Useful Idiots

I've run across two in my surfing this morning. The first is Michael Schwartz, chief of staff for Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Dust Bowl). The man's a raving moron. Via Jim Burroway, this bit from Schwartz addressing the "Values Voters" Summit:

And one of the things that he said to me, that I think is an astonishingly insightful remark. He said, “all pornography is homosexual pornography because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards. Now think about that. And if you, if you tell an 11-year-old boy about that, do you think he’s going to want to go out and get a copy of Playboy? I’m pretty sure he’ll lose interest. That’s the last thing he wants.” You know, that’s a, that’s a good comment. It’s a good point and it’s a good thing to teach young people.

Digby has this observation:

According to Tom Coburn's chief of staff, if you are turned on by naked pictures of the opposite sex it means you're gay. Of course, if you're turned on by pictures of the same sex it also means you're gay. I guess that means that if you are turned on, you are gay. And we know that's bad. So basically they say you shouldn't get turned on. . . .

So, if you don't want your son to be gay, tell him that reading Playboy is something only gay boys do. And since boys don't want to be gay, they won't read it. And then they will be straight. Or something.

It's sort of entertaining to see the weird places these people's thought processes take them. And then you realize that there are people who actually believe this, it's not an SNL routine, it's not from The Onion, they really, really think crap like this is true. Scary. (Do you suppose this guy could have been home-schooled? Or maybe it really is time to rethink public education -- it's obviously not working.)

Also from Digby, a note about the late Irving Kristol, whom I discussed yesterday, and who is regarded on the right as a towering intellectual and one of the founders of contemporary conservatism, which should give you a clue as to where the problems are in that area. I'll let Kristol speak for himself:

For me, then, "neo-conservatism" was an experience of moral, intellectual, and spiritual liberation. I no longer had to pretend to believe--what in my heart I could no longer believe--that liberals were wrong because they subscribe to this or that erroneous opinion on this or that topic. No--liberals were wrong, liberals are wrong, because they are liberals. What is wrong with liberalism is liberalism--a metaphysics and a mythology that is woefully blind to human and political reality. Becoming a neo-conservative, then, was the high point of my cold war.

It is a cold war that, for the last twenty-five years, has engaged my attention and energy, and continues to do so. There is no "after the Cold War" for me. So far from having ended, my cold war has increased in intensity, as sector after sector of American life has been ruthlessly corrupted by the liberal ethos. It is an ethos that aims simultaneously at political and social collectivism on the one hand, and moral anarchy on the other. It cannot win, but it can make us all losers. We have, I do believe, reached a critical turning point in the history of the American democracy. Now that the other "Cold War" is over, the real cold war has begun. We are far less prepared for this cold war, far more vulnerable to our enemy, than was the case with our victorious war against a global communist threat. We are, I sometimes feel, starting from ground zero, and it is a conflict I shall be passing on to my children and grandchildren. But it is a far more interesting cold war--intellectually interesting, spiritually interesting--than the war we have so recently won, and I rather envy those young enough for the opportunities they will have to participate in it.

One hardly knows where to start with this, except to point out that it's a prime example of everything that is wrong with neoconservatism. (Regarding his comments on liberalism, I doubt that Kristol had any clue about human reality. His writings give no hint of it.)

This, I think, is the most telling comment on the "intellectual" thrust of contemporary conservatism I've seen yet:

"Among the core social scientists around The Public Interest there were no economists.... This explains my own rather cavalier attitude toward the budget deficit and other monetary or fiscal problems. The task, as I saw it, was to create a new majority, which evidently would mean a conservative majority, which came to mean, in turn, a Republican majority - so political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government..."

In other words, winning is more important than having any idea what to do after you've won. (I suppose the help will take care of that part.) Sort of a nice summary of the Bush II regime, isn't it?

Fatuous moron.