Early on, even before Big Government opened, when Big Hollywood was still in its infancy, I was introduced to Conor Friedersdorf through an email he sent to Andrew Breitbart asking him for an editorial job. Without comment, Andrew forwarded Conor’s email and since I was still green, I didn’t really know what to make of someone who felt that he should be installed in a position where he would ensure the political arguments made by our contributors were intellectually sound (that was the crux of his inquiry — really). Did Andrew agree with him? Had he forwarded the email to make some sort of point?

Brei-i-i-i-itbaaaart!!!

But the more of Conor’s inquiry I read, the wider the smile reached across my face. It was obvious the  author was a young, arrogant, self-serious clown who thought he was pretty special but was really only blessed with the necessary lack of self-awareness required to allow him to keep on keeping on without ever noticing that the whole wide world was laughing at him — especially his liberal friends who only kept him around because he was useful. Just as Colonel Klink on “Hogan’s Heroes” was never aware he was being used by Colonel Hogan — that he was a walking joke respected by no one and only flattered when it was necessary to get him to help the other side – so too is Conor Friedersdorf.

If you read the opening paragraphs of Conor’s reactionary and defensive response to us (and Breitbart specifically — who Conor is somewhat obsessed with), this is how he presents his conservative bonifides:

I’ve shown that the DEA callously prevents sick people from getting useful therapy, highlighted work done by the Institute for Justice to advance economic freedom, called out the TSA for its harassment of air travelers, noted that kidney patients are dying needlessly, urged on efforts to rein in excessive public employee pensions in California, called for a repeal of the light-bulb law, highlighted Orwellian threats to privacy, and complained that federal prosecutors misallocate resources.

I’ve profiled Gary Johnson, formulated 11 questions all presidential candidates should be asked to test their civil liberties bonifides, urged the tea party movement to embrace Mitch Daniels, warned against the inexperience of Michele Bachmann, and even curated nearly 100 fantastic pieces of journalism!

Despite those pieces and many others (267 items over almost four months, to be exact), the highest traffic thing I’ve written, the most liked and the most hated, the most quoted, linked, commented on, praised, excoriated, and widely controversial, is a lighthearted item about going to “The Undefeated” last Friday[.]

Wow. That’s quite the conservative resume — a regular rundown of all the important arguments of our time. (I think my eyes just saw the back of my skull.)

Friedersdorf is among that classless class of so-called “conservatives” I call Underminers. By calling themselves conservatives and, more importantly, by offering themselves up as willing to be used by the Left as a sort of double agent in order to damage the conservative cause (and therefore America), Underminers willingly play this mercenary game knowing it’s the quickest possible way to stand out and garner love from left-wing MSM — who are all-too ready and willing to use these Conservative Underminers to further their dirty work.

And the quickest ticket in to The Club of False MSM Love? Throwing hate at Sarah Palin.

To be clear, you need not be a right-wing water-carrier to avoid the Underminer label. You need not even be a fan of Sarah Palin’s. Constructive criticism of the Right is perfectly appropriate and necessary. Politically, I frequently disagree with Red State’s Erick Erickson, Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey, George Will and others — but they’re not underminers. They’re on our side and construct their criticism of our side in ways the corrupt MSM doesn’t find useful. Most importantly, they don’t need the MSM in order to enjoy careers.

You can’t, however, say the same for the likes of a Kathleen Parker, David Frum, Joe Scarborough or Conor whats-his-name. (The jury’s still out on Peggy Noonan and what’s this about?)

No doubt’s Mrs. Friedersdorf precious little boy is convinced his laughably precious writing style and oh-so brilliant Big Thinks are what caught the attention of the truly wicked Andrew Sullivan and left-wing Atlantic, but he’s wrong times a thousand. Were he a Gingrich Republican as opposed to a Gary Johnson-Republican; were he a defender of Palin instead of someone willing to further the corrupt MSM’s phony narratives about her; were he in favor of the enhanced interrogation techniques that resulted in the death of bin Laden, instead of a sanctimonious “Civil Libertarian”; were he a Rush Limbaugh or Breitbart fan instead of half-witted gnat always circling them for attention  – Conor would be nowhere today because he’d still be Conor: a marginal thinker and self-consciously insufferable writer with a sky-high opinion of his scrawny powers.

