Skip to content

Ed Driscoll and the Rise of the Dyslexic Right. Or Left. (Does He Even Know?)


Dyslexia Politicus (aka DP) is a common malady, especially amongst mugged Liberals. Case in point today: Ed Driscoll’s unwittingly humorous screed of November 06th 2014 at PJ Media, titled:

The Rise of the John Birch Left

Driscoll startles us in revealing that

[…] the new Bircher left sees racism, sexism, homophobia, and Koch Brothers everywhere.

Perhaps startles isn’t quite the word; disappoints is more complete. If one slogs through Ed’s mercifully brief offering, one learns nothing new.  It’s a nasty bit of intellectual laziness that amounts to barrel fishing. While the signal in Ed’s note may be a waste of time, it’s the noise in the background that informs.

Driscoll begins with a chuckle at the founding and fortunes of the John Birch Society that he gleans from a Wikipedia entry.  Alas.  For starters, the primary source is available.

Ed should know that Wikis are tertiary and invariably they are politicized well to the Left. (Even my daughters were not allowed to use Wikis for school reports, as they are notoriously redacted and inaccurate.)

Worse still is that Mr. Driscoll appears to have no clue as to the first principles of the John Birch Society.

Let’s take a step back for a moment to the opener of that paragraph:

The modern left is built around a trio of laudable principles: protecting the environment is good, racism is bad, and so is demonizing a person over his or her sexual preferences. (sic!)

Bumper stickers? Truly?

Protecting” – what constitutes protection? – “the environment” – from whom, from what, and when? – “is good” – always and everywhere, at any cost?

Racism” – what exactly is race, anyway? –  “is bad” – bad, how?

… and so is demonizing a person over his or her sexual preferences.”  What of the situation where it’s “their sexual preferences?” – the individual being neither he nor she or rather both?  (See Ed? You’re a “bad” person.)

Too, is it “bad” to “demonize” say, child predators? The incestuous? Rapists? Promiscuous homosexuals? Bigamists? Zoophiliacs? (What about necros… is it “bad” to “demonize” necros, Ed?)

Perhaps “laudable” too isn’t the best word.  Laughable, if a tad tragical.

. . .

Let’s agree on (working, pro tem) definitions: By Left, we assume a preference for  “centralized power , maximized governmental authority and de minimus individual choice.”  By Right,  “decentralized authority, de minimus power and maximized individual choice and self-government.

Driscoll’s larfs over the Left’s present histrionics provides little cover for his blindness for the Left’s core principles. If he’d bothered to examine the principles of the evil “Birchers” he would perhaps not have been so dismissively abusive.

Today Buckley’s early defenestration of the Birchers and Ayn Rand appears to have been unwise.  It is they who are winning in the marketplace of ideas.  The modern Tea Party is a coalition of Birchers, Objectivists, Conservatives, Libertarians, Constitutionalists and similarly inclined Liberals who haven’t understood why their pet projects aren’t working.

Driscoll, like his fellow travelers from the Left, have no clue where they are, or what all of this means.  Being “Right” or “Conservative” or “Libertarian” as perhaps Driscoll fancies himself requires more than simple rejection of the Left’s most extreme agendae or behaviors.  It requires some soul searching for those core beliefs; it means clarity and consistency with those core beliefs.

[Note to Mr. Driscoll: Good sir, if you wish to understand where you are, have a good stare at the Birchers’ ‘Core Principles’ page and analyze what you find.  Then head over to the ‘Communist Manifesto.’  Dig up a copy of ‘Atlas Shrugged.’ Pull-quoting Russel Kirk doesn’t cut it. – Ed]

7 Comments leave one →
  1. 2014/11/11 21:00

    Holy shit, man. Are you really saying the JBS should judged by the contents of their marketing materials? Do you feel the same way about the NAACP?

    • 2014/11/11 21:21

      Yes, in the case of the JBS. I know four well – two couples – and there is a one-to-one correspondence between their stated principles and what they actually believe. One couple are devout Christian and the other are Orthodox Yids. (gulp) There goes the neighborhood!

      But that’s not so much the point. If Driscoll had been honest, he would have quoted right from the About page along with the Wikis. Hell, if he’d been really good, he could then take their quote and shoot it down. He can’t, and he didn’t.

      Ergo, Driscoll is a lazy putz.

