Since the beginning of the new year, it has been rather difficult to be a follower of the conservative press and not have run across the name of Shawn Macomber.  He produces articles with great consistency and appears in several venues on a regular basis.  Mr. Macomber’s main position is as a reporter for The American Spectator but he is also a contributor to Front Page Magazine.  He runs his own website as well, which is called Revolt of the Primitive. 

One conservative website described him as being an extraordinary talent who is “destined for greatness”, and it is not hard to see why they would make such an assumption given the quantity of his writing and the fact that he always has something valuable to say.  Mr. Macomber’s literary voice is very much that of a “normal Joe.”   He never condescends to his readers and his flair for the first person narrative is sometimes reminiscent of Matt Labash.  

In this interview, he is surprisingly candid and irreverent towards the Republican Party  which is appropriate given the way in which the GOP appears to be on a crusade to outspend every other party in sight.  I know many a conservative who shares his skeptical outlook regarding “compassionate conservatism” and the fact that the RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) are becoming permanent fixtures on the national scene.

Given that he will be covering the upcoming political conventions, we are most fortunate that he was so comprehensive in his answers to the questions which were posed.

BC: First off, let me say that I enjoyed your coverage of the primaries in New Hampshire and am looking forward to your take on the upcoming Democratic Convention.  Was there any one particular incident in New Hampshire that you thought best described the Democratic Party?  Are there any graphic stories that you left out of your reporting which you could share?

SM: Well, before I came to D.C. to work for The American Spectator, I was in New Hampshire stringing for the Associated Press and some other smaller papers, so I was covering the primary, in one capacity or another, for close to two years.  It was so over the top, I loved every minute of it. Watching Wesley Clark be endorsed by an Indian tribe in front of a life-size replica of a wig-wam was great fun, but I wrote a column on that. Ditto on Democratic grassroots folks telling me Joe Lieberman was a "religious fundamentalist."  It didn't matter that he prostrated himself in front of the NARAL abortion brigades. He used the word "God" and didn't campaign on Saturdays, and that made him the enemy. The environment in New Hampshire was so charged and ridiculous: Lieberman went from being the martyr of the 2000 election in the eyes of Democrats to a reviled Jewish George W. Bush in four years. But he was the extremist? Yeah, I don't think so. The craziest thing I didn't write about, I suppose, was the first time I met then-governor of Vermont Howard Dean, stumping for a New Hampshire state senator in September 2002. There were no Deaniacs back then, no supporters. It was literally just Dean, the state senate candidate, a couple Vermont state troopers and me and another reporter. So Dean hands me this pamphlet that reads, "HOWARD DEAN FOR AMERICA," and I say, "So you are running for President."  It seemed like a pretty natural reaction, but Dean got all red-faced and started ranting about how he "hadn't said that" and warning me not to "make up quotes" about an announcement he "hadn't made yet." When I got back to the office, a couple people asked me if I thought Dean had a shot, and I was completely dismissive of him. I just kept saying, "Too crazy. Not a chance." Of course, then the mad little imp almost walked away with the nomination, which had me seriously second guess my political handicapping abilities. Still, I'd seen that unhinged side of him, and I thought it might make another appearance. The biggest surprise to me after Dean's post-Iowa meltdown was that he'd been able to hold it in as long as he had. The guy's such an erratic, twitchy freak, it was a real triumph of the will. I'd tell stories about Kerry, but he was boring as hell during the primaries, too.

BC: What is your opinion regarding the existence of  press bias?  Do liberal journalists regard conservative reporters like yourself as being specimens from another planet?  You as much as anybody, after having been around the Deaniac frenzy in New Hampshire, are qualified to answer this question.

