This morning Pamela Geller is angrily denouncing Christine O'Donnell, Republican senatorial candidate for Delaware. Geller endorsed O'Donnell early on, and O'Donnell posted Geller's endorsement on her website. Then this week, a leftist online rag called Salon attacked O'Donnell for posting Geller's endorsement, repeating a lot of vicious lies and exaggerations about Pamela Geller. Someone in O'Donnell's organization got spooked and removed Geller's endorsment from the O'Donnell website. Geller saw the removal and went ballistic. The Salon strategy worked: Geller and O'Donnell were transformed from political allies into political enemies and a nasty public fight ensued. Both Geller and O'Donnell will come away from this with mud on their faces.
Saul Alinsky stressed the use of ridicule and other strategies for causing political opponents to lose their tempers; once these opponents lost their tempers, they would self-destruct in a very public way, neutering themselves politically. Geller has made herself a shining example of how effective this strategy can be. With her ego gored, Geller was transformed into an attack dog for the left.
The only question in my mind is this: how could Pamela Geller allow herself to be so easily played? This stratagem will be celebrated in the annals of the left for years as an example of the effective use of slander and "playing one against the other."
The left has become quite effective at turning decent people into public pariahs through out and out lies and propaganda. The reason, of course, is to silence these people, or erode their credibility with the public, or lacking that, to merely punish them by invoking as much psychic pain as possible. Fueled by hatred and immorality, the purveyors of "tolerance" are truly hypocritical, anti-democratic and completely ruthless. They will destroy the life of a political opponent if they can, or cause that opponent to suffer for his conscience for a very long time. Examples are plentiful: Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Joe McCarthy, Kathleen Harris, Linda Tripp, Carrie Prejean, Tom DeLay, Robert Stacy McCain, to name only a few. (See my former post "How the Left Punishes Conservatives.") Now you can add Pamela Geller to the long and growing list of "the Slimed."
Pamela should have confined her concerns to private communications with the O'Donnell campaign. Denouncing O'Donnell's "cowardice and lack of character" two weeks away from the election is truly destructive to the conservative cause. Pamela, it isn't all about you.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Stogie - I haven't followed this but I'm not surprised. Too many bloggers are like Hollywood stars. If their hit counter is high it must be because they're smart. They start believing their own hype. I could name a bunch (some of them biggies,) but I won't bother.
It often becomes one little blogger war after another which is so utterly boring and childlike. Not to mention a gigantic distraction.
This fight wasn't between bloggers, it was from a blogger to a Senate candidate. You are right though, about "believing their own hype." I think Geller's success is beginning to go to her head.
There's a simple explanation why mainstream, "respectable" conservatives are easily manipulated by leftists: it's because they've swallowed the leftist worldview.
"Respectable" conservatives let leftists set the ground rules. Everyone is supposed to subscribe to the ultimate values of equality, non-discrimination, and tolerance. Political differences are permissible only to the extent that they provide various approaches to achieving those ultimate goals. Thus, George W. Bush can promote amnesty for illegal aliens and "No Child Left Behind" as "conservative" policies -- after all, we're all for "family values," aren't we? And both measures are worthy BECAUSE they promote equality, which we're assured, is also a conservative value.
In fact, conservatism is about the preservation of tradition, which is the treasure-chest of experience built by an historical community over countless generations. A culture, then, is the product of the Almighty in human affairs, patiently guiding and shaping His people over time. To reject tradition is to reject the faith that has held us together. Like any other living thing, a traditional culture must be selective – in other words, it must discriminate between what is “us” and what is not. Homosexual marriage? That’s not us. But if you’ve dutifully swallowed the ground rules set by the left, you’re then guilty of that ultimate sin, intolerance.
Conservatism can never triumph until it rids itself of this self-defeating mindset.
Wow, well said OR! Lawrence Auster has often stressed the same theme: that we have been so propagandized by liberalism for such a long time, that liberal precepts are accepted as the norm even among most conservatives. So we have "conservatives" embracing multiculturalism, "diversity" and speech codes. It's time to wake up.
Was that Salon piece the result of the interview that Pamela bravely gave to the NYT a few weeks back?
AOW, I think the Salon piece was from various liberal "fact" gathering for the purpose of sliming Geller. For instance, they mention that Geller ran a photoshop of Elena Kagan in a Nazi uniform without mentioning that it was relevant satire. They state that Geller is a bigot for rejecting a violent, totalitarian ideology. It is a collection of absurd liberal lies.
Good post, Stogie.
Here's another thought. When O'Donnell initially posted Geller's endorsement of her, Geller, knowing the score, i.e., knowing what a controversial figure she, Geller, is, should have advised O'Donnell that posting Geller's endorsement wasn't a good idea, because it would allow the left to attack O'Donnell for being associated with this person whom the left considers an extreme Islamophobe. In other words, Geller might have had enough self-awareness to realize that she is perceived as being too extreme to serve as an endorser of a serious candidate for high political office, because the candidate would INEVITABLY be attacked for the connection to Geller. If Geller had had the self-awareness and wisdom to give O'Donnell such advice, this messy affair would have been avoided.
Geller serves an important function, but it is not a mainstream function. She's a person who stands beyond the edge of "respectability," pushing issues forward. Such a person is not a person to be posted on a U.S. Senate candidate's website endorsing the candidate. Geller needs to understand what her contribution can be, and can't be.
Excellent points, Lawrence!
Geller is a bit too high strung and at times over -the-top for me. Her good qualities are that Charles Johnson and Debbie Schlussel hate her.
Anonymous, excellent point. To a large extent, we are defined by the people who hate us!
Post a Comment