Eddie Beaver

Fires are weird creatures. Once they start, if not properly fought with the correct strategy, they can get out of hand fairly quickly. Fought halfheartedly or with inadequate resources, they often become raging infernos comparable to the scale of the location they are in. For months, a slow-burning fire has spread amid conservative partisans around the country. Licks of flame have been spotted at town hall meetings, state party conventions and even national media outlets, but only in recent weeks has the fire truly begun to be visible to most without even looking for it. That fire has been the suspicion that Barack Obama was not really born in the US, that he may be a secret emissary of Islam and that he is some odd hybrid of fascist/Marxist/terrorist intent on destroying America. While all three variants are out there in the public eye at various gatherings, popular blogs and even being uttered or suggested to an extent by allegedly respectable politicians, the first has been the one which has garnered the most momentum. It is now a near-act of courage for conservative institutions like National Review and well-regarded commentators and analysts such as Rick Moran to speak out against the fantasy-based dreams/nightmares of Obama's non-citizenship. Check out the YouTube video of Delaware Republican Congressman Mike Castle being overwhelmed by a proponent of the fantasy and her many supporters in the crowd. Think that was a planned conspiracy to ambush him? In reality, it is likely the increasing feeling of a significant element in the "base" of conservatism. People want Obama to just go away. The fastest, easiest way to get there would be some great scandal or revelation about him. The best thing to latch onto then is the birth scandal. Facts seemingly are not required. With a few Senators and popular talk radio hosts encouraging them, they are ignoring their more responsible brethern and giving into a fit of populist rage and fantasy. A more insighful gentleman told me in another venue something to the effect "that Jacksonians are prone to conspiracies" . He is right, but I wonder at what cost to conservative credibility will this conspiracy entail? I am not familiar with how widespread among liberals the belief that Bush was behind 9/11 was. I do know that wherever they went spreading that lie, they were often forcefully pushed back by their bretheren. Now that sane conservatives are finally doing the same, will this myth go back to being a fringe belief of the few or will it continue to spread, like the seemingly raging fire it has become in recent weeks?

Given that the 80's left collectively lost its mind, its not surprising to see the first iteration of 21st Century conservatism lose its bearings to its own ideals, principles and even basic reality (hey torture, high deficits, corruption and gross ideological preferences over meritocracy was okay for 8 years, but not anymore!). In a few years, the younger generation of exceptional conservative thinkers will finally have more influence and restore conservatism to greatness. Exhibit #1940324 of the collapse of intelligence and principles in conservatism is Andy McCarthy's pathetic shilling for the oppressive, racist Chinese treatment of its Uighur minority. Since others say it far better than I can beyond that, allow me to share a smattering of the disapproval his idiocy provoked: Joshua Foust of Registan:

Maybe if Uighurs are terrorists, McCarthy should ask former President Bush why he was so close with Rebiya Kadeer—the Uighur activist who DOES argue, quite eloquently, that the Han Chinese create an intolerable living situation for the Uighurs in Xinjiang. Or maybe he could accuse all Han Chinese of terrorism, since some surrounded a Uighur man in Urumqi and attempted to beat him to death, until they spotted an ABC news crew and attacked it as well.

The Gormogons: Unless Mr. McCarthy is willing to state a belief that all Muslims worldwide are necessarily given to religious fanaticism and hatred, he should withdraw his statement implying Uyghurs are inherently violent because they’re Muslims. If not, National Review should inform him that he no longer need comment on affairs touching on Islam, since they can be adequately expressed in the simple equation, “Muslims are bad” which can be easily appended under his name to any discussion of world affairs with a simple keystroke macro.

Rodney Balko: There was once a time when, if an ethnic minority was rising up against an oppressive communist regime, you could count on National Review to side with the rabble-rousers fighting for political freedom, not the commies. But I guess that was pre-September 11. Now it’s apparently all about siding with whoever is killing Muslims.

Balko adds a link to a compelling article in National Review four years ago about China's repression of the Uighurs and a detailing of how they co-opted the war on terror. Now they tolerate McCarthy's blathering about the rightful response of the Chinese government to a race riot instigated in part by its own Han Chinese majority amidst a sustained campaign to send the Uighurs into the history books. Its pleasant to see McCarthy's ideology in pursuit of preferred truths exposed for what it is.