SM: Yeah, it exists and it's fun to rail against, but press bias has been so watered down and diluted, I'm not sure that it really matters anymore. I mean, we're not living in the days of only three networks anymore. We have the internet. We have cable news. We have literally millions of news sources out there today, which is why I find it so laughable that these lefties will run around screaming about the end of alternative media in America. You're living in the golden age of alternative media, you stupid bastards! The beauty of today's America is that we all get our bias just the way we like it, which might not be so great for critical thought, but it doesn't give a whole lot of credence to the idea of press bias debilitating democracy. I'll start crying over press bias when the government seizes every laptop in the country and outlaws all newspapers, save The New York Times. Until then, if you care about the truth, you'll certainly be able to find it. At any rate, I don't believe there are very many people out there, on either side, who are actually sincere when they say they want to end bias. They just want their own biases to prevail. All of this wailing and gnashing of teeth is so overdone and predictable and hypocritical. It's all so pathetically needy--"Why doesn't everybody agree with me?"--as if ideas are only valid if they come along with universal praise--or universal coverage. I imagine liberal journalists look at me the same way I look at them: As kindred spirits who somehow lost their way. Just kidding.  Sort of.  But seriously, a boxer doesn't want to go in the ring with a bunch of patsies who will fall down without taking a single hit. He wants a sparring partner. He wants a fight. I feel the same way about my job. If your ideas cannot withstand challenge, they aren't very good ideas. Only the weak-minded will resent others for challenging their beliefs.

BC: I just read your piece about the Republican Convention and its planned moderate bent.  Is the Republican Party in danger of being taken over by RINOs?

SM: It's already happened. For all the talk about the power of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy in the Republican Party, conservatives--and especially fiscal conservatives--have a tough time getting any respect at all from the party. And when it comes time to defend the philosophy and ideals publicly that we all agree on privately, these guys running the show couldn't be more vague or aloof. They're too concerned with building the coalition with "compassionate conservatism," which at its very core is a slap in the face to traditional conservatives. Somewhere along the line, the Republican Party decided to surrender to the liberal myth that the conservatism of Goldwater and Reagan was somehow cold and cruel, when it was nothing of the sort.  Instead of the philosophy or the positive results of pursuing limited government and personal responsibility as public policy, they have attempted to repackage the whole conservative ideal in a more "compassionate" box.  This essentially has meant once every three or four years Republicans stand up for something and they spend the rest of the time pursuing liberal initiatives as part of compromise. That is how we end up with a Bush White House that spends outrageous sums of money expanding entitlement programs; that refuses to veto ANY spending bill, no matter how full of pork; that signs on gleefully to bloated legislation such as No Child Left Behind.  The National Endowment for the Arts even got a budget increase for God's sake.  And I'm supposed to sit back and shut up because I got a tax cut of a few percentage points? That wasn't a tax cut. Look at the deficit. That was a tax delay. Certainly things would be worse if Kerry won, which is exactly the point. A Democrat will be elected president again someday, like it or not, and then we will truly be made to pay for the sloth of the Bush Administration.  Instead of setting a fiscally responsible example, Republicans have merely set the pork bar that much higher. Do you think the Democrats will let themselves be outspent by a Republican? Look at Kerry's spending proposals.  They are obscene. But he doesn't have to be responsible, because George W. Bush hasn't been responsible. We keep being told, "Wait until next year. Wait until the next election. Then you'll see change." It is simply not true. There will always be another election. It's time to wake up or we'll be waiting forever. Our ideas, our philosophy, our vision will atrophy and die. The question is, do we still believe in anything? Or has politics just become another spectator sport where we cheer on "our team" no matter what?  Frankly, Republicans serving as an effective opposition would be preferable to the current compromise-happy Republican Party that acts and spends like the liberals they incessantly warn us about. It's time for some truth in advertising. Whose side is today's Republican Party on?

BC: With his stances on affirmative action and immigration, along with his profligate spending, could President George W. Bush be considered a RINO himself?

