If it walks like a chicken, and quacks like a chicken ... - Baxil [bakh-HEEL'], n.
[The TTU Wiki]
View My LJ
If it walks like a chicken, and quacks like a chicken ...|
The world's least funny comic strip* recently unloaded the L-bomb
upon us all:
That's right. Mallard Fillmore is a Libertarian. The comic strip that bellwethers movement conservatism -- with its endless stream of personal jabs and caricatures of liberals that seem pulled out of a time vault (seriously, the figure most satirized so far this year is Teddy Kennedy, with four Chappaquiddick jokes
in two months), with its approving citations of Michelle Malkin and regular paeans to William F. Buckley, with its complete lack of criticism of any right-wing figure anywhere, with its blurb
proudly proclaiming its "conservative bias" -- has found a new word to replace the label "conservative". Chantel is a liberal, and Mallard is the opposite -- a "libertarian."
Given that the strip has shown no other sign of disagreement with GOP-talking-points positions (except to chastise GOP politicians for behaving too much like Democrats!), what this boils down to is that Mallard, despite believing all the same things they do, is ditching the label "Republican" in order to go over and stand with the Cool Kids. And rest assured that's all it is, political camouflage. For example, actual Libertarians think the government has as much business lecturing Americans about Mallard's beloved "moral values" as it does about Mallard's despised political correctness.
Man. When even Gipper the Talking Points Duck
is too busy ducking the label that best describes his political stance in order to go stand Over Here Away From Bush And The GOP, you know that the party is political damaged goods.
As a minor side note, the strip where Mallard "liberals, liberals, democrats, democrats, liberal democrats" Fillmore chides a coworker
for conflating Republicans and conservatives is (I'm sure unintentionally) the funniest strip he's ever done.
-- * Granted, the competition is very fierce.
Current Music: Old Soul - "Falling"
|Date:||March 4th, 2006 05:30 am (UTC)|| |
What the fuck. He reuses the same damn joke SEVERAL DAYS IN A ROW. Even Jim Davis has more sense than that. He might do the same 10 jokes, but at least he rotates them out on a semi-regular basis. He's about as funny as the majority of those Muhammad cartoons. Except everyone realizes Mallard's too damn stupid to start a riot over.
|Date:||March 4th, 2006 06:52 am (UTC)|| |
It's because Conservatives don't have a functioning humour gland. They don't want to read something because it's "funny"; they want to read something because it reinforces their own opinions, and because they think, since it's a cartoon, it's probably supposed to be funny.
|Date:||March 4th, 2006 03:20 pm (UTC)|| |
True Believers of any stripe lack a humor gland.
|Date:||March 4th, 2006 07:31 pm (UTC)|| |
Yah okay true. :)
Dude, you know the Mohammad cartoons weren't meant to be humorous, right? I suppose your comment makes sense even if you knew that, but I want to be sure.
you mean Malliard Fillmore is supposed to be funny?
I can't tell if we've gotten enough sarcasm going to wrap around and speak unironically or not, but a better comparison would be to compare Mallard Fillmore to something that isn't funny but tries to be, like... Garfield, maybe.
|Date:||March 4th, 2006 12:43 pm (UTC)|| |
So... an antropomorphised duck whom is attracted to a female human is masquerading as a 'liberal' with a highly conservative and republican outlook?
What's confusing, again?
|Date:||March 7th, 2006 03:18 pm (UTC)|| |
An anthrpomorphised duck attracted to a female human? Steve Gerber, call your lawyer.
|Date:||March 4th, 2006 03:26 pm (UTC)|| |
(shrug) Is Bush a conservative? Back when they were out of power, I thought conservatives stood for less government intrusion in our private affairs, fewer idealistic (equals stupid) military adventures overseas, less defecit spending... remember that? Didn't exactly turn out that way when the Neocons got into the act. They're using power just as stupidly and making the same stupid mistakes as the people they used to complain about.
So what am I, Bax, other than confused? I work for the government, I see its inefficiency, I can see that if things can be handled outside government they should be, but many things can't be. I guess I'm either a pre-Neocon conservative or a New Deal liberal.. or perhaps I'm just myself. Gah, makes your head spin, it does.
|Date:||March 5th, 2006 12:32 am (UTC)|| |
|(Link)|> Is Bush a conservative?
