« The Immigration Bill Advances | Main | Will Guest Workers Harm American Workers? »
June 04, 2007
The Class of 1994
Along with Gingrich, Dick Armey is often lauded as one of those honest, thoughtful, crackling-with-ideas type conservatives who bumrushed Washington in the early-90s and whose intellectual energy we should all sort of miss. Well, Armey is doing some guest-blogging over at Time, and it turns out he's as disappointingly hackish as ever. It's also a bit funny, full of gems like, "In all of these endeavors I have been guided by my highest political value: freedom. This is a good place for me to start. While tyrannies work only for those at the top, the American tradition demonstrates that all people are better off when their political and economic freedoms are protected. Government can only expand its scope of power and authority at the expense of the citizen [blah blah blah]." Reading this, you get a better sense for where the cult of Armey comes from: He's like a stupid person's idea of what a thoughtful person sounds like.
June 4, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Like Obama, Gingrich has a horrible voting record on immigration. I'd vote for neither of them.
The marriage of big business and multiculturalism is the worst thing ever to happen to the American worker.
Big business is using legal and illegal third-world immigration to drive down American wages.
And liberals can side with big business on this issue and use "multiculturalism" to appease their conscience.
http://bluedogdemocrats.us/
Please note the Patriot Pledge and join us at the Blue Dog Discussion Forum. Thanks.
.
Posted by: Old-School Democrat | Jun 4, 2007 4:07:10 PM
One might also note that, until very recently, Armey didn't take a single paycheck in his life that wasn't from the government -- whether as an academic or as a congresscritter.
Posted by: charles pierce | Jun 4, 2007 4:07:49 PM
Er, doesn't that apply to 'conservative intellectualism' in general? Big words, sweeping generalities, and a lotta hot air.
Posted by: grape_crush | Jun 4, 2007 4:08:23 PM
ahahahahaha. nice one.
He's like a stupid person's idea of what a thoughtful person sounds like.
Funny cause it's true!
Posted by: IMU | Jun 4, 2007 4:12:02 PM
"Reading this, you get a better sense for where the cult of Armey comes from: He's like a stupid person's idea of what a thoughtful person sounds like."
but, but, but isn't that the perfect description of the "thoughtful people" who dominate the American political discourse:
Friedman, Brooks, George Will, Broder, Ignatius, Richard Cohen, Gwen Ifill, Hoagland, Mallaby, Safire, Bennett, Glenn Reynolds, Jonah Goldberg. Is there any substance to our national political discourse? Is there a discourse or just crisis?
Posted by: della Rovere | Jun 4, 2007 4:17:01 PM
That's an excellent description of Armey. On a related point, I have always thought that Newt Gingrich, if his "scholarly" pronouncements remind me of anyone, it would be "The Log Lady" on Twin Peaks. I would like to see a blind side by side comparison of some of their quotes, just to see if anyone can identify which is Newt.
Posted by: tbone | Jun 4, 2007 4:27:42 PM
He's like a stupid person's idea of what a thoughtful person sounds like.Great line, Ezra.
Of course, even if Armey were "honest, thoughtful, [and] crackling-with-ideas", the ideas with which he was crackling were directly responsible for the corruption of the Republicans in Congress. For Armey, freedom's just another word for 'government BAD'...and when people who believe government is bad are actually given a government to run, it's inevitable that they'll use it to enrich their contributors and extend their own power.
Posted by: Tom Hilton | Jun 4, 2007 4:28:36 PM
In all of these endeavors I have been guided by my highest political value: freedom.
Lines like this take on a whole new gloss when you realize that Frank Luntz spent the 1990s urging the Republicans to characterize everything in terms of "freedom." It's the ultimate focus-grouped buzzword, and if the left had any kind of message machine like what the other side has, no Republican could ever invoke the term again without inspiring giggles.
Posted by: Steve | Jun 4, 2007 4:32:03 PM
Tom DeLay said something very similar in the Jeffrey Goldberg article in the New Yorker-- that "Order, Justice, and Freedom" are what the GOP stands for.
This, of course, has no meaning other than "I like to hear myself talk, and I frequently agree with myself. Yay, me!"
These words only become remotely interesting when they are in conflict-- and DeLay and Armey are among the last people on this planet who will give a thoughtful explanation as to which should trump which in any given situation.
Posted by: Elvis Elvisberg | Jun 4, 2007 4:36:20 PM
that is a great ending line. well played sir.
Posted by: Jake | Jun 4, 2007 4:38:10 PM
Jesus, Ezra, you're a stong man. I wandered over to Swampland, read Armey's regurgitation of the same old Reaganite BS and immediately got a headache. I'm pretty sure I'll have to stay away from there all week.
Posted by: asg | Jun 4, 2007 4:45:19 PM
Dang...I was going to make that line Quote of the Day, but Atrios beat me to it.
Posted by: Tom Hilton | Jun 4, 2007 4:51:15 PM
Mr. Armey seems to express himself in a pretty simplistic way, but I find it telling that the word "freedom" immediately inspires you to guffaws.