SM:  Absolutely. This whole Michael Moore, "Hate Bush" movement is the best thing that ever happened to George W. Bush. There is a general feeling out there among conservatives that whatever Bush's failings are--and they are legion--if he drives liberals that crazy, he must be doing something right.  And the liberal opposition is so shrill and unbalanced, so downright crazy, that no reasonable person wants to criticize Bush and feel like they are a part of something so ugly. Who wants to risk being used as "See, even Republicans don't like Bush" fodder by lefty freaks like the guy Washington Times reporter Bill Sammon writes about in his book, Misunderestimated, holding a sign at a protest that read, "Impeach the Court-Appointed Junta and the Fascist, Egomaniacal, Blood-Swilling Beast"?  Likewise, the knee-jerk reaction when faced with something so utterly vapid, conspiratorial and stupid as "Fahrenheit 9/11" is to defend Bush. So Bush has gotten a free pass on a lot of bad decisions, and to some degree he knows it, and it empowers him to make more bad decisions.  I love it when I hear Bush campaign officials saying they're going to play down the immigration proposal and the prescription drug benefit, because they didn't give Bush the bounce they'd hoped. Well, at $500 billion dollars and counting that's a pretty damn expensive mistake. We'll be stuck with that one many years after Bush is gone. Still, I honestly hope Bush wins this election, because I think he deserves it on the basis of his response to 9/11 alone and he's the better man than Kerry, certainly. But without serious, sustained criticism from the right, we have no right to expect Bush to correct himself. So the whole "Hate Bush" thing has been a stunning success because while it is based on a lie--that Bush is some provincial, stupid, hardcore conservative--liberals' wild-eyed, foaming-at-the-mouth fury has pretty much guaranteed that Bush will not face the same conservative revolt his father did. But he certainly deserves to face one.

BC: Here’s a much tougher question.  The poll numbers at present are not very encouraging in the least.  John Kerry’s lead seems to be solidifying.  What do you think of the president’s chances in this election?  Do you think the GOP will hold on to the Senate?  

SM: It's still an unknown quantity. The election, in my eyes, could go either way at this point. Bush is really going to have to become more confidant in his Iraq policy before this fall's debates. There is a case for the war in Iraq and he needs to be able to make it in a strong and clear voice. Another deer-in-headlights performance like his appearance on “Meet the Press” will not cut it. He has to be ready to face tough questions with moral clarity.   If he can do that, Kerry's vacillating, amoral nature will stand in striking contrast. As of today, I believe Republicans will hold the Senate. This, of course, is barring them doing anything really stupid, which is obviously a strong possibility. They are, after all, senators. BC: How would you describe yourself politically?  So many writers are not satisfied by the label, “conservative.”  S.T. Karnick calls himself a “classical liberal” and Jay Nordlinger describes himself as being a “Reaganite.”  What do you say regarding your own views?

SM: I consider myself a pro-life libertarian. Little "l" libertarian, of course, separate from that car crash that masquerades as the official Libertarian Party. Since Sept. 11, however, I caution to add that I believe in a strong national defense and an aggressive offensive position in this current war. The ambivalence some libertarians have shown towards the threats we face is really unfortunate, and will only serve to marginalize them further. For myself, I believe, in general, that after a certain point, government hinders more than it helps. And we reached that point some time ago.

BC: You mentioned to me that many readers hold that you’re too “libertarian” in many ways for the conservative press.  Is not being libertarian about government’s role in the economy and about one’s personal habits the essence of what it means to be conservative in an America brimming with social engineers?

SM: I would argue that today's conservatism, outside its increasing marginalized intellectual circles, just supports a different kind of social engineering. The NEA ordeal I mentioned before is a great example. Conservatives spend years railing on the NEA, and then, when they're in power, they say, "Actually, we just had a problem with what the NEA supported." So now, according to them, the NEA is just wonderful because conservatives are in control, and they can direct our culture in a more virtuous manner. To grant people true freedom, you have to accept that they may get involved in things you do not particularly enjoy. This leads many people to see salvation in government. But when you empower government to mold the culture more to your liking, you must prepare yourself for the day when you are in the minority and a culture you abhor is officially sanctioned and forced upon you. If the official policy of the government is not for everybody to mind their own business, then watch out, because everyone will be minding everyone's business except their own. This is the situation we find ourselves in now: Factions fighting to impose their will on everyone else BC: Your website is called, “Return of the Primitive.”   Is the title a bit of a play on the fact that your stance is in opposition to those who label themselves progressive?  In many ways are not the progressives, with their devotion to all things organic and their distrust of technology, the real primitives in our society?

