Andrew the Plumber – or How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Meme

posted at 2:28 pm on May 5, 2009 by

When, in the culturally revolutionary poem “A Woman Waits for Me” from Leaves of Grass, Walt Whitman wrote that “sex contains all” he was celebrating procreation, but the statement explains… well everything.

It’s clearly a psychosexual thing when a mere headline thread on Joe the Plumber’s homophobic utterance to Christianity Today tops 600 posts (at last count).  And let’s not pussyfoot around in some effeminate manner that a man’s man like JtP himself would almost certainly reject:  JtP’s statement to the effect that he’d keep his “actually homosexual” friends “away from his children” was clearly homophobic, if the word “homophobic” means anything.

In its way, JtP’s comment is as revelatory as the bull in a politically correct china shop statements regarding Barack Obama’s “socialist” tendencies that made Joe famous, though I doubt that they will receive more than a tiny fraction of the same attention.  This lack of interest will no doubt disappoint one commenter in the HotAir discussion who flatly asserted:

Well, Palin is finished. She brought him up enough times during the campaign to make DOZENS of commercials in a future campaign. Cue Palin calling Joe the plumber a great man, then cue Joe the plumber telling “queers” to stay away from his kids.

I don’t personally recall Sarah Palin as VP candidate ever referring to Joe as a “great man,” but that’s beside the point:  What matters to people fond of such summary judgments is the stickily fructive association, the “meme,” whose birth he or she is hoping to midwife.  For the space of one meme-moment in the schizophrenic meme-universe, any assertion is self-evidently true (or virtually, memetically true) simply for and in having been asserted.

Which brings us to Andrew Sullivan.

Those of us who think of ourselves as residing in the so-called RW (real world), as opposed to the MW (meme world), might wonder why, exactly, Sarah Palin’s having touted Joe the Plumber during the presidential campaign would be more scandalous than Barack Obama’s confirmed association with Andrew Sullivan, that other memiparous plumber without a license.  Of course, Obama didn’t refer to Sullivan as a “great man.”  Instead, in last week’s 100th-Day “Enchanted Evening” Press Conference, the President merely lifted a typically thoughtless thought, a lucky wanna-be meme, from one of Sullivan’s recent tortured discussions of torture – invoking an apparently false claim regarding Winston Churchill’s supposed rejection of torturous interrogation as wartime exigency, making it the centerpiece of some typically hollow Obamaist posturing.

It somehow completes the circle that Obama would reach, bumblingly, for Churchill’s blessing, when one of Obama’s first acts as president was to return without request a bust of Churchill to Great Britain.  Clearly, Obama doesn’t give a brass farthing for Churchill.  Whether or not Mr. Obama harbors some congenital anti-colonialist hostility toward the great British Prime Minister, he campaigned on and appears intent on implementing the least Churchillian version of American foreign policy since Churchill was a back-bencher.  What’s at least as interesting for our purposes, however, is that the President, with his usual naivete regarding unseemly associations, apparently just assumed that Sullivan would get another Brit right, leading to the presidential utterance that shook the blogosphere, especially after its origins were sleuthed down and verified by Sullivan’s proud Atlantic colleague Marc Ambinder. “Bammy reads Sully!” went the over-meme.  Yet the underlying truth, the real Minervan meme-owl flying at this particular meme-dawn, is that Bammy has probably learned this week what so many of Sully’s former friends, colleagues, and fans learned over the course of the last decade: Sullivan is not to be trusted.

Like many other bloodthirsty warmongering neo-con enemies of all that’s good and special in the universe, I used to read the Daily Dish, and considered Sullivan an ally.  As the war he cheer-led turned difficult, we all watched him go wobbly on the way to turning as full-throatedly anti-war as previously he had been all in on it, dropping the Andrew the Conqueror persona in exchange for the hair shirt of Saint Andrew – the guy who once upon a time could justify the dismemberment via collateral bomb damage of little Ali, for the sake of defeating the barbarian Saddam, just a few meme-moments later translated into the guy half-drowning the world with tear-soaked blog-posts on waterboarding.

Yet, as with so many other cranks of the left and pseudo-right, it’s the loss of even minimal self-control and good taste around Sarah Palin that exposes how far round the bend Sullivan has traveled, and further underlines why our President needs to put better virtual food-tasters at the top of his staffing priority list.  In the same week that the Free World learned where its Leader goes for a juicy meme-morsel, the master meme-chef returned to one of his favorite confections:

[G]iven this blog’s coverage of governor Palin’s various strange stories about Trig, and her continued refusal to provide any medical records to confirm her account, her speech to the Kansas Right To Life organization – her first public explanation for her unusual behavior, since the MSM decided it was a question that could not be asked – is worth entering into the public record.

