Can you grasp why this state of affairs might lead one to be somewhat “conservative” in ones worldview? I mean if most peoples ideas are stupid and wrong this suggests that most “new” ideas are stupid and wrong as well regardless of the pedigree of their source. If one starts with the assumption that real reality is slippery and evasive and often hidden deliberately behind thick layers of manufactured nonsense one would try hard to study a lot history to get a surer sense of what seems to have worked in the past and what human nature has revealed about itself by its actions rather that its recent narratives. And I do get how hard it can be to separate one from the other.

Of course this is not easy. I am not personally sure of many answers right now. But I am, absolutely sure that to make this a better world we must keep at the struggle to see the truth underlying the bs and never coast along with “facts” like “DNA exoneration does not matter if you are the wrong race” approach which was perfectly acted out by so many at Duke/Durham NC.

Right after the election I listed a few of the wacky paranoid theories that were circulating in what what Michael Berube recently dubbed (“politely”) the “low-information conservative constituency.” Here’s one I hadn’t seen before, from Galen’s comment thread. Scotch Indian “would not be shocked to see [Obama] pass an amendment so he can run for more than two terms.” Not so fast, replies wbheff—“he might not even bother to ‘pass an amendment’.”

Barack Hussein Obama, President for Life. Those folks have really got his number. Once he’s sworn in on Lincoln’s Koran, just hours from now, all bets are off.

Robert, the Bush is going to declare martial law conspiracy theory has been in circulation on liberal sites for over a year. Pandagon, where Berube used to post to high information liberal voters indulged in more than a bit of it.

(Back in September, Roger Kimball explained Buckley’s zinger in multisyllabic and historic detail and then patted himself on the back for his slavish devotion to the caricature and his Buckleyesque enthusiasm for Sarah Palin, that “cruise missile aimed from Middle America” at the intelligentsia. There’s your true heir—screw the low-life son.)

Do you really think Buckley would have embraced Palin? I think he would have been horrified by her. I’m wondering what segment of the population you’ve identified that thinks Palin is the heir to Buckley? Post a link, I need to read that stuff.

No, this is just a case of me really needing an editor. I meant that Roger Kimball is the heir, not Palin. I think that you (and Christopher Buckley) are right—William F. would have been horrified. Kimball, on the other hand, “like[s] to think that Boston phone book—or maybe it’s the Juneau phone book—is finally getting some of its own back. Bill Buckley would be pleased.” Coming from the supercilious dude in the bow tie, that’s pretty funny.

And yes, I know that there are wingnuts on the left as well as on the right.

(The link on “going to declare martial law” didn’t point to anything, by the way. I imagine the one for Pandagon covers it well enough. Bérubé’s most recent post alludes to this rumor and includes this link to RedState.)