And now a scene from the offices of The Atlantic that took place late last Thursday night….

—–

FADE IN: 

INT. Colonel Klink’s Office – Night

Colonel Hogan bursts in with mischief on his mind. An agitated Klink sits at his desk and impatiently signs one paper after another.

KLINK
(doesn’t look up)
What is it now, Hogan. It’s nearly midnight…

HOGAN
Colonel, have I got a job for you. A job only you and you alone can do. A job sure to garner the attention of the high command and make a real splash on the Internets.

Intrigued but wary, Klink stops signing papers and looks up. Sensing victory, Hogan presses the sale further by dramatically lifting his hands in the air as if to show off a big, fancy billboard.

HOGAN
“A firsthand, exclusive account of audience reaction to ‘The Undefeated’ by Colonel Conor Klink.”

It takes a beat, but Klink’s now hooked. He stands, removes his monocle and joins Hogan in gazing at the imaginary billboard with his name on it — in lights.

HOGAN
You’ll beat everyone with this story. 

KLINK
Yes.

Hogan dashes to a coat rack, grab Klink’s coat, and hurriedly dresses him as he speaks.

HOGAN
There’s a screening in 20 minutes. If you hurry…

KLINK
Yes.

Suddenly the spell breaks. Klink stops and frowns.

KLINK
Wait just a…  Twenty minutes? No one’s going to be at a midnight screening of a political documentary on a work night, Hogan. Has anyone even advertised the showing? I haven’t seen anything. And how will I get audience reaction if no one is there to see….

Hogan smiles to share his brilliant conspiracy. Klink gets the message, smiles back and hurries into his coat. 

KLINK
Yes!

An excited Klink dashes out the door leaving Hogan alone to wonder aloud at his good fortune. 

HOGAN
What an asshole.

FADE OUT

—–

I guess that if you’re not interested in self-respect, it’s a living.

And no, Conor, no one’s calling you a Nazi.

Here at the BIGS, we all picked squares to back up our prediction of who would be the first member of the MSM to compare the upcoming Sarah Palin documentary”The Undefeated” to Leni Riefenstahl’s infamous pro-Nazi propaganda film. “Triumph of the Will.”

Looking oh-so sincere and innocent in black and white…

Personally, my gut told me this person would have to be uncommonly angry and cruel; someone willing to stoop to a level of partisan inhumanity where few fear to tread, someone so despicably desperate to destroy another they would use a political figure’s own children as weapons of attack.

Well, according to my Google Alert… Ladies and gents, Mr. Andrew Sullivan:

“If someone gives it a chance and watches it, watches the film, I think they will be surprised at the caricature that’s been drawn and the contrast to reality. I just think every aspect of it is so powerful, you cannot walk away from this film looking at Sarah Palin the same way. You just can’t,” – Meg Stapleton, on the upcoming propaganda movie, “Triumph Of The Will” “The Undefeated.”

The strike-through is Mr. Sullivan’s and a cool nine bucks and an expired Denny’s coupon (thanks for nothing, Dan Riehl) is all mine.

An informative and intelligent discussion that desperately needed to be had outside the world of the news media and inside Maher’s world — the world of popular culture.

The most telling moment here is the audience reaction after Maher pulls no punches and says the following: 

“What it comes down to, is that there is one religion in the world that kills you when you disagree with them. And they say, ‘Look, we are a religion of peace, and if you disagree, we’ll cut your fucking head off.’”

The studio audience … applauds.

In the past, whenever Maher’s brought this truth up in this way, his audience has audibly gasped as the silent tension became thick and immediate. At this point, Maher was always on his own as his guests shifted uncomfortably in their chairs and the audience gulped for air to fight off a case of the PC vapors.

To his credit, though, Maher keeps on keeping on, keeps making this case and telling this truth as he sees it, and it appears now as though it’s finally penetrating.

Don’t get me wrong, Maher’s still Maher, but he’s righteous on this one — not only on the issue itself, but in his refusal to have his free speech rights cowed and shamed into silence by the PC fascists that infest his world on the Left. 

Better yet, if last night’s audience is any kind of indicator — and I think it is — he’s winning this debate.