(Bold-face via Ace of Spades – link below.)  Frankly, my imagination fails as I contemplate how the Surfer-in-Chief might respond to this item and to the “Trig Trutherist” precis that follows, or to our valiant correspondent’s closing promise regarding the Governor’s (and the mass media’s) continued inexplicable reluctance to treat his sadomasochistic narcissistic obsession as worthy of validation:

But, hey, maybe at some point, she will. When she does, I will do my best to bring it to you. Maybe one day – who knows? – a journalist might even ask.

And Bammy reads his blog,” says Ace.  My guess is that Bammy used to, and that, furthermore, just in case a journalist might someday even ask about the subject, there’s a comfy spot under the big Obamabus for Sully, near the compartment set aside for Iraq withdrawal, gay marriage, torture, and whatever other Sullivanesque luggage, should events prove the carrying politically inconvenient.

This will not and cannot be the last time that Andrew-world and Joe-world come into conflict, with or without Andrew’s or Joe’s direct participation, so, instead of trying to count the ways in which each appears destined to disgust the other, just as the MW is destined to fight the RW, and internet lunatics are destined to detest Sarah Palin, I’ll urge via re-linking a re-reading of “A Woman Waits for Me.”  My self-evidently and irrefutably true-for-its-moment meme today is that this poem explains why, like an infinitely, fatally frustrated Byzantine court eunuch denied direct participation in the rites of succession he jealously guards, Sullivan feels compelled to go against, to undermine, to assault, to supplant, to doubt, and to hate the terrifyingly fecund Empress-in-waiting, to deny, even at the cost of his sanity and his reputation, everything she stands for to all the average Joes.

As His Memefulness himself might say, here’s the “money quote”:

Through you I drain the pent-up rivers of myself,

In you I wrap a thousand onward years,
On you I graft the grafts of the best-beloved of me
and America,
The drops I distil upon you shall grow fierce and ath-
letic girls, new artists, musicians, and singers,
The babes I beget upon you are to beget babes in
their turn,
I shall demand perfect men and women out of my
love-spendings,
I shall expect them to interpenetrate with others, as I
and you interpenetrate now,
I shall count on the fruits of the gushing showers of
them, as I count on the fruits of the gushing
showers I give now,

I shall look for loving crops from the birth, life, death,
immortality, I plant so lovingly now.

Next time you think about writing on Sarah and Trig, Mr. Sullivan, just ask yourself, please, for your own sake, for the sake of your #1 reader, “Who’s meme-ing who?”

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

If “all men are created equal,” then how can “anyone be better than anyone else”?

like I said….All men are equal under the law.
But no man is equal under the genes.
In theory, America is a fair meritocracy.
You don’t believe in excellence?

strangelet on May 8, 2009 at 10:47 AM

like I said….All men are equal under the law.
But no man is equal under the genes.
In theory, America is a fair meritocracy.
You don’t believe in excellence?

Sophomoric. You know better.

The genes question was already addressed, but I’ll address it on its own terms: From the perspective of natural selection, all species are equally evolved. The fruit fly is as well-adapted as you, and cockroaches may inherit the planet that we manage to destroy.

Judging whether or not someone “is better” than someone else requires an essential and wholistic judgment. Is Bill Gates “better” than you? If so, why? What would it say about the person who answered affirmatively? He seems like the kind of guy who realizes he isn’t. If he does think he is, then that would make me think he’s about as bad as you’re pretending to be. Was Robert E Lee “better” than the average slave, any slave, the lowliest slave? Does David Frum possess a greater soul, is he capable of greater love and sacrifice, is he a better parent or friend, does he possess greater courage, would he give better dating advice or be a better governor or candidate or leader, than Sarah Palin, than you, then the skid row drunk you looked away from the other day? Are you sure? Would he hold up better under enhanced interrogation? Would you rather have him or David Brooks next to you in a fox hole? A malcontented drunk and peeping tom with a chip on his shoulder, given a second chance, became the country’s only 3-time Congressional Medal of Honor winner. How do you know, ever, who is “better” than someone else? Are you sure you want to be around people who think they can tell – and would always put themselves in the “better” category?