I realize that's partially due to the word's overuse in propaganda aimed at rubes, but I also tend to think it's partially due to the fact that you just don't really think that any serious person could ever possibly be concerned about something as silly or out of intellectual fashion as "liberty".
Posted by: Fluffy | Jun 4, 2007 4:54:36 PM
> Mr. Armey seems to express himself in a pretty
> simplistic way, but I find it telling that the word
> "freedom" immediately inspires you to guffaws.
> [...]
> you just don't really think that any serious person
> could ever possibly be concerned about something as
> silly or out of intellectual fashion as "liberty".
Thank goodness we have Dick Cheney, David Addington, and John Yoo looking out for us on that one.
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Jun 4, 2007 5:00:46 PM
I also tend to think it's partially due to the fact that you just don't really think that any serious person could ever possibly be concerned about something as silly or out of intellectual fashion as "liberty".
Any serious person? Sure. Dick Armey? Ahahahahahahahaha....
Posted by: Col Bat Guano | Jun 4, 2007 5:13:15 PM
I find it telling that the word "freedom" immediately inspires you to guffaws.
Correction: I find it telling that an authoritarian GOP hack has the unmitigated chutzpa to use the word "freedom" immediately inspires you to guffaws.
Fixed it for you. Cuz, yeah, it was pretty funny.
You're welcome.
Posted by: DrBB | Jun 4, 2007 5:15:30 PM
Yes Fluffy - Dick Armey believes in the freedom to economically exploit workers, deprive women of the right to choose, rape the environment, and avoid paying taxes - the same four freedoms that FDR chose to celebrate in his famous speech during WWII.
I knew we were in deep, deep, trouble when this clown became majority leader in the 1990s. He was so extraordinarily right wing and had a history of saying absolutely outlandish things during his congressional career, the fact that he was deemed fit for a leadership postion said as much as you needed to know about the Republican Revolution, i.e. Mussolini would have felt pretty comfortable with these guys.
Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | Jun 4, 2007 5:16:30 PM
Sorry: "having the unmitigated chutzpa." Always use preview when fixing someone else's post for them. Spank. But it it is more accurate this way.
Posted by: DrBB | Jun 4, 2007 5:17:10 PM
He's like a stupid person's idea of what a thoughtful person sounds like.
That also describes Bill "Slots" Bennett and George F. Will.
Posted by: Steve J. | Jun 4, 2007 5:20:15 PM
"Government can only expand its scope of power and authority at the expense of the citizen"
Perhaps you could explain what part of that statement you disagree with. How does government power ever expand in a way that doesn't infringe on freedom? You can argue that specific tradeoffs are worth it, but I don't think the statement itself is flawed.
Posted by: James Robertson | Jun 4, 2007 5:24:28 PM
Actually, I think you're close, but not quite there on your assessment of Armey. He's representative of classic American anti-intellectualism. People who think he's thoughtful aren't necessarily stupid, but they are intentionally ignorant. Colbert nails this aspect of conservatism with his "thinking with his gut" schtick.
Posted by: William Ockham | Jun 4, 2007 5:29:01 PM
This reminds me of the ill-fated Harriet Miers nomination. I'm sure as far as Dubya is concerned, she's a heckuva lawyer, but when some of the WH memos she had written came out, they were full of stuff like "In the final analysis we must maximize our efforts to increase public confidence" yadda yadda yadda.
Posted by: Dix Hill | Jun 4, 2007 5:35:09 PM
doctor heard a crackling in my lungs a couple of weeks ago.
Did not have pneumonia, but fluid was there. Unmixed with any ideas.
Where do folks get a notion Armey or Gingrich have any idea what an idea is? Nothing more than Artful self promotion by brutes with access to MSM>
Sickness unto death in the lala land of MSM.
Posted by: vox clamantis in red state | Jun 4, 2007 5:38:35 PM
"Big business is using legal and illegal third-world immigration to drive down American wages."
Check out this study that indicates the opposite:
http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=737
This nation has married big business and immigration for 150 years (at least). It was when workers had the power to organize that we saw positive movement in wages and living conditions. I would suggest that giving current immigrants legal ways to come out of the shadows and organize will have a net positive benefit for all.
Posted by: Sarah | Jun 4, 2007 5:47:37 PM
"How does government power ever expand in a way that doesn't infringe on freedom? You can argue that specific tradeoffs are worth it, but I don't think the statement itself is flawed."
Posted by: James Robertson | Jun 4, 2007 5:24:28 PM
Actually, Armey said it himself:
"..the American tradition demonstrates that all people are better off when their political and economic freedoms are protected."
But who protects those freedoms of not the government itself? Will Exxon protect your political and economic freedom?
Markets are great, but only if they are well regulated. That's part of the job of government. Read the constitution sometime and think about how much of it is devoted to the regulation of trade. That's something the conservatives don't like to talk about, because to them freedom means the right to exploit.
Posted by: A Hermit | Jun 4, 2007 5:57:26 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.