SM: Right again. "Return of the Primitive" is a collection of essays Ayn Rand wrote in the 1960s about the "progressives" and "liberals," people who in general trumpet "progress" as anything that limits human potential. Her point was that these people want to live in a primitive community, sans evils such as genetically engineered food, corporations, etc. Their little utopian dream leaves out the negatives of the pre-industrial world, however, like mass hunger and no jobs. People who push this sort of line are almost uniformly spoiled, upper middle-class liberals whose lives have been so easy that they are literally unable to interpret the world as it is. They don't understand what it's like to be poor. So when the Wal-Mart opens up down the block they don't say, "Geez, now all those poor people I spend my remarkable amount of free time pitying will be able to go to bed with full stomachs."  They say, "Western civilization will come crashing down if everyone does not spend six dollars on a loaf of bread and get paid $21 an hour to run a cash register." Basically, I'm using the phrase in the opposite way Rand used it. Their "progress" is a sham, so call me the primitive standing in the way, if you like. The only true progress today would be regression, in my eyes. I'll take personal liberty, with all of its problems, over the nanny state any day. I'm sick of watching poor people suffer and have the idea that they are helpless be beaten into their heads incessantly, all so a bunch of rich, ex-hippie liberals can assuage their latent guilt over becoming capitalists and having nice stuff. These people are mentally ill. They have everything and yet they work so damn hard at being miserable. It's so crazy. They're always looking for a Roman to burn at the stake. They can't see that they are the Romans.

BC: In the past year, it seems to me that your name has been everywhere with articles reliably appearing in both The American Spectator and frontpagemag.com.  What is the secret behind your tremendous productivity?  Do you have a daily composition schedule with which you adhere? 

SM: It's real simple. I spent a lot of time working jobs I didn't particularly care for. I've worked 16-hour shifts on factory floors, slung sandwiches, shoveled shit, literally. So it is really hard for me to take part in the kind of sissy culture that is pervasive in the journalism business. I didn't pursue this writing thing because I wanted an easy job or to be part of this smarmy, "you pat my back and I'll pat yours" bar scene in D.C. I got into it because I felt I had some things I wanted to say. If political journalists spent as much time writing as they do puffing up each other's egos and kissing each other's asses, they'd all get a whole lot more done. I get a lot of writing done. I do it by never turning down an assignment. Because I recognize that I am blessed with a relatively easy job, I spend more time writing and less time complaining and feeling sorry for myself. Since I don't go out looking for validation from other people in the business, I am forced to get it through my writing. Therefore, I write a lot. You've probably guessed by now that I couldn't make it in this world on personality alone. We've all got such a short time on this planet, we might as well be as productive as possible.

BC: As I recall, you’ve just recently gotten engaged.  What is your take on the relations between men and women in America today?  Do you regard marriage as something that should be reserved for heterosexuals alone?

SM: I am indeed engaged, and will be married in early August. Relations between men and women in America? Let me preface it by saying I am very, very lucky, personally, but was not always so. Human relations in America are a mess in general. The "me me me" culture of the sixties continues to poison our lives. We have become convinced that personal fulfillment is our first priority, and, thus, our relationships are very transitory. Commitments are essentially meaningless. And when the guilt creeps in, there is always someone there to say, "No you must do what makes you happy. That's all that matters." In the single-minded pursuit of self-satisfaction, we have somehow made ourselves utterly miserable. Whether I regard marriage as something reserved to heterosexuals alone or not is a moot point now, I'd say. Anyone who is dead set against gay marriage better get ready to be disappointed, because it's here. Personally, I don't think the federal government should outlaw same sex marriage, mostly because I think government involvement in marriage at all is wrong. It's like the social engineering we talked about earlier. Nothing will change. Those who want to make a serious commitment to one another will, and there will be those who take it less seriously. This is not the same as the liberal position on this, by the way. Liberals seem to like having the government micro-manage our lives whenever it suits them, and when it doesn't suddenly it's indignation time. "This is none of the government's business!" It is grossly hypocritical. A real sham if ever there was one. Gay and lesbian adults should be able to enter into contracts with one another if they so choose--no matter what percentage of Americans agrees or disagrees with their choices. What I am interested in preserving is a church's right to deny marrying two men or two women if they believe it runs counter to their teachings. I don't want to see a time in America where churches that refuse to marry gays and lesbians have their tax-exempt status revoked. I believe this is the battle that Christians who were up in arms about gay marriage should be getting ready to fight. This is not discrimination. Gays and lesbians will be able to get married in any Universalist Church in America. Once they have that option it would run counter to the principles of freedom for churches to be forced legally to do that which is an abomination. BC: Thank you for your time Shawn and enjoy covering the conventions. 

Bernard Chapin