Alright, done lecturing.

CK MacLeod on May 8, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Ah, but it is always in context of better at something, some task.
You, O Mathematikos, are making the Kylon argument.
I am making the pythagorean one.

strangelet on May 8, 2009 at 11:31 AM

hehe, and I hope you don’t plan to win your point Kylon-style by chopping me up with a scythe and burning my temple.

strangelet on May 8, 2009 at 11:34 AM

“[S]omething, some task” is not part of an essential argument. “Better at” is not the same as “better.”

Your argument so sophomoric – as though the only alternative to some form of pre-destined or objective aristocracy was a Leveler’s revolution to establish a Harrison Bergeron society. It’s a straw man – though I supposed I shouldn’t expect anything else from someone arguing for the Scarecrows.

CK MacLeod on May 8, 2009 at 12:19 PM

Dude, your argument is Kylon’s.
Aptitude doesn’t matter. Now it may not matter as much as attitude, but it still matters.
Kylon’s argument is actually the whole traditional strategy of conservative electoral vote gaming. Inflame the mob over perceived inequities.

strangelet on May 8, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Success is 90% attitude and 10% aptitude….but you and Kylon are saying there is no aptitude.
And that is a lie.

strangelet on May 8, 2009 at 12:50 PM

All this because Sarah Palin gave the same answer to Brian Williams that any good mom, and good father, most Founding Fathers, Father Abraham, the good Heather, and Barack Obama would give? You’re wasting your and my time, and that “whole traditional strategy…” line is gratuitous, banal, absurdly myopic, and ridiculously self-serving. As though leftists and others never sought to “inflame the mob over perceived inequities.” Please. Not a very elite-worthy observation, frankly.

CK MacLeod on May 8, 2009 at 12:57 PM

All this because Sarah Palin gave the same answer to Brian Williams that any good mom, and good father, most Founding Fathers, Father Abraham, the good Heather, and Barack Obama would give?

There is no evidence of any of that.
She gave Kylon’s answer.

strangelet on May 8, 2009 at 1:20 PM

Your lack of experience of the world or perhaps certain peculiarities of your upbringing are showing, strangelet. If your mom didn’t tell you that the Prom Queen is just the Prom Queen, not intrinsically better than the ugly ducklings – especially if you WERE the Prom Queen – then she missed a chance.

How do you really think Barack Obama would have answered that question? By standing up for elite status and privilege or seeming to do so in any way? He would have found some marble-mouthed way of saying the exact same thing Palin said. Try to write an Obamian/Pythagorean definition of elitism that isn’t just a version of Palin’s answer, and that wouldn’t be political suicide (and for good reason). As for what his followers secretly, or in your case not so secretly, believe – well, that’s another question.

I guess TEAM OF RIVALS didn’t reference the part of Lincoln’s development when, in preparing to debate Stephen Douglass, he spents weeks researching and finally disproving Douglass and Calhoun’s claims that the Founders didn’t really believe all that “all men are created equal” crapola.

CK MacLeod on May 8, 2009 at 1:46 PM

I think this is an impasse.
“all men are created equal” isn’t empirically true.
They have different genotypes and different phenotypes right from the instant of “creation”.

Who or what is the “good” Heather?

strangelet on May 8, 2009 at 6:11 PM

“all men are created equal” isn’t empirically true.

You are not processing the statement “All men are created equal” properly. Jefferson was not making the facially absurd statement that all men are identical. He was speaking to essence, not to material.

As for Heather:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097493/

CK MacLeod on May 8, 2009 at 10:06 PM

Oh you mean souls.
That has nothing to do with what Palin said.
Jefferson was a polymath and a Platonist….I doubt very much he’d have anything in common with Palin.

There are no good heathers. You are thinking of Veronica.

strangelet on May 8, 2009 at 10:41 PM

Winona Ryder wasn’t a “Heather,” but she was of the Heathers, and then grew beyond them. Her character name wasn’t “Heather,” but she is the lead character in a movie called Heathers. I think she qualifies as the “good Heather” for sake of conversation, but I could have spoken more precisely.

Palin was speaking to the moral essence. My understanding of her religion is that she would likely be comfortable using the word “soul.” What Jefferson was speaking to, what Palin was speaking to is the same thing. The moral essence is not knowable to an outsider. It is between the individual and the individual’s “creator.” Notice the double usage of “creator” – “are created equal,” “endowed by their creator.” Since neither Jefferson nor Palin could possibly believe that all individuals are materially the “same,” that all are born with or come to possess the same abilities, capacities, etc., there is no reasonable explanation except that are speaking about something else.

