Vox Day’s column this week laments the shift of the conservative movement to (and its subsequent dry-humping of) The Left, and he finally does what none of us have had the courage to do: Peg down Michelle’s politics with a single label based on a single controversial stance on a nonexistent issue.
[I]t is debatable as to which group is in worse shape, the ‘’conservative'’ politicians or the ‘’conservative'’ commentariat. While the leftward drift of the administration and the Congress have not escaped notice despite the best efforts of its cheerleaders to play it down…
Indeed, what with Michelle Malkin pushing FDR’s internment program, Ben Shapiro, Sean Hannity and numerous others pushing Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy, Larry Kudlow pushing Richard Nixon’s monetary policies and the editors of National Review harboring a Harry Truman-style crush on the United Nations, one has to wonder if a liberal media is redundant these days.
There you have it. Michelle is a New Deal Democrat because she wants to lock up the undesirables. If this seems a bit farfetched to you (as it does to me), take solace in the fact that you are not a genius like VD. We’ll never get to hang at those hot MENSA orgies. American politics is, like, totally hard to understand.
For more on being a Pro-Internment Leftist, read Neiwert’s latest!
Vox responds. If I had anticipated receiving the attention of someone of Vox’s stature, I would have put some substance, or even logic, into this laughable turd of a post. (Part of the mission here is to document some of the more profound critiques of Michelle’s work.)
I would proffer that calling for a widespread internment regime is not a leftward or rightward position — just a radical one. Malkin’s thesis, that ethnic Japanese were interned based on concerns of national security and their own safety, was thoroughly debunked years ago, not to mention that the topic is absent from any serious domestic policy discussions. Michelle’s too busy going on TV complaining about “unhinged moonbats”, anyway.