Over to you, Jon Stewart…!

Check it out, check it outers:

Of course, Sullivan isn’t alleging a cover-up–he just can’t believe Palin’s story. Meaning, of course he’s alleging a cover-up. Whatever–the whole obsession makes me queasy–much in the way Truthers, Birthers and Sullivan’s bushy beard do as well.

Anyway, Sullivan is dining out on this, and why shouldn’t he? He is, after all, the latest recipient of the “Strange New Respect” award. This award was first coined by the American Spectator roughly thirty years ago, given to any one labeled a conservative who then veers left. This is the easiest way to gain any respect from the media: slide on over to their side, unbutton your shirt and tell them, “hey, you were right all along.”

Sadly, there’s no such “Strange New Respect” award for people who move from left to right–because there is no welcoming party like Behar waiting for you with smirk and bon bons. If anything, you’re given the “You’re Screwed” award, which is accompanied by heaps of ridicule and worse, a deliberate shunning if you happen to work in the entertainment industry.

Anyway, there’s plenty to criticize Palin about–I’m still miffed at the whole “quitting her job in the middle of it” thing–mainly because I like getting fired so much. But if you need to spend your time conspiring over sinister childbirths, it’s time to start getting your fillings checked for radio transmitters; I did and was able to stop those messages from outerspace telling me that griffens were stealing my unicorn stickers (it turns out a pegasus was behind the whole thing!).

And if you disagree with me, you’re probably a racist.

~~

Tonight’s guests:

the lovely Lauren Sivan!

the hilarious Jesse Joyce!

the brilliant Nick Gillespie!

plus, other stuff and no more glasses

So when Andrew Breitbart asked me if I’d interview Carrie about her new book, Still Standing, out November 9 from Regnery, I chuckled and thought: The liberal faithful will think this is perfect: One “fanatical homophobe” interviewing another. 

Except that they would be wrong.

In case you’ve been living under a rock this year, Carrie Prejean is the former Miss California who became an accidental lightning rod in the spring. At a glitzy pageant held April 19 at the Planet Hollywood Resort and Casino in Las Vegas, Carrie appeared poised to be crowned Miss USA. But during the final segment of the contest, a Q&A with pageant judges, Carrie drew as her questioner the gay gossip aficionado, Perez Hilton. 

Ignoring the longstanding pageant tradition of steering clear of politically charged questions, Hilton launched this salvo: “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?” 

Keeping her mega-watt smile picture-perfect, Carrie revealed no outward hint of concern. But inside, she writes in Still Standing, “it was as though I could feel time slowing down; as if silence was screaming in my ears…I had to break that silence with my answer – and I had to do it now…” 

“Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other…” Carrie answered. “And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman…” 

And with that, a 22-year-old lifelong athlete who works with developmentally disabled children became the global poster-child for virulent “homophobia.” Within 24 hours, a histrionic Hilton had called her a “dumb bitch,” then corrected himself, saying he wished he’d called her a “c**t.” Immediately, pundits and bloggers who use typically their media platforms to decry “hate” napalmed Carrie with every hateful invective from “bigot” to “Nazi.” One British politician even issued a televised death threat. 

I know a little about what that’s like. In late September, HarperCollins announced that it had bumped up the publication date for Sarah Palin’s memoir, Going Rogue: An American Life, to November 17. As Sarah’s collaborative writer, I suddenly became a target (the left having running out of original ways to insult the former Alaska governor herself.) 

Andrew Sullivan, who blogs at The Atlantic’s website, read my arguments in favor of traditional marriage, and summarily crowned me a “fanatical homophobe.” Others, to use Perez Hilton’s term, followed suit. 

Had Sullivan bothered to reach out for a reasoned dialogue, I might’ve shared with him that my sister Lori, an articulate, politically active lesbian on the progressive left, has had with me some pretty productive discussions on gay marriage. That for me, it’s about more than “the Bible tells me so”; it’s about the collision of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. 

I might’ve shared with Sullivan that the maid of honor at my wedding was my best friend, CM, and her longtime lesbian partner. Sure CM looked a little athletic schlepping down the aisle in her 1980’s tea-length, peach satin dress with dyed-to-match pumps. But then neither one of us walks like Carrie Prejean. 