Jefferson’s languaged focuses on the implicitly divine “creation”: He was deist, not an atheist. Palin focuses, as she was asked to focus at a different point, and gives a negative definition of the essential moral equality of all people in her positive defintion of “elitists.” It’s not even very complicated or very unusual, but your determination to see the worst in her apparently prevents you from seeing it. The only other alternative that I can see is that you’re playing dumb in order to goad me.

I don’t know how Jefferson used the word “soul,” but he and Palin were both saying all souls are created equal, all essences are equally divine, no one is born morally or essentially superior to anyone else, etc.

You still haven’t answered how Obamagoras in a similar context would have defined elitist differently and more satisfactorily for you.

You come across as self-disfiguringly twisted about Palin. You would do yourself a favor to look into what purpose it serves for you.

CK MacLeod on May 8, 2009 at 11:47 PM

The phrase “are created” is an antique usage. The statement “all men are created equal” echoes the statement of a King in creating a noble, which relies on the divine right of the sovereign to invest power and superiority in a subject. When making someone a duke, say, a king could say, “I create you Duke” of whatever, bestowing the title – for instance:

Lord marquess kneel down.
We here create thee the first duke of Suffolk
And girt thee with the sword.

Shakespeare’s Henry VI, Part 2

Jefferson and the signatories are creating a realm without superiorities designated by any sovereign acting as God’s hand.

The Civil War in England, a religious war that ended with Charles I being beheaded in 1649, would have been a very relevant history for an English subject contemplating revolution to bear in mind. The Carolinas as well as numerous important places in Virginia and elsewhere in the original 13 colonies are all named after Charles I.

In effect, Jefferson and the others are both describing an eternal (self-evident) truth and enacting a revolutionary program. They are committing a rhetorical regicide – putting themselves outside the belief community, the value system of any monarchy, implicitly questioning the bases of all monarchies. They are asserting and at the same time effectuating a divine equality of souls.

CK MacLeod on May 9, 2009 at 12:18 AM

Okfine, all souls are created equal.
But that isn’t what Palin meant.
She meant Kylon vs. Pythagoras.
She is a horrible communicator. The strong impression I get is of someone intellectually impoverished.
My impression is corroborated by her post-Couric whining about the “elite gotcha media”.
You are hanging all sorts of intellectual fenestrations on her that are impossible to believe.
Have you considered…..in her debate performance…..that she may have not even understood Gwen’s Achilles heel question?
She answered all her questions with talking point bullets.
We never saw any evidence whatsoever of the phantom Palin you reference.
Surely there would be some writings, some part of a stump speech, some question and answer session with the media….nada.
Palin is just another pitchforks-and-torches villager…….just a better looking one.

strangelet on May 9, 2009 at 8:54 AM

Although I totally agree with everything you said about Jefferson, and that was quite beautiful.

the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others

.
Jefferson and Pythagoras both believed in natural aristocracy, and Pythagoras also believed in heredity of leaders…..but the difference is …..Kylon believed and (I think from empirical data) Palin believes there is NO aristocracy, natural or otherwise. The rule of “one of the people.”
Of course….no one from the “elite gotcha-media” can ask her either, and she hasn’t exactly volunteered any writing or interviews on the topic, even in sympathetic interviews like Hannity or Rush.
Admit it Highlander…the substrate isn’t there…Brooks said that.
It is wistful thinking.

strangelet on May 9, 2009 at 9:06 AM

Do you know who Palin was, really, as a cultural emblem?
Not the intellectual and leader you want her to be.
She had the memetic potential to be Elle Woods from Legally Blonde, Alex from Flashdance, to be Susan Boyle, to be Cinderella…..to attain the national stage and stun the nation with her raw talent…..but ..there isn’t any raw talent there….or she is incapable of displaying it, which amounts to the same thing.

And most especially…sad for your side…Obama really is Luke Skywalker.

Im gonna go ride my horse and then read American Lion.
Ty for the discussion, Highlander.

strangelet on May 9, 2009 at 9:19 AM

strangelet, you are constantly projecting.

