Conservatives and the manly man
by digby
I was challenged by one of my twitter followers yesterday who suggested that it's a "liberal aesthetic" that propels my hostility to Chris Christie who once stood up for a Muslim while going easy on Michael Bloomberg who instituted police state tactics against Muslims at large. If I understood the critique, it was that my loathing of Christie came from my misunderstanding of what using power really is compared to what it merely looks like (say when Christie is browbeating a schoolteacher in public.)
I think I do understand the way power is used, both as a matter of personality and as a matter of policy. I do not believe that either Bloomberg or Chris Christie are worthy politicians for any number of reasons. (And I did criticize Bloomberg harshly over the years.) Both of them have obnoxious styles --- Bloomberg's was elitist and superior, Christie is thuggish and bullying. And sure, I'm attracted to a more congenial style --- aggressive hypermasculine or aristocratic superiority are not archetypes that traditionally appeal to the liberal sensibility (or certainly not a progressive woman of my age.) So what? We all operate on a heuristic basis in our choices of leadership.
But I'm not a slave to it and I don't think most liberals who dislike Christie are basing it solely on our alleged hatred for his personality or looks (or however you want to define the "liberal aesthetic" that finds him objectionable.) My opposition to both Bloomberg and Christie is based on far more than their styles. And I certainly don't put aesthetic over substance when it comes to politics. That way lies danger --- big danger. For instance, I probably wouldn't have liked LBJ very much as a person but I appreciated his using his obnoxious bullying for good. And there are numerous examples of the typical urban elite liberal I have opposed, no matter how appealing they may be on the surface. So let's just say that I think I know what's most important in all this even taking into account my instinctive recoiling from creepy men who treat women like crap in public.
But if you want to see some people for whom the aesthetic and the substance are exactly the same, look no further than this:
During a panel discussion on the Fox News show Media Buzz, host Howard Kurtz asked if Christie’s “bully image” was hurting him after his administration was accused for closing part of the busiest bridge in the world to hurt his political opponents.
“I have to say that in this sort of feminized atmosphere in which we exist today, guys who are masculine and muscular like that in their private conduct and are kind of old-fashioned tough guys run some risks,” Hume opined.
“Feminized!” Fox News contributor Lauren Ashburn gasped.
“Atmosphere,” Hume nodded. “By which I mean that men today have learned the lesson the hard way that if you act like kind of an old-fashioned guy’s guy, you’re in constant danger of slipping out and saying something that’s going to get you in trouble and make you look like a sexist or make you look like you seem thuggish or whatever. That’s the atmosphere in which we operate.”
“This guy is very much an old-fashioned masculine, muscular guy,” he added. “And there are political risks associated with that. Maybe it shouldn’t be, but that’s how it is.”
This is more than simply aesthetic, needless to say. There is a deep sense of male panic and masculine insecurity in that sad little soliloquy. In fact, it gets to the very heart of conservatism itself:
Historically, the conservative has sought to forestall the march of democracy in both the public and the private spheres, on the assumption that advances in the one necessarily spur advances in the other. Still, the more profound and prophetic stance on the right has been to cede the field of the public, if he must, but stand fast in the private. Allow men and women to become democratic citizens of the state; make sure they remain feudal subjects in the family, the factory, and the field.
Keeping that traditional hierarchy is fundamental to these people and it is why I always believed that the alleged schism around Christie in the GOP was far less important than people wanted to believe. When push came to shove, I believe they would rally around him quite easily because of what Brit Hume whined about above. If he manages to finesse this scandal (by no means is that assured) I still think they will.
.