Conservatives of actual principle -- as opposed to shills following his dream of a pax Republicana -- would tell you no. As a liberal, I find it very difficult to disagree. He has such a consistent record of putting personal loyalty over principle that I don't think he could be said to be much of anything (at least in polite company).
As I said below, economic restraint (and the other things you list) are supposed to be conservative values, and conservative-minded people wouldn't be fleeing to the libertarian margins if they thought they could rely on conservatives to actually be "Conservative."
As for what you are ... I don't know that it's my right to slap a label on your beliefs. But whatever they may be -- "New Deal liberal" is probably what I'd personally choose from your list; or I might also propose "Goldwater conservative
" for your consideration -- I don't think I'm so very far away. Political labels aside, my enthusiasm for government social engineering is low, and my enthusiasm for government economic engineering is tempered by the fact that the entire political establishment is a Gordian knot that needs severing from money before politicians can be relied on to produce changes that reliably benefit their constituents. In some cases, though, such as health care, our system is so broken right now that socializing the system would be better than inaction.
|Date:||March 5th, 2006 01:21 am (UTC)|| |
Health care isn't the free market system its defenders say it is. "Free market" implies some kind of price competition, and the ability to decline to purchase the product if it doesn't meet your needs at a price you can afford. But that's not how it works.
The way things are now, if you need critical care, you get it. If you have insurance, it pays. If you don't, they take everything you own. If they have already taken everything, they treat you anyway and overcharge everyone else to make up for it.
That is already in effect socialized medicine-- just socialized medicine with an impossibly unfair and dishonest payment system. That being the case, I think we might just as well socialzie the sucker and be done with it. It would be a lot more honest. Also a lot more efficient, since it would allow people (like me) who work for inefficient old bureaucratic organizations that still have health coverage, to quit if they wanted, to go do something better and more productive, without fear of physical and financial ruin.
|Date:||March 5th, 2006 01:57 am (UTC)|| |
Completely agreed. One of my "grew out of it" links below goes to my rant on the subject.
|Date:||March 4th, 2006 03:28 pm (UTC)|| |
By the way, Tephie has a good saying: "It's hard to be a libertarian when you know things."
|Date:||March 5th, 2006 12:10 am (UTC)|| |
Hee, cute. :D I started as a Libertarian myself, but slowly grew out of it
. The group has many good ideas, but applies them in too many places where they don't work.
He misunderstands the term "liberal". It's possible to be a liberal libertarian. Those are the people who want the government out of our bedrooms and our bodies. Mallard Fillmore, on the other hand, is a conservative libertarian. Those are the people who don't think they should have to pay taxes, and think the government is trying to take their guns and booze away.
|Date:||March 4th, 2006 11:39 pm (UTC)|| |
> He misunderstands the term "liberal"
Most conservatives do, since these days conservative media uses "liberal" mostly to mean "anything we don't like."
The thing about your "conservative libertarian" designation is that that's what the position of the Republican party should be -- they're just doing a horrible job of it, what with the modern GOP strategy of party over principle. Economic restraint is supposed to be a conservative value, and people wouldn't be fleeing to the libertarian margins if they thought they could rely on conservatives to actually be conservative.
The "liberal libertarian" definition you give is where the big-l Libertarian Party resides, so I don't think there's any reason to use the qualifier "liberal." That eliminates the ability to make distinctions for, oh, people like me, who still have strong libertarian sensibilities but have fallen away from the party over things like health care and tax policy, thinking that government intervention makes more sense there.
Congratulations on the TMW Blog
|Date:||March 12th, 2006 05:56 pm (UTC)|| |
I actually ended up noticing before getting the pointer -- TMW is on my daily political blog skim list -- and, boy, did that make my morning! :)
At any rate, thank you. You have any idea whether someone tipped off Greg or whether he found my article on his own?
The Repubs are preparing for November, already. (Didja see how quickly Bush got left out to dry on the ports deal?) I predict that we'll see a lot more confusion (or misdirection?) in the Republican camp over what constitutes Republican, or Conservative, and who's actually what. Then they'll regroup in late Summer and try to put forth a "real Republican, a candidate we can trust". In fact, I'm gonna copyright that statement ( (c) 2006 ) just for kicks and giggles.
Anyway, I don't think it's so much that The Party is trying to ditch the Republican label so much as they're already starting the cleanup process.