…Who, incidentally, learned her sexy pageant walk from a gay man. 

Let’s face it ladies, nobody can work a pair of pumps like the right gay man. And it was an openly gay man named Jim (whom Carrie describes in Stilling Standing as “wonderful”) who transformed her from lanky athlete to slinky siren, and taught her not to lope across the pageant stage like a giraffe. And it was also a gay man, Keith Lewis, who courted Carrie to compete for Miss California, then Miss USA – a man Carrie thought at the time had her best interests at heart. 

See, the irony is that people like Carrie and I can be confidantes and even best friends with the gays and lesbians in our lives. We can be in mentoring relationships, like Carrie and Jim. We can collaborate on ideas, as I did with “Anlir,” a gay commenter whose ideas I often adopted when I managed World Magazine’s evangelical-focused blog. We can even be accepting of our family members’ sexuality. 

But if we dare to differ on the issue of gay marriage, then the truth about our actual relationships with gays and lesbians is ignored, liberals’ clairvoyant “insight” into our hearts and minds is substituted as fact, and our protestations are filed mockingly under the “some of my best friends” defense. 

If, on the institution of marriage, we say publicly that we believe the same thing as voters in 31 states – in every state, in fact, where gay marriage has been put on the ballot – then we become targets who must be defamed and destroyed. 

Sadly, snap judgment and name-calling would once have been uncharacteristic for Andrew Sullivan. My good friend Anita Palmer, former managing editor of Eternity, an evangelical monthly, told me she was a huge fan of Sullivan’s laser-like reasoning back when he wrote for The New Republic. 

“He was acerbic, but brilliantly logical, almost irrefutable in that succinct, British way that was just a joy to read,” Anita told me at Starbucks the other day. Her tone was wistful; she missed that Andrew Sullivan, she said. 

Carrie and I both long for the Sullivan of old – and for more people like my sister Lori – who would be willing to chuck name-calling and personal destruction in favor of reasoned, civil debate. 

*****

Lynn Vincent:  Okay, let’s just get the “sex tape” elephant out of the room. When I read about this I thought, “You know what, this isn’t really a ‘sex tape’ as we’ve come to think of sex tapes when they break in the media.”  What are your thoughts on that? 

Carrie Prejean:  Well, there is a video that is out there, and I’m not proud of it and I was very immature at the time. People can call it whatever they want to call it. But it’s definitely not a sex tape. But it’s still the worst mistake I’ve ever made. 

LV:  So I was thinking about this and I thought, “Okay, she was probably with her boyfriend and they were, you know, together and he was filming her…”

CP:  Well, let’s just get that thing taken care of. There was no one else in the room with me. I was by myself. It was for a boyfriend at the time, who I trusted and we were dating at the time. So, I think that definitely needs to get cleared up. 

LV:  So you made the tape and you shared it with this boyfriend. 

CP:  Well at the time, I guess I thought I was being a good girlfriend. 

LV:  I think in the flap copy of your book and in other places, it talks about you being a role model for young Christian women, so there will be people who say that you’re a hypocrite. What’s your response to that? 

CP:  Well, it’s definitely not something that I’m proud of, like I said. And, you know I still think that I am a role model. I think that we’re all sinners – we all make mistakes. The only perfect person is God, and I know that He forgives me….I’m forgiven for the things that I’ve done and how many of us want to share the most horrible mistake that you’ve ever made with complete strangers? Even talking about this right now with you is extremely uncomfortable. And, you know, we all make mistakes, we all do things we’re not proud of. But what matters most is who we are now and who I am now is someone that is a strong, strong person and I’m still standing. The bottom line is who I am today, and that’s a strong woman who defended traditional marriage, and that’s the only reason why we’re really even discussing this right now. 

LV:  Right. And so, in terms of a role model, I think you could say that some of the lessons we teach as role models arise from mistakes we’ve made. That’s how we get our experience. 

