The amount of instruction that accompanies the fun side of his Lordship's pseudotorianity is not large. By this late stage of the moral progress of the human race, it is no secret from most students that what passed with Mr. Burke for philosophy of politics was largely a matter of elegantly written-up gut rumbles. Once that cat is removed from its bag and examined in sunlight, using it to flog poor M. Rousseau the way Eddie intended in his gallophobomaniacal phase becomes too problematical to inspire much zeal now that nobody's insides at all are terrorized of Jean-Jacques and his supposed disciples any longer. [1]
As you might expect, Mr. Bones, what General Lord George thinks is wrong with J. Sidney McCain is not too distant from my own doubts about Ma Will's boy:
| McCain practices the politics of honor: he thinks that whatever his instincts tell him is honorable must be so and that those who think otherwise are dishonorable. This makes him difficult to deal with but does no other harm, as long as it is kept separate from governing. |
Poor Eddie B. will be rotating in his grave at the thought that Honour and Policy must never be allowed to meet and compare notes! But let us not take shots at our betters that are too cheap, Mr. Bones! General Lord George may have scribbled under the pressure of a deadline and not written what best corresponds to his lordly gut rumbles. Or at least his Lordship might have reworded himself a little once the obvious had been pointed out.
From our own subaristo point of view, sir, far less exalted than that of Lord George, it would be flatly absurd to claim that being "difficult to deal with" is, or ought to be, or even can be, "kept separate from governing." What would Old Nick do? Not a hard question: Signore Machiavelli would be difficult to deal with when that plan advances the interests of the State, and as laid back as you please, when that advances the interests of the State. A good deal must depend on whom one deals with and what it is that one deals about. (Oddly enough!)
Notice that his Lordship’s advice would be impeccable if directed to Mme. Elizabeth Windsor. Certainly she must never be "difficult to deal with." Equally certainly, she has as good as nothing to do with governing in the sense that will shortly become applicable to Commanderissimo McCain. His pseudotorianity would have to be pushed to the point of dementia, however, for General Lord George to have nothing more to say to the Yank nation about J. Sidney than that he might conceivably make a passable decorative hereditary monarch. You or I, Mr. Bones, might be sarcastic at the Flyboy Hero's expense in that fashion, but only because we think pseudotorianity (and most non-extinct Torydom too) is piffle to begin with.
The snark is probably not worth the hunt, but I suppose we must check whether General Lord George scribbles anythin’ in his op-ed to cast additional light on what his lordly gut understands by the word "honour."
His Lordship is willing enough to praise J. Sidney for agreein’ with basic presuppositions of the Party of Grant:
| John McCain's policy minimalism ... merits compliments. He says "it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers." For now, he is with Senate Republicans in opposing the Democrats' proposal to empower judges to rewrite the terms of some mortgages, an idea that strikes at the sanctity of contracts and hence at the ethic of promise-keeping that is fundamental to social life. He opposes an additional dose of the toxin that has made the credit system sick -- he favors strengthening rather than weakening down-payment requirements for loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration. And he has admirably avoided the rhetoric of victimology, such as that used when the Post editorialized that "lenders pushed tens of billions of dollars in potentially high-interest mortgage debt on people ill-equipped to handle it." |
"The sanctity of contracts ... the ethic of promise-keeping that is fundamental to social life" might be taken at Wombschool Normal University to involve a point or points of traditional Honour, but even if we pass over that serious boo-boo, the familiar Big Management Party idol that Lord George burns his incense to has very little to do with J. Sidney McCain in particular. Indeed, "For now, he is with Senate Republicans" gives the impression that JSM might impetuously decide to take a sledge hammer to the alleged ethical fundament of Western Sieve at any moment. General Lord George might, given some temerity from the reader's side, be understood to imply here that J. Sidney's loyalty to Boy and Dynasty and Party and Ideology, being inferior to that of Senate Republicans generically, is inadequate. That would bring old-fangled Honour into play, but it can scarcely be what his Lordship originally intended when he set out to swiftboat the man McCain. Respice finem, Mr. Bones, remember where we are headed: his Lordship's bottom line is to be that JSM possesses Honour, not that he lacks it.
General Lord George then drools on in his pseudotory or bourgeois gentilhomme vein for several paragraphs of economics without mentioning the devoted victim at all. Then, out of the blue, comes the bolt:
| McCain's only solecism is his loopy idea that mortgage lenders should make a "response" that is "similar" to General Motors' policy of interest-free financing immediately after Sept. 11. Patting himself on the back, as is his wont, McCain said he is too honorable to "play election-year politics" or "allow dogma to override common sense." Then he cast this issue as he casts too many issues, as a matter of patriotism, saying of lenders: "They've been asking the government to help them out. I'm now calling on them to help their customers and their nation out." Good grief. Where to begin? GM initiated that policy for a corporation's best reason -- business rationality. The policy's purpose was to shed inventory, not make a patriotic gesture with shareholders' money or in response to political pressure. |
Plainly General Lord George Will does not have that old problem about servicing two masters simultaneously. His gut and his brain alike are owned by Mammon Inc. lock, stock and barrel -- and his Lordship is proud of it, too! Lord George throws that "corporation's best reason -- business rationality" down like a gauntlet. Any recreant knight who ventures that Big Management may, if it wishes, flirt with the filth of McCainiac ‘solecism’ and occasionally do somethin’ responsive or patriotic that may be slightly business-irrational will have to prove it upon the body of George Frederick Will!
’Tis a pretty picture, a nice self-exposé of the absurdity of pseudotorianity. But J. Sidney McCain and traditional Honour have nothing worth mentioning to do with this show. And despite the false lure of "Where to begin?", that’s all the show there is, there ain’t no more. Today's megillah from Lord George contains only one microparagraph after the two just borrowed, the one I quoted first.
On Planet Will, the two words "business rationality" are the ace of trumps and take every trick. Travellers to that destination ought to be aware of the local folkways before they disembark from their spaceship, otherwise they may easily lapse into solecism or worse. This message is worth getting out, which makes it regrettable that General Lord George should have festooned his caveat for tourists with so much specifically Terran politics that it rather gets lost sight of.
Meanwhile J. Sidney may be chucklin’ to himself that lone enemies like General Lord George Will can be more helpful than whole packs and scads and hordes of good-hearted friends. His electoral prospects can only benefit from the rumor getting around that he is wobbly on the Business Rationality Primacy Axiom. The core economic OnePercenters have come aboard the Swiftboat Express™ already, it is swing voters and Big Party base-and-vile that McCain needs to dupe, and almost all of these wombschool witlings are mechanically conditioned to think well of Honour and Patriotism.
As for "business rationality," what's that?
No comments:
Post a Comment