Salon.com > Glenallen Walken

Dear Wingnut, are we really a center-right nation?

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:20:00 +0000

Dear Wingnut,

I got such a kick out of this line from your June 22 column: "The United States remains a center-right country composed of people who believe in center-right values, like family, hard work and honesty."

I keep hearing this "center-right majority" phrase thrown about, but I had no idea that "family, hard work and honesty" were considered "center-right" values. I'm an Obama-votin', ACLU-card-totin', gay-marriage-promotin' hippy-dippy liberal, but I'm also a faithful husband and loving father whose life could objectively be described as moral and productive. Are people like me being included in your reckoning of "center-right" America because of our "family values"? That would be rather like being posthumously baptized into the LDS Church; just because you want your group to look bigger doesn't make it true.

Why are conservatives such hypocrites about sex?

Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:22:00 +0000

Dear Wingnut,

I'm perplexed. Should David Vitter and John Ensign resign from the Senate or just retire at the end of their respective terms (like Larry Craig)? Should the thrice-married Newt Gingrich really be running for president? I thought the GOP was the party of social conservatism. How come your side can't walk it like you talk it?

Yours truly,

Rachel

Hello again. Last week's column certainly initiated a robust debate and I appreciate the many thoughtful comments that were posted to the Web site. This week's question is, I'm sure, almost sure to do likewise.

If I may paraphrase the question, Rachel wants me to explain why conservatives who talk about the importance of traditional values often fail to live up to those values in their personal lives and why other conservatives are often willing to turn a blind eye to those indiscretions.

Wingnut, why are angry white guys shooting people?

Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:03:00 +0000

Dear Wingnut,

It seems like a lot of white guys have gone nuts with their guns since Barack Obama became president. Is there any connection between his election and the shooting of George Tiller, the Pittsburgh shooting and the Holocaust Museum attack? Or do you think the DHS report is "crap" too?

Hello again. This week the editors have asked me to explain if conservatives think there is a connection between Barack Obama's election and the recent murders of Kansas abortion Dr. George Tiller, three Pittsburgh policemen, and Wednesday's shooting at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and if these acts of violence have caused them to reassess the Department of Homeland Security's recent report on right-wing extremism.

I know this is going to provoke a heated response from a lot of people who read this column, so let me begin by saying that I, and every conservative I know, condemn the murders of Tiller, Pittsburgh police officers Paul Sciullo II, Eric Kelly and Stephen Mayhle, and Holocaust Museum guard Stephen Johns.

There is no reason, no excuse, nothing that can be said or written that would justify these senseless acts.

Dear Wingnut, what REALLY bothers you about Sotomayor?

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 10:05:00 +0000

Dear Wingnut,

Why are you guys REALLY against Sonia Sotomayor? It can't be for the reasons you claim. Is it simply because Obama nominated her? Is it because that's what opposition parties do? Is it just to get the base stirred up? On a practical level, I don't understand this decision. Republicans need nonwhite voters to win again. Sotomayor would be the first Latino justice on the Supreme Court. Aren't you worried about committing demographic suicide? What's the secret?

Thanks for your answer,

Peggy

Hello again. It’s good to be back with you.

The strong language -- and, one can assume, the level of anger that language represents -- used in the replies to last week’s column about Ronald Reagan was, to put it mildly, surprising. I would have thought the passage of time might have taken the edge off a bit. I guess not.

This week Peggy wants to know why conservatives are “REALLY” opposed to the confirmation of 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. This assumes, of course, that the stated concerns many have voiced are somehow disingenuous, that they are not reflective of what they are really thinking, and that there is a hidden agenda at work.

Dear Wingnut, Ronald Reagan’s dead. Time to move on!

Tue, 02 Jun 2009 00:29:00 +0000

Dear Wingnut,

Ronald Reagan left office 20 years ago and died five years ago. When are you conservatives finally going to move on?

Hello again. It's good to be back with you.

Let me thank you for the many responses to the last column. Some of them were, in my judgment, well-reasoned, competent criticisms of conservative concerns about government-controlled medicine and I was happy to read them.

This week I'm being asked to estimate when conservatives will be ready to leave Ronald Reagan behind and "move on."

Well, despite the best efforts of some of those in the op-ed industry who masquerade as genuine conservatives -- wait a second, has David Frum been submitting questions again? -- the answer, hopefully, is never.

Reagan was more than a transitional figure, sandwiched in between the Greatest Generation and Generation X; he was a transformational one. He changed the nation, and the world, for the better. So it is no wonder that most conservatives -- and quite a few liberals, judging by the way the current president is so often proclaimed to be Reagan-like -- continue to look to him for inspiration.

The Wingnut explains why socialized healthcare sucks

Mon, 18 May 2009 10:33:00 +0000

Dear Wingnut,

The U.S. is unique among industrialized Western nations in the degree of its reliance on "free market" mechanisms to provide healthcare. Nations such as my own, Canada, have "socialized" systems that have been in place for a very long time.

The consumers of these socialized services have failed -- universally, so far as I know -- to express buyers' remorse at the ballot box. No party in Canada or elsewhere has moved to overturn their systems in favor of something like you have in the U.S.

One presumes that if there was broad and deep dissatisfaction with this style of healthcare then some party or politician would have capitalized and zoomed into power and dismantled it. This has not happened. Can you make sense of this conundrum for me?

Sincerely,

Bernie

Hello again and thank you for all of the letters you sent in response to last week's column. This week Bernie wants me to explain a conundrum involving socialized healthcare in democratic countries.

Dear Wingnut, why are Republicans afraid of science?