      • Libertarian Advocate permalink
        2014/11/17 11:23

        BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Don’t hold back Yos. Tell us how you REALLY feel.

  2. 2014/11/12 02:30

    With all due respect, friend, you avoided my question. I have no beef with an individual member of this or that group MOST OF THE TIME, but you’re papering over the history (and present) of JBS. It’s been a sanctuary for balls to the wall crazies since it’s inception. But, your tell is pretty big there. You’re a loving guy and you were insulted on behalf of people you respect. I don’t have a personal boner for Welch either, by the way, but they’ve allowed some really batty shit under their umbrella. I’m not going to beat you over the head with it. You’re neither dull nor evil. Maybe I should mind my own beezwax. hehe


    • 2014/11/12 16:05

      I posted a direct response to the specific questions, as in “Yes [I am] […saying the JBS [may] judged by the contents of their marketing materials]”. I went on the explain that “in the case of JBS”… ” there is a one-to-one correspondence between their stated principles and what they actually believe” amongst the people I know.

      I can parse a sentence, Chuck.

      If you’d wanted to ask the question about nutters at JBS, it’s fair game, but ask the question.

      So let’s do it: “What about the nutters at JBS you’re papering over?” i.e. “JBS… [has] been a sanctuary for balls to the wall crazies since it’s inception.”

      Is there anything “crazy” in JBS’ core beliefs?

      Part 1) Alas – the premise is false. An old, planted lie.

      There is a lot of history to the reason why this was done. The modern Conservative movement feared a truly conservative counter-argument principled in G-d and the Constitution. Because modern “conservatives” could not argue directly against conserving American Liberty as it had blossomed, they chose the path of destruction.

      Classic example: WFB. Men such as Buckley were progressive-thinking “conservatives.” His fetish for centralized government’s “little excesses” exemplified a very squishy-cored “conservatism.” There sat Buckley; Elite! Debonair! More than JBS, anyone and everyone with a committed core philosophy had to go. There is no surpise that Buckley would “eject” the JBS and the Rand crowds – and his rag made sure they were destroyed at every turn.

      Look at his brain-child today; National Review is the home of modern sophistry and muddled RINOs.

      If you go over to New American, they’re calmly saying “Hey, we warned you. Hello! Wanna borrow a compass?”

      Part 2) Back to Driscoll. He points out that “The Birchers’ core principles, that Communism is evil, its expansion needed to be stopped, and that communists had infiltrated American government (see also: Hiss, Alger) were laudable. But the group’s zeal to defend them drove them to paranoid levels, to the point where the Birchers were accusing President Eisenhower of being a crypto-commie, leading to Russell Kirk’s hilarious rejoinder to the Birchers, “Ike’s not a communist, he’s a golfer!”

      Fair is fair, and Kirk was right. Almost. Turns out that we learn that the Administration was indeed rife with Commies and not a few sympathizers of the “progressive” variety. No shocker, government by it’s nature, especially at the upper levels attracts just that sort of character. Birchers were not all that wrong in the specifics and very correct in their warnings. In retrospect they seemed hysterical; but the fire thay said was smoking is here, brother. It wasn’t paranoia; it was undisciplined, sure, neurotic, sure – but the dudes had a point.

      Driscoll’s abuse of the old stereotype is lazy and unhelpful.

      Welch and Rand are up there shaking thier heads and wincing. If Buckley is up there and if he has any shame he’s apologizing. Big time.

  3. Libertarian Advocate permalink
    2014/11/17 11:38

    “Look at his brain-child today; National Review is the home of modern sophistry and muddled RINOs”

    I seem to remember reading that Buckley was drummed out of NR by his former acolytes fo being too conservative. I also remember reading an interview (?) that WFB was very disenchanted with the shrub’s adventurism and nation building in the Near East. Alas, he’s not talking now.

    • 2014/11/17 13:27

      Interesting, LA. Didn’t know that. Why did he let it happen?

      Brookheiser. Goldberg. (cough) Frum. Lowry.

      The wages of sin. If he’d been a radical in the true sense of referenced to fixed principles, perhaps those errors noted above (and not a few others like them) wouldn’t have happened.

      Did he publish a clear, brief manifesto or cynosure, something that anchored his conservatism? Goldwater did, and Rand.

      As you say, he’s not talking now.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: