 |
I've been doing my own personal series of what makes so-called non-liberal pundits tick [1, 2, 3]. I've had to resort to this generalized term of "non-liberal" because many of these writers are not conservatives, but tend to follow an amalgam of beliefs and philosophies that is certainly distinct from liberalism.
In any case, I recently clicked on Mercer's blog to see if my previous post on her ("What exactly is Ilana Mercer?") still has any bearing, or if it was even fair. I have to admit that one of the reasons I read very few pundits is their overall lack of consistency. Mercer still strikes me this way.
Mercer has an article up at her regular WND (creation of that rather shrill editor Joseph Farah) entitled, "A July 4th toast to Thomas Jefferson."
I won’t discuss the full article except for this quote:
[T]he Declaration of Independence is at once a statement of individual and national sovereignty.A few years back, I used to communicate with Mercer via email, and also through her comments section.
At some point, the interactions got really weird. I think one thing that started it off was my criticism of article she wrote equating Jews with the Chinese. I said there is no comparison, Jews are better. This didn't sit too well. Of course, her response had a whiff of "you are racist" to it.
The next point of contention is a series of emails about nationhood, where I garnered the title "idiot" however discreetly, from Mercer's eminent pen.
Never mind that, but any serious writer who calls an email correspondent an idiot is exhibiting some lack of discipline, and frankly is slightly unstable.
But, here is the part I would like to get to, regarding nationhood. I wrote this to Mercer:
On a comment about collective feelings of grief, you made that sound like an impossibility, since only "individuals" feel grief. Yes, nations grieve, nations rejoice. This is not a communist thing. Of course it is composed of individuals, and of course each individual grieves idiosyncratically. But, a collective grief does occur. I was struck by your inability to see this.Prickly pens aside, this point was lost on Mercer.
This was a few years ago. Regarding national feelings as both an individual and a collective experience, notwithstanding the lack of intellectualism she accused me of in her unpleasant email, I was right and she was wrong, as Mercer writes my exact point in her WND article.
Here is the full email on nationhood. Surprisingly, Michael Jackson comes up there too.
Reading the rest of her blog, I see she still hasn't produced much of a coherent style, or trains of thought:
* Ditzy Palin receives an undue amount of attention, including praise for Palin’s strange resignation speech. And Mercer cryptically says that Palin is hated by liberals and some conservatives – lumping the two very different approaches to criticism on Palin in one basket. So much for reason and logic.
* She has at least 4 or 5 emails (whose authenticities still have to be proven) between Sandford and his Argentinian mistress. For an “intellectual” blog, this is going on the sordid side.
* Mercer continues to have articles posted at Taki’s Magazine. I suppose writers like to be published, but Taki's is becoming everyone’s fallout place – those who get rejected elsewhere will get a spot there. So, a rich, slightly distasteful magazine editor becomes the keeper of conservative thought!
* For one who has access to some knowledge (technical, at least) on modern music, there is no critique by Mercer about the boring music of Michael Jackson. Instead, just because he hires a “hardcore” guitar player, his music becomes worthy. Mercer attempts to provide a more nuanced critique on Michael Jackson by linking to Lawrence Auster's thoughtful contemplations, as though that will cover her "progressive" praise for this hardcore guitarist, and by association for Jackson too.
But what's so great about these so-called progressive guitarists? I think their style has no nuance, everything is loud and fast. I get the feeling they’re more after emoting a feeling, rather than making intricate music. They certainly aren't the Mozarts (or even the Wagners) of our age.
* Finally, with undue praise for Palin (especially her strange resignation), and adding that this great guitarist who saved Jacksons' hip-hop music (actually, I never though Jackson was a "black" musician, except for his very strong beats) is a woman, Mercer pays unreserved hommage to women. As though her support of these figures was dependent on their sex, rather than on their worth. Certainly, that is the way she's writing about Palin.
Mercer: yet another closeted feminist.