CP:  Right. And I think that now I can definitely teach younger girls, don’t ever do something [sexually inappropriate], even when you’re in love and you think that he’s Mr. Right and you “know” nothing will come out, because everything that you do – all the choices that you make – will affect you in the long run. Did I think when I was seventeen that…when I was twenty-two years old and in the spotlight, that the choices that I made then would come out now? No. But, that’s why young women need to learn from this. They need to really think about what they’re doing and make the right decisions and don’t ever do something that you wouldn’t want your pastor, your mother, your father, or your friends to see. Nothing is private anymore in this world, unfortunately. 

LV:  How did you feel about your opponents in this lawsuit presenting you with material that you recorded when you were a minor, in order to secure a favorable outcome for themselves in this lawsuit? 

CP:  Well, I’m not really going to be discussing anything that happened in mediation because I signed a legal agreement. It seems as if I’m the only one sticking to that agreement, and I will continue to obey that agreement. So anything that was discussed I’m not able to talk about right now. 

LV:  Well, let’s move onto your book. I was sitting in Starbucks in Del Mar enjoying it the other morning and, at the beginning, you take us right into that moment Perez Hilton asked you the question about gay marriage at the Miss USA pageant in Las Vegas. Take us to that moment. What were you thinking then? What were you feeling? 

CP:  Well, I just remember being so excited, and that I felt so proud and honored to be representing the state of California. I’d worked hard for this job and I was ready to become Miss USA. I was very confident with public speaking and being able to handle questions under pressure, and I just remember after hearing the question that I couldn’t believe that it was even being asked in a pageant. But I knew that I had to deal with it…but when I began to answer the question I felt as though so much of the hard work and dedication…that I had put into this pageant was just – it was gone…There was no way I was going to win Miss USA if I gave the answer that I gave. And it was worth it to me. It was worth it to be honest and tell the truth rather than to back down to just win Miss USA for the year…I think that was a test. It was a test and we’re all tested at some point in our lives and, you know, I think that I did pass the test. 

LV:  And, you know it was interesting last Tuesday the state of Maine became the 31st state to vote “No” on gay marriage. This time the vote was a bit different in that the state actually repealed a law allowing gay marriage. And this was in a state where voters are widely considered to be moderates and independents. So if you support traditional marriage, and people in Maine support traditional marriage, and people in the thirty other states where this issue has been put on the ballot support gay marriage, why do you think you were so viciously attacked? 

CP:  Well, for one, I think it’s because I was in a pageant…the type of setting where there’s media and there’s the entertainment industry. And I’m a pageant girl – I’m not supposed to have an opinion and I’m not supposed to be intelligent and I’m not supposed to stand up for what I believe. I’m supposed to back down to win this tiara. And when I didn’t do that, I think people were shocked. And when I continued to defend the stand I took, people became frustrated. They knew that they were not able to take me down. They knew I was going to stand by what I said and I wasn’t going to take back what I said – that it was just an honest answer. There was nothing controversial about it. And it is mind-boggling to me that we’re still even talking about this seven months later. It’s not even a controversial issue. The President of the United States agrees with me. Sarah Palin agrees with me. The majority of people in the United States and my state agree with me — that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. 

LV:  One of the things that has been personally dismaying to me is that I have had and do have great relationships with gays and lesbians. But instead of being able to sit down and have a civil discussion about the issues, about gay marriage, about domestic partnerships, about civil unions, with people who feel differently than you and I do, that it always goes into attack mode. It always goes into name-calling. So my question is, if you had a chance to sit down to coffee with some of your critics personally and it was you and them at Starbucks just talking about this issue, what would you say? 

CP:  Well, I want everybody to know that this is not a personal attack. It’s not me hating anyone. I don’t hate anyone. It was just that I was asked a question at a pageant and I had to give an honest answer. I had to be true to myself and I had to be true to the way I was raised. So I would just let them know that this is not a hateful thing against anyone. It’s just a personal opinion, and we are all entitled to our personal opinions. And we should have the right to express our personal opinions. Since when are we not able to give our own opinion when we’re asked? 

LV:  So you’re saying, you should be able to give an answer other than “world peace?” 

CP:  Exactly. You should be able to give an honest answer and not be attacked, not be called every name in the book, not be fired, and not have every single one of your boyfriends being called from your past to see if they’ll give up some dirt. 

LV:  Over the past seven months, is there anything that you would do differently if you had a chance to do it again? 

