Comments on: Michelle Malkin: Awful yet strangely hypnotic

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 10:45:39 +0000

Let’s do it! You can be leader, so long as you pass the reins to me after 1.5 terms.

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:14:14 +0000

Thanks for the comments, folks!

And yep, Michael: I actually agree with your distinction between conservative brands, which is why I mention Australia’s Liberal party in and of themselves.

The UK’s David Cameron and Canada’s Stephen Harper are different species of conservative leader to those in Australia and the US, as you point out.

So it might be possible to be a political (and fiscal) conservative and a social progressive, but as a voter working with the paradigms of Australian Federal politics, I’d say not so much.

Time to start a new political party, then?

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:52:13 +0000

You’re obviously very intelligent Benjamin, but I think your comments vis-a-vis young gay Liberal (party) voters hating themselves indicate you’ve misunderstood conservatism. Don’t confuse the two types of conservatives; type (a) who believe in individual freedom, small government and low taxes, and type (b) who are generally bigoted christians who think they have the right to govern from the religious right. It is possible to be a political conservative (type a) and a social progressive. It’s not necessarily that young gay Liberal (party) voters don’t want to get married, etc, it’s that their priorities are different – things like minimising public debt and avoiding internet censorship are more important to them come election time.

Too bad the religious right seems to have hijacked conservatism (particularly the republican party) at the moment. A politically conservative (type a), socially progressive party is long overdue, here and in the U.S. Until then, in Australia, we’re stuck with the “politically conservative, socially conservative” Liberal party or the “politically liberal, socially slightly-less-conservative-than-the-Liberals” Labor party.

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:40:08 +0000

Benjamin Law you’re tops.

By: Eurasian Sensation

Eurasian Sensation — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:27:04 +0000

Nice article. Malkin is a fascinating character – her pleasantness to look at is in stark contrast to the ugliness of her personality.

While I can understand that not every Asian has to be a spokesperson for their community, but Malkin strikes me as someone who really has some deep-seated loathing of her own Asianness. It’s interesting the way she clearly aligns herself with white America, and sees no commonality between herself and the experiences of other ethnic minorities. Maybe its good that she can see herself primarily as an American, instead of as an Asian-American or a whatever else-American, but surely one can be proud of being both Asian and American.

By: Review: Peril Edition Eight « Thuy Linh Nguyen

Review: Peril Edition Eight « Thuy Linh Nguyen — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:54:32 +0000

[...] The Ladies of Colour Agency about sexuality, whiteness in political movements, and genderfucking. Benjamin Law’s article on Asian-American conservative Michelle Malkin is perversely entertaining: …Malkin seems [...]

By: Komi

Komi — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 02:20:49 +0000

Great article Ben! Love the “Did you read the book?” bit =)

By: Shing

Shing — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 13:37:10 +0000

Thanks Ben, it’s fun (in a perverse kinda way) to read an Aussie opinion on Michelle Malkin, Asian America’s favourite scapegoat! There are conservatives in every ethnic minority, and some groups have traditionally voted conservatively. In 1992, Bush won 55% of the Asian American vote (according to google).

In a constituency I used to live in, an Asian Australian woman, Joyce Khoo, stood as a candidate for the ultra-conservative, right-wing party Family First. This party gave top preference to a “self-declared racist” candidate for One Nation, a candidate who gained notoriety for distributing racist leaflets in Glen Waverley. Quite disturbing.

If we’re not careful we may end up getting our own Michelle Malkin.

Shouldn’t we be directing our indignation at the TV networks and news syndicates? Or is it more emotionally satisfying to hate on an individual, rather than on a faceless media conglomerate?

Malkin’s reactionary views – if we’re honest with ourselves – probably reflect the views of many conservative POCs. We just don’t want those views promoted in the media, whoever expresses them. Let’s focus on the faceless enemy that is less fun, but more important, to challenge.

(Also sometimes I wonder if all this negative attention is actually boosting Malkin’s career.)