Larry Auster Doesn't Get It

Lawrence Auster, of "View From The Right" has lately become the pariah of conservative pundits. He doesn't seem to like any of them. He's very critical of Jonah Goldberg, John Derbyshire and others at National Review Online, and has hurled many barbs at Mark Steyn and Robert Spencer.

Lately I've taken to avoiding his blog because of his odd positions that put me off. However, tonight I thought I'd check out his take on the Boxer-Rice brouhaha. Just before I clicked on the link button (at right of this page) that links to his site, I just knew he would take Barbara Boxer's side. It came to me in a flash of insight.

Sure enough, I was right. Larry understood the conversation between Boxer and Rice, but didn't understand the underlying message or meaning, what writers sometimes refer to as "the macromessage." And that message was that Rice, having no relatives herself to go in harm's way, should not be making policy that sends other peoples relatives into battle. It was a rather stupid argument. What relatives did FDR put at risk by asking Congress to declare war on Japan following Pearl Harbor? None that I'm aware of. What relatives did Clinton put into harm's way when beginning his war on the Serbs? Or Truman in the Korean War?

Larry has made such a pest of himself to other conservative pundits that he is being treated as something akin to an annoying horsefly. But this isn't the first time Larry "didn't get it." He didn't get it in the Vice Presidential debate between Cheney and Edwards either. When John Edwards disingenuously brought up the topic of Cheney's lesbian daughter, with pretended praise for Cheney's support for her, Edwards was roundly booed by conservatives everywhere. The discussion was off topic and strictly designed to turn off Evangelical Christians who support the Republican ticket. It was dirty and dark and cynical.

Larry, not surprisingly, supported Edwards then just as he supports Boxer now. I link to Larry's website because Larry is right on the money on some topics, like the nature of Islam and what we should do about it. On other topics he is often the contrarian and sometimes a bit obtuse. He is exactly that in the case of Boxer vs. Rice. Get a clue, Larry.