CP:  No, I really don’t have any regrets. I think that I’ve had a great support team. I’ve had people that I’ve surrounded myself with who are positive, people who give me great advice, who stand with me. You know, I’m not alone in this. My detractors would love to hear me say that I feel alone and I feel sad and I feel miserable. But you know what? I don’t. This was such a learning experience for me and I’m glad I learned these lessons at such a young age. But I’m happy now to just move on with my life. I hope that mothers and daughters and conservatives read my book and feel empowered to express their own personal beliefs and opinions… I hope that I was able to be used in a positive way to give other people encouragement. 

LV:  In your book you write about an old sports trick where you – as a basketball player, for example – you visualize sinking the shot. You said that when you were competing in the Miss USA pageant, you visualized the things you would do to win the competition. 

CP:  Yes. 

LV:  What are you visualizing going forward in your life? 

CP: Well, I always have told myself, ‘you draw the line then you live above it.’ Hopefully other young women can learn from [my experience], not only with the stance that I took in standing up for what you believe, but also that if you do have an opinion, don’t be afraid. Don’t be afraid to say it and stand by it. And if people try and attack you, then so be it. Let them, let them attack you. Let them dig up things from your past. And if you’re faced with a controversy like this [tape], then admit to it. The truth will set you free. 

LV:  Now in Stilling Standing, you dish quite a bit on Keith Lewis and Shanna Moakler [both of the Miss California organization.]…You’re pretty tough on them. What will be your response to people who say you used your book to settle scores? 

CP:  The purpose of writing my book was for me to tell my side. I think that was really important. I think the media definitely got a twisted version of what really happened. So it was important for me to set the record straight. As far as Keith Lewis and Shanna Moakler, I wish them well. This was just my chance to tell my side of the story and to clear some things up. 

LV: I want to touch on the issue of your faith since it’s obviously the defining thread that runs through your life. I was interested to read in your book that at the state level, at the Miss California pageant, the judges actually praised you for talking about your faith. And then you move on to Miss USA and you have your handlers, like Moakler, telling you, “Don’t talk about God! Don’t talk about God!” What was that like for you? 

CP:  That was difficult. It was very difficult. I was dealing with people who didn’t think the same way that I did. So from the very beginning it was a challenge, but I learned to deal with it. 

LV:  One of the things that really struck me in your book was when you describe Keith Lewis really putting his hands on you and sort of sizing you up and touching your body all over to see if he thought that you were in good enough visual shape to compete. It sort of reminded me of – I don’t know – someone sizing up livestock that they were going to buy. Was that humiliating for you? 

CP:  Yes. And I think that was when I really realized the business that I was in and the industry that I was in. And it was shocking to me but, you know, I had to deal with it because I had won the [Miss California] pageant and so I just thought, “Okay, this is just what they do.” Looking back, I think this was their way of telling me, “Okay, you’re ours now and we’re going to mold you and shape you to be who we want you to be. And you will listen to us.” 

LV:  I would imagine that it was a moment where you began kind of thinking, “Oh my goodness, what have I gotten myself into?” 

CP:  Right. Exactly. And that’s what I did think. 

LV:  One of the things that I noticed early in the book was where you talked about one of your early mentors counseling you to just be yourself in these pageants, Carrie. Just be yourself. And certainly you did that when Perez Hilton asked you that question. And yet on some other things, earlier in your pageant career, you sort of allowed yourself to be carried away from that early advice. You know, as though the pageant machine was sort of driving you forward. Can you talk a little bit about how you get caught up in that kind of thing and carried along? 

CP:  In my book you’ll see that I was tested twice.  The first time was when they had asked me not to talk about God anymore and [I didn’t]. It made me feel really uncomfortable… I felt this guilt inside of me knowing that I had not stood up when I could have. I could have said, “No, that’s not right,” or “I don’t agree with you.” But instead I just kind of played it off and ignored the situation. So, I definitely learned from that. 

LV:  So in, I think in a very human way, in those particular situations you were…kind of going along to get along. 

CP:  Right. My main focus was winning Miss USA. I mean, that was my main goal. I’ve always been very competitive and I was just kind of going along with this and saying to myself, “I guess this is just what you’re supposed to be doing.” But there comes a point when you have to draw the line and you have to really be who you are and not let anyone else change you. 

LV:  Young girls are going to continue to look up to you as a role model. What’s your best advice for young girls who want to follow in your footsteps and become a strong woman who stands up for what she believes in? 

CP:  That wherever you get your courage from – mine comes from my faith, my family, my supporters – always have the courage not to be intimidated. Don’t ever feel like you have to be silent for standing up for what you believe in. And that’s what’s so great about this book, Still Standing, is that people will see that I am still standing after what anybody can throw at me. They can throw whatever they want at me. They can call up my old boyfriends and ask them if they have dirt on me. They can come up with pictures of me and attack me, attack my family. That’s fine, they can do all of that, but I am still standing. And I think it infuriates some people that I am. But my advice to young women would be to just be you. Just be who you are and stand up for what you believe.

Andrew Sullivan (left) and Conor Friedersdorf

In the piece you link to and affirm in the Daily Beast, “The Right’s Lesser Press,” Conor Friedersdorf refuses to interview me as he continues to be my unofficial biographer. (I’m VERY reachable, Conor.) He writes opinion pieces on me purporting to be journalism. He doesn’t quote or cite me, he simply assumes and pushes the point of view he thinks I have and makes an argument based on these alleged positions. It’s sloppy and you, of all people, should know better.

Breitbart.com is MOSTLY a news aggregator. It carries the Associated Press, Reuters, even, Agence France Presse, from those dreaded croissant eaters!!!

It even carries the New York Times on its front page — a benefit that even Big Government and Big Hollywood don’t receive.

Big Hollywood is what it is: a counter-voice to the virtually monolithic Hollywood left. How dare I grant a platform, and a means for the defense of those in Hollywood who would dare go against the strident and intolerant Hollywood left.

Big Government, too, is providing an outlet for voices and ideas that are not proportionally represented in the traditional and mostly biased mainstream media.

(more…)

Do you think that there are fewer conservatives (artistic, political, or both) in the arts generally, and literature in particular?

A two-part answer.

Part one is that I have a super-inclusive view of “culture.” We’re all immersed in culture whether we know it or not, and whether we want to be or not. We clothe ourselves, we watch TV and movies and flip through magazines, we eat, we listen to stories and jokes, we drive cars and have opinions about airports and restaurants … That’s all culture. So from that point of view we’re *all* “in the arts.”  

Part two … Deeply-held Zen bullshit to one side … Yeah, in my experience there are far fewer righties in the arts than lefties, and that holds for writing and publishing as much as the other arts I’ve come in contact with. Lefties dominate, and in most ways they dictate the terms that the arts discussion takes place on. At its worst you could say that a common, unspoken assumption in the arts is that being a lefty is a prerequisite for even getting into the field.

All that said, I should add that I’ve always wondered about something, which is how many of the people in the arts who go along with the general-leftie-ism of the the field do so only for public consumption. In other words, how many of them dissent privately? I’d guess that a fair number do. But how will we ever know?

I should add as well that one of the reasons my fellow Blowhards and I blog is to demonstrate that it’s possible to be arts-guys without being party-line lefty. We developed a pretty good-sized readership pretty quickly, so I have to believe that there are numerous people out there who like the arts but who find the official art-world’s leftie-ism off-putting.

Give some examples of conservative novelists/essayists.

Probably the most famous contempo conservative American literary writers are Tom Wolfe and Mark Helprin. Dana Gioia, a terrific poet…is also a conservative. The conservative magazine world is swarming with rightie journalists and essayists. Bruce Bawer and Andrew Sullivan are two of many examples.

Is it some temperamental quality in the conservative mind that pushes away from a literary career? Or is it institutional liberalism in the lit community?  Some combination of the two?

Let me take the opportunity to introduce another one of my Zen-ish points, if I can. I think it can be a mistake to over-focus on the self-described “literary” wing of the reading-and-writing worlds. So far as fiction goes, for instance, there’s a huge and dynamic non-literary world of narrative genre writing out there: sci-fi, crime, romance, erotica, and more. In my experience these writers are often far more free-thinking and far less doctrinaire and party-line than the literary crowd is. They’re also just as smart and often far more talented. They create works in modes that everyday people can understand and enjoy, and they do so in what’s often a friendly, accessible, and even businesslike spirit. And it’s a far larger world than the literary world is.

