Letters to the Editor
-
You too can be a conservative without being conservative!
I guess this is a subset of the way that self-proclaimed conservatives can indulge their pleasures and their vices and still proclaim themselves to be conservatives. Such as Christopher Buckley (William F. Buckley's offspring) who can brag in the pages of National Review about using drugs to enhance sex, while being considered a conservative. Or Florence King, author of "Southern Ladies and Gentlemen," a psychosexual look at Southerners. At the time she wrote it, she described her occupation as writing prornography, before she moved to National Review and described herself as "an arch-conservative."
-
Digby (who else?) has the word "conservative" defined correctly:
There is no such thing as a bad conservative. "Conservative" is a magic word that applies to those who are in other conservatives' good graces. Until they aren't. At which point they are liberals.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_11_20_digbysblog_archive.html#113304649195203560
-
Goose Gander
Yep. When NeoCon pundits engage in nepotism/cronyism and warmongering it’s a crises.
When Dem politicians do it, it’s no big deal.
Go Hillary!!
(Note: Before anyone “virtually” jumps down my throat, I’m not implying that GG support or doesn’t support Ms Clinton, I’m simply noting that many Dems (“liberals”) are as blindly partisan as “conservatives.”)
-
Wingnut welfare
You didn't even mention that the National Review, for one, doesn't turn a profit. If the National Review practiced what they preached regarding the almighty market, the magazine would have ceased to exist decades ago. Who's paying for this propaganda?
-
Mother's Milk
I worked for more than fifteen years for the darkside, if you will, to paraphrase Dick Cheney. I saw how over the years many of the old grant-making foundations were taken over by the neo-conservatives. And, in turn, they used the money spigot to achieve a remarkable change in what were once traditional conservative think-tanks. It's even worse than you describe. Just as these "nepotistic tough guys" preach the values of capitalism and conservatism, they operate in a realm totally apart from the average American.
All of these characters are beneficiaries of the largesse of large grant-making foundations. They operate in the largely "un-regulated" zone of think-tank non-profits. The non-profit realm is not anything akin to the free-market. These people are not answerable to any "market forces" and operate win the knowledge that their secure sinecures will not be threatened. I left this arena after realizing that the world of conservative think tanks could use a little of the "creative destruction" they were advocating for the Middle East themselves.
-
@ Hankest
I'm sorry. I fail to see how Hillary Clinton is at all the same as the nepotistic beneficiaries that GG has identified. Whatever family capital and connections have helped her are connections that she worked for and helped to build *alongside* and *with* her husband. She has not inherited them.
Would she have come as far if Bill had not been President? I doubt it. But would Bill have been President if she had not sweated blood with him? I doubt that too.
You're simply confusing inherited privilege with earned privilege -- and I'll hazard a guess here that you're not married or in a long-term relationship.
As someone who has been partnered since 1991 and married since 2003, I can say in all honesty that my spouse probably wouldn't have come as far as he has without me. And I would not have come as far without him.
-
I am no surprised.
Such movements need acolytes, and what better way to create them than to breed them. Sad but true. Besides, these people have no useful skill sets outside punditry, its not like their going to become the founders of the next Fortune 500 company. Steve Jobs they are not.
-
Compare Them to Families Who Serve
What really strikes me about this nepotism is the comparison with generations of families that serve in the police, fire, and military. You can find these families all over this country and, I suspect, most countries. Think the NY Fire Department and Police Departments. Or Senator Webb's family.
To think that the neocons have political control while these other families don't is beyond belief. People who put their lives on the line, generation after generation, probably have more meaningful insights about risks and rewards required to make solid decisions. You would think.
-
It might not be pure coddling and nepotism
Inbreeding and Congenital Idiocy may have something to do with it . Seriously, at this point most of the 25-27% still in the neocon camp have literally been born into the position, and even with continuous indoctrination since birth, some are leaving the fold.
-
That explains it
I always wondered why so many conservatives seemed to genuinely have so much respect for Bush. Now, it's so obvious. Any man who is so capable as to have parents so well positioned, is obviously someone with all the right qualities...
-
What about Bush and Jr.?
Glenn, I'm actually amazed you wrote the piece without even an aside about the Bush clan. That is self-discipline. I couldn't have done it.
As for bringing Hillary and Bill under the nepotism lens. Absolutely Hillary would not be where she is without Bill, and yes they did it together...but, correct me if I'm wrong, the Senate was Hillary's first run for office in a state they only recently moved to. Not too many folks get a shot at doing that. It's certainly insiderism (and very unsettling), though different from the parent-child nepotistic arrangement the Kagans, Kristols and Pods have going.
-
@Hankest
Please don't equate Democrats with liberals. It's a big mistake. You can be a Democrat AND be a liberal. You can also be a Democrat AND be a conservative. That's why the Democrats can't organize any sort of significant oposition to the Bush administration's policies. Too many Democrats are conservatives. For them, Democrat is simply a convenient label used to collect votes at election time and is the easiest way to gain power.
-
Glenn is a hypocrite.
Everyone knows that he inherited this blog from his father, Larry Greenwald. If that weren't bad enough, it's been obvious for years that Glenn is grooming his adoptive son, Tagg Greenwald, to take over the site when Glenn becomes Transportation Secretary in the Gravel Administration.
More dirt: do a simple records search on Joan Walsh, and you'll discover that, a few years back, she had her name legally changed. Walsh's birth name? You guessed it: Maud Greenwald. Glenn's sister.
Keep chucking those stones from that pretty glass house of yours, Glenn.