Mon, 11 May 2009 17:30:00 +0000

Dear Wingnut,

Why has the Republican Party (and, it seems, a large portion of the conservative movement in general) embraced such an anti-science, anti-intellectual position? Growing up in a Republican household in the 1970s and '80s, I was exposed to the likes of William F. Buckley, Jack Kemp and others who promoted the GOP as a party that could tackle issues intelligently. Basic sciences were supported, at least if seen as leading to improvements in business or defense.

Thirty years on, whatever intellectual elements that are left in the GOP seem to be drowned out by the likes of Limbaugh and Palin, who appear to be openly contemptuous of educated people. Senators such as James Inhofe sneer at any science that may challenge their worldview.

Is this mind-set now integral to the GOP and the conservative movement? Is there any path back to a party the embraces intelligence and scientific curiosity?

Regards,

Chris

Dear Wingnut,

Continue Reading...

The Wingnut explains how the GOP can win back moderates

Mon, 04 May 2009 10:03:00 +0000

Dear Wingnut,
Last week you answered a good one: Did Bush break America? In the wake of Arlen Specter's flight to the Democratic Party, I think you need to field a somewhat tougher query: Did Bush break the Republican Party? I ask as a social liberal who has, nevertheless, sometimes voted for Republicans. It's hard not to feel that the Karl Rove strategy of firing up the base has left a Republican Party that is now nothing but a fired-up base. How does your party win back a voter like me ... someone who values pragmatism above ideology?
Best,
Joe
Hello, again. Last week's column provoked a robust debate, and I thought a number of you made some interesting comments. I wish I could answer them all, but there is only so much bandwidth available, you know? So let me get to this week's question.
Taking the Bush issue first, I think it is fair to say that Bush left the Republican Party in far worse shape than it was when he entered the White House.
Some of that is bad luck, some of it results from bad planning and, frankly, some of it comes about as a result of distortions of his presidential record put forward by the Democrats and promulgated by the media — which pushed voters in the center away from Bush.
Continue Reading...

Why can’t conservatives admit George Bush broke America?

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 10:29:00 +0000

Hey wingnut,
Why is it my conservative friends won't admit the truth: that George W. Bush "broke" the United States of America?
Sincerely,
Mitchell
Hello again. Judging by your response to my first three columns, this feature is proving quite popular. I appreciate all the letters that you have taken the time to send. I am sorry I am not able to answer each one of them personally.
This week I've been asked to explain why conservatives won't admit that George W. Bush "broke" the United States of America. It's an interesting question, so open-ended it's difficult to choose the way to answer it.
The short answer is they won't admit it because it's not true. George W. Bush did not break the country. Many conservatives believe history's judgment will be much kinder to him and his accomplishments than the current crop of historians and commentators allow and that he will eventually be seen in a much better light than he is today.
Continue Reading...

The Wingnut explains why conservatives fear gay marriage

Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:35:00 +0000

Do conservatives really believe that giving gay people the right to marry will completely dissolve the country's social structure? That people will start wanting to marry animals and slippery slope and all that?

It seems so implausible to me -- but I am gay and monogamous and am raising kids with my partner of five years, so my perspective is skewed. It would just really help me out to be able to get married. I'm not thinking about ruining the game for anyone else. I just want to join.

Thanks,

Jack

Hello again. Judging by the response of some of you to this new Salon feature, I've certainly got you thinking. That's good. And today's question, I'm pretty sure, is going to provoke the most robust debate thus far.
Contrary to what many supporters of gay marriage seem to believe, the opposition to gay marriage is not motivated, as a general rule, in large part or small, by bigotry. I am aware there are many gay-marriage advocates who refuse to accept that there really can be a legitimate difference of viewpoint on the issue.
Continue Reading...

The Wingnut explains Michele Bachmann

Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:40:00 +0000

Dear Wingnut: How do you account for Michele Bachmann? I just don't understand.
First, let me say how gratified I was by the response to the initial column in this series. I hope, in the days to come, we will be able to engage in a dialogue that will explain to you the mysteries of conservative thought.
This week the editors have asked me to answer a question that more than one reader asked: explain Michele Bachmann. As in, can you explain the behavior of the Republican representative from Minnesota's 6th Congressional District? The easy answer would be to say no and then move on to something else. But that wouldn't make for much of a column, so let me try.
Bachmann is a conservative activist, someone whose interests include both social and economic policy. Now she and I, to the best of my recollection, have never met, but the extensive coverage some of her remarks have received makes me feel as though I know her.
Continue Reading...

Ask a Wingnut

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 10:55:00 +0000

Dear Wingnut: Do conservatives really think it's the media's fault that the GOP lost in 2006 and 2008?
Let me begin by saying it's a pleasure to help Salon inaugurate this new feature, in which I have the unenviable task of explaining American conservatives to you. It's a big job but, as they say, someone has to do it and, well, I drew the short straw.
So -- was it the media's fault? It's a good question, and an important one.
It is undeniable that the U.S. elite media -- what both liberals and conservatives sometimes call the "mainstream media," or MSM -- skews to the left. From the news pages to the editorial pages to the Op-Ed pages -- where even the conservatives tend to be statists (we call them "big government conservatives") -- the liberal point of view on any issue receives more favorable treatment than the conservative one.
Don't believe me? No, you don't. Let me give you a couple of examples from the 2008 presidential race, one about the media treatment of the Democratic candidate, one about how the media covered the Republican candidate. During the campaign the MSM refrained from examining in real detail the relationship between Barack Obama, then a U.S. senator, and William Ayers, a fellow who once led a group called the Weather Underground that, many years ago, put bombs in government buildings intending for them to explode.
Continue Reading...