The literary world? Feh — who needs ‘em?

What about politically conservative literary authors throughout history?  Did there use to be more?  If so, why?  What are the historical factors you think would have caused the shift?

You’ll probably want to speak to a real scholar about this. But I can’t resist taking a swing at it anyway. I see three main stages:

- In the late 1800s some writers (Henry James was one) started treating the novel not as a big sprawling entertainment form but as a work of art that needed its own artistic unity.

- Modernist writers responded to the challenge presented by the movies by focusing ever more on “writerly” concerns.

- The post-WWII American boom produced, along with everything else, a boom in colleges and universities. As more people watched TV, book-fiction lodged itself ever more in academia. Eventually what’s often joked about as “the creative writing industry” seized command of the serious-writing wing of fiction-writing.

In other words, where “serious writing” goes, elitism, snobbery, radicalism, and academicism came to prevail.

What advice would you give a political conservative thinking about a career in literature, or the arts generally?

Honestly I’d advise anyone, rightie or lefty, to avoid a life in the arts, at least the arts as conventionally understood: literary-fiction, gallery art, etc. It’s likely to be a very hard one. I’m very serious about that. Money is scarce, success may never arrive, frustration and disappointment are inevitable, breakdowns and suicides aren’t uncommon. And in a country as full of money, space, and opportunity as the U.S., why opt for the hard way?

That said … If your righty is going to persist in his ambitions despite my warnings … I’d first urge him or her to consider how leftie-dominated the traditional arts are. Do you really want to fight that in addition to all the other battles you’ll inevitably be fighting? Perhaps you might want to think about the new media instead. Website design, for instance, is wide open — you can set up shop, do work, publish, get paid — and there’ll be no institutional crapola you’ll have to wade your way through. I’d also suggest looking into the entertainment business instead of the more highbrow wings of the culture world. If you can do work that connects with a sizable audience, you can work in TV or movies whatever your politics. You’ll also be able to make a decent living.

If your righty persists in his/her interest in the higher-brow arts … I’d suggest finding your way to the righty rebel groups that do in fact exist in at least some of them. In painting, for example: the New York Academy of Art runs a 19th-century academic-style program, and there are people like Jacob Collins (a real giant, as far as I’m concerned) who are the suns around whom many “conservative” painters circle. In poetry, the New Traditionalists and New Formalists (who gather once a year at West Chester College outside Philly) are reviving traditional poetic forms. Frederick Turner is a giant here — a great critic and poet both. In architecture, there are New Classicists at work, and the New Urbanists are tradition-oriented too, though some of them get kind of NPR/PBS soft lefty. Only a few architecture programs (Notre Dame, University of Miami) base their training on tradition, but “a few” is better than none, god knows.

So far  as literary fiction goes, I wish I could come up with decent advice. There aren’t any conservative or traditionalist schools or circles around, to my knowledge. Like I say, most fiction writers who care about traditional values go into narrative-fiction fields: movies, TV, or genre fiction. Which leaves lit-fiction almost entirely to the lefties, the schoolmarms, and the radicals. So I’d venture three thoughts: 1) Keep your rightieness to yourself if you can. Or 2) Make a deliberate choice to flaunt it. Make a statement of it. Identify yourself as Mr. or Ms. Defiant Literary Righty right at the outset. There’s a reason why Tom Wolfe wears the White Suit! Or 3) Start up a school or circle of writers and editors and readers who prize traditional literary values and craft, and then endure decades of neglect and abuse.

Thank you for time, Mr. Blowhard.

In the next week’s installment, we will analyze Mr. Blowhard’s response, as well as check in with Pulitzer finalist and Weekly Standard literary editor Philip Terzian.

Read Mr. Patterson’s “A Conservative Journey Through Literary America — Part 1: Introduction”

Matt Patterson is a columnist and commentator whose work has appeared in The Washington Examiner, The Baltimore Sun, and Pajamas Media.  He is the author of “Union of Hearts: The Abraham Lincoln & Ann Rutledge Story.”  His email is mpatterson.column@gmail.com.