to have rocked the joint when he spoke. So this is a fired-up bunch of enthusiasts. 

Into that milieu waded Mona Charen of National Review and the Public Policy Center, and she had the guts to play the skunk at the garden party. She was asked, during a panel discussion, about the Left's treatment of women. Her answer didn't sit well with the Trumpists:

"I'm actually going to twist this around a bit and say that I'm disappointed in people on our side for being hypocrites about sexual harassers and abusers of women who are in our party, who are sitting in the White House, who brag about their extramarital affairs, who brag about mistreating women," she said.
Declining to mention Trump by name, Charen said conservatives are guilty of "look[ing] the other way" when it comes to the president and other Republican men who have faced allegations of sexual misconduct.
"This was a party that was ready to ... endorse Roy Moore for Senate in the state of Alabama even though he was a credibly accused child molester," Charen said.
"You cannot claim that you stand for women, and put up with that," she told the crowd, as several members of the audience shouted, "Not true!"
Charen's comments were met with heavy boos inside the conference hall, and she was later spotted leaving the conference with a three-person security detail.
Earlier on in the panel, she issued a strong rebuke of Marion Le Pen, the niece of former French right-wing presidential candidate Marine Le Pen, whose own appearance at CPAC drew scrutiny from some conservatives who have accused her of enabling far-right groups with racist views.
"There was quite an interesting person who was on this stage the other day. Her name is Marion Le Pen," Charen told the crowd, suggesting Le Pen was only invited because of her surname.
"And the Le Pen name is a disgrace," she added. "Her grandfather is racist and a Nazi. She claims that she stands for him. And the fact that CPAC invited her is a disgrace," Charen said.

The parallels to the way the feelings-driven mob of adolescent public policy wannabes in Florida at CNN's town hall about guns treated Dana Loesch are striking. Inconvenient facts must not be brought up in settings ostensibly about the quest for truth, but in reality about mindless adherence to an emotionally gratifying set of presumptions.

I look forward to Charen's own observations about her experience.

12 comments:

  1. You ain't seen nothin' yet about feelings. Wait till these fuckers get us into a big war.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Emotion is an unconscious arousal system that alerts us to potential dangers and opportunities. Think of emotion as a biological thermostat that monitors and reports variations from normality. Emotional arousal activates our attention system, which identifies the dynamics of the challenge and then activates relevant problem-solving systems that consciously respond to the challenge. Everything we do thus begins with emotion, a key cognitive process that was poorly understood for most of human history.

    The social behavior that preceded the Iraq war paralleled what occurs within a single brain. The national and international debate that was sparked by a proposal for war focused on an assessment of our respective levels of alertness, strength, and energy—but also heavily on our motivation for the enterprise. How much will a war cost? How long will it take? How many will die? What will happen if we don’t invade Iraq? What about the aftermath? Should we only do it if other nations join us in a coalition, or should we go it alone? Should we do it, even if we can do it?

    We can assume that the post-war analysis will be as emotionally driven and perplexing as the pre-war analysis. There’s not much difference between an individual and a social group when it comes to the emotional analysis of a major challenge. Damasio sees this as an integral part of who we are as human beings. We have preferences and we make choices. Sometimes we’re wise, and sometimes we’re foolish.


    https://brainconnection.brainhq.com/2003/04/07/emotion-and-feelings-in-a-time-of-war/

    ReplyDelete
  3. I can't predict the future but I personally am voting as far away from Donald Trump as possible. I want his ass whipped bad bad bad in the midterms. Sorry if all you fine and good cerebral conservatives go down with him. You said you liked his stuff, just not him.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm looking over your comments - three so far - and none have anything to do with the main point of this post: the courage Mona Charen showed last CPAC.

    ReplyDelete
  5. She was stating the obvious. Any feelings in there?

    ReplyDelete
  6. No feelings.

    “Me hating Trump is the most important aspect of any and every topic” does nothing to move a discussion forward in any meaningful way.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Once you bring Trump into it (I know you largely like his stuff, just not his process), it ignites something within me. And probably a whole lot of other people. You conservatives are going down with the ship, whether you like it or not. I hear Cruz' opposition in Texas has raised more money for the campaign so far.

    "President Donald Trump's approval rating in a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS stands at 35%, down five points over the last month to match his lowest level yet."

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cnn-poll-trump-approval-slides-matches-lowest-point-of-presidency/ar-BBJz17I?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=SL5JDHP

    Once you bring Trump into it, yes, all other considerations are pushed aside. Or ahead. To the time when he is as powerless as all his moolah will allow him to be.

    ReplyDelete
  8. But Mona courageous for speaking truth to powa?

    ReplyDelete
  9. You understand how immature that position is, don't you?


    Who cares what Trump's approval rating is? LITD hardly supports him - in fact, considers it extremely unfortunate that he was elect.

    There will be conservatives until the freedom-haters round every last one of us up.

    And yes, it was supremely courageous of Mona Charen to do what she did.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Guess this snippet from Mona Charen's piece in this morning's NYT kinda does nothing to move the conversation forward either, huh?

    "There is nothing more freeing than telling the truth. And it must be done, again and again, by those of us who refuse to be absorbed into this brainless, sinister, clownish thing called Trumpism, by those of us who refuse to overlook the fools, frauds and fascists attempting to glide along in his slipstream into respectability."

    Sad thing is you're all going down with the ship. I hate, detest, can't stand, will not brook: Donald J. Trump!!!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ahh, but I think to you my personal detestation of Donald J. Trump AND ALL HE STANDS FOR is misplaced and even immature. Oh well. See you in the dust heap.

    ReplyDelete
  12. No, the snippet from the Charen NYT column dies indeed move the conversation forward. See, since you're not a conservative, you may not understand the fissures within the movement. She has drawn a bright red line between Trumpism and conservatism, and now the long knives are out for her.

    In other words, your position on Trump is basically hers. In fact, I see very little daylight between them.

    It's not your detestation of Trump that is misplaced. It's your inability to focus on a given subject at hand due to your obsession with that detestation. I see this a lot in leftist social-media anti-Trump rants.

    ReplyDelete