I haven’t suggested very much about Palin herself at all, other than what’s obvious for anyone who cares to review her speeches, debate performances, press conference video, etc. She’s a skilled politician who can give a great set speech. I have mainly focused on what she represents, both the political place she occupies until and unless someone stronger pushes her aside, and also the fantasy projections put up by people like you and your buddy Andrew – the kind of people who would seize upon a rather banal statement like the answer to Williams regarding elitists and read dark motives and “pitchforks” into it.

I hardly ever use the word “substrate,” though it occurs to me from time to time when I’m walking my dogs and they seek out a grassy patch rather than a sidewalk. I believe that Buddy would reject Brooks’ writings as an adequate substrate, though he very probably wouldn’t mind if I cleaned up using a newspaper that happened to include a Brooks column. Frankly, Brooks rather repulses me, and his “cancer” comment gave the lie to his pose as the voice of sweet moderate objective altruistic reason. He’s no more nor less a self-seeking snake than anyone – than you, or me, or Palin, or Obama – the difference being that HE THINKS HE’S BETTER (no cancer he). He’s not. Do you think you’re BETTER than Palin? I don’t. I think we’re all created equal. In almost any situation that really counted, I’d probably rather have a Palin to depend on than a Brooks, but, no, that doesn’t make Palin (a) better (person) than Brooks – more beloved by God. I don’t know. I don’t know what evil lurks in the heart of Sarah or David, or what good Sarah, David, or strangelet is really capable of. You seem to think you do. You seem to be sure it makes you better than Sarah. Do you think that makes you better than me? Who else are you better than?

I believe that the prophet may have been envisioning Brooks when he wrote “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.”

Achilles Heel question? My guess would be that Palin is familiar with the common phrase and that the familiarly idiotic Ifill “debate” question received a familiarily idiotic candidate evasion, with Palin exercising the greater liberty she assumed for herself heading into a confrontation with the author of THE AGE OF OBAMA and oh yeah our mentally irregular VP.

CK MacLeod on May 9, 2009 at 10:37 AM

And still waiting for the strangelet-approved Obamagoras response to the request on national TV to define “elitist.” I don’t discount the possibility of better responses or better ways of responding than Palin’s. Maybe I just need the help of one the better people, like you, in figuring out what it could be.

CK MacLeod on May 9, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Do you think you’re BETTER than Palin?

I am better.
At quantum field theory and high order mathematics.
She is probably better than me at shooting wolves and moose.
All I have ever shot is skeet, ducks and pheasants.

Still, she hasn’t put much out there to evaluate her on.
I do think I personally would have passed on the vp slot this times around.
An unwed pregnant teenage daughter and a special needs newborn, in a campaign that had almost no chance?
Not rocket science.
I would have been canny enough to put my family first….unless…she had a truly Jacksonian drive to Save the Nation. And I have seen 0.0 evidence of that.

It is very obvious to me that she had the Kylon meaning. Remeber when she talked out not having a passport? She didn’t have the advantages.
I’m a halfway through Lion. Amazing book.
Palin didn’t have Jackson’s formative struggles, a fitness gradient for the natural aristocracy. She coasted, she never exerted herself, she never had a passion. Survival of the Prettiest, like I said.

You should understand…to my generation “l33t” (which is leetspeak for elite), is the highest tribute.
Palin (like Kylon) hates people percieved to be better or percieved to think they are better….”the elites”.

strangelet on May 9, 2009 at 7:11 PM

She coasted, she never exerted herself, she never had a passion. Survival of the Prettiest, like I said.

Balls. That’s my generation’s… well, it’s not our highest tribute! It’s patently untrue if you look at her career, and, besides that, she’s not really THAT pretty.

l33t translates as yesterday to me. I think your generation may already be hitting its obsolescence point. Too bad you wasted your energy on 0.

Speaking of 0, I see near 0.0 “hatred” of any kind from Palin.

But enough, as my new post attempts to indicate, I’m only as interested in Palin as she wants me to be and is able to make me. I’m not entirely clear on what she wants and is able to do right now. In the meantime I find “Palin” interesting, especially for what it may tell us about the prospects for “Palinism,” which, as I’ve sought to underline, may have to arise under a different name.

Glad you’re enjoying AMERICAN LION. If you put it together with A. LINCOLN, I think you get a good overview for the first half of the 19th Century from author’s passing on the latest scholarship to a lay audience. If you ever read fiction, THE WHISKEY REBELS is fun on the post-Revolutionary period, Alexander Hamilton, and the 1st Bank of the US.

CK MacLeod on May 9, 2009 at 8:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3