Don't Get Distracted by Shiny Things
I'm so pleased that Peggy Noonan has emerged from her gloom to remind us why she's a great columnist. She just managed to sum up something I was groping to say to the Elder of Ricochet who kindly gave me a lift to the airport yesterday. (I might have come up with it myself, but I was too busy making him pull over because I was sure I'd located Jimmy Hoffa's body. It's a long story and a bit embarrassing--all I found was the strap of my computer bag, which was hanging out of the car, but it sounded like Jimmy Hoffa's body.)
The argument I was too distracted to make, but which Noonan makes perfectly clear, is that this is no time for anyone to get distracted. She uses Grover Norquist as her vehicle to make this point:
Republicans, he argues, must determine to stay focused, and not become distracted by issues that are not central to the campaign. "There's the danger of getting sidetracked by shiny things," he says, citing Arizona's immigration law, or "the mosque in Manhattan." These issues do not win new votes, "they only please voters you already have."
I don't think either of these issues are trivial--obviously, I don't. But I'm certain she's right that they're not the place to focus, electorally.
What should Republicans focus on? "Spending per se is a palpable issue. The central question is not only taxes or the deficit, it's spending, and you can see this in polls. . . . There is not a Democrat who can say, 'I was not part of the spending explosion that threatens you and your country.' It's the one thing they can't defend themselves against. They don't want to stop spending."
Focusing on anything else, including Jimmy Hoffa's body, is a diffusion of resources and a waste of time right now. The spending issue is a uniter, not a divider. As well it should be.
- Comment (47)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Don't Get Distracted by Shiny Things
The spending argument needs to go one step further, though. The problem is not just that we are spending too much (which we are). Our excessive spending comes with a nastier red-headed stepbrother: astronomical sovereign debt. We're not just spending too much. We're using the credit card to buy all this stuff we don't need.
Jul '10
Re: Don't Get Distracted by Shiny Things
Exactly why I have been smashing crockery for 20 years every time the Republicans decide to get into family feuds over social issues.
By the time they get through lacerating each other during the primaries over abortion, gays, stem-cell research or "family values", they limp into the general elections, where the Democrats tar them as anti-woman bigots who hate science.
And even if they do happen to call for fiscal discipline, the Democrats just say, "Well, what do you expect? They're mean-spirited bigots who hate children and poor people."
And by the way, Claire, I have it on good authority that Jimmy Hoffa is currently a trans-sexual hostess in a karaoke bar in Bangphlat, Thailand.
May '10
Re: Don't Get Distracted by Shiny Things
If spending borrowed money equaled love, we're the world's nymphomaniacs. Too long has the American electorate sat in the corner, fingers in their ears and humming to themselves, convinced they'd found a happy place.
May '10
Re: Don't Get Distracted by Shiny Things
Yeah, it’s strange. As worked up as I (and lots of other right-wing madmen) have always gotten about the size and scope of government, it's never really had political traction…until now. This is the first time in my conscious life (from, say, late-Carter ’til now) that people seem actually receptive to the idea of reducing government spending—even on popular items.
Hard to say how it’ll play out. Il popol’ è mobile.
Sep '10
Re: Don't Get Distracted by Shiny Things
In regard to Noonan's shiny things, it would be nice if, in some quiet place in DC, some mature conservatives were sitting down with some mature liberals saying to each other "after this election, we're going to get this illegal immigration thing fixed." Noonan herself has said there is no way we're going to send X million home. Bill O'Reilly has said the same and got Palin to agree, if grudgingly.
Jun '10
Re: Don't Get Distracted by Shiny Things
Surprise, surprise, the old campign war horse is crying out for discipline. What we're talking about, folks, is messaging with all its attendant trade craft.
Jul '10
Re: Don't Get Distracted by Shiny Things
Fix illegal immigration? Simple
Notice that "amnesty" isn't mentioned anywhere above?
Edited on Sep 4, 2010 at 7:57pmAug '10
Re: Don't Get Distracted by Shiny Things
Kenneth: Exactly why I have been smashing crockery for 20 years every time the Republicans decide to get into family feuds over social issues.
By the time they get through lacerating each other during the primaries over abortion, gays, stem-cell research or "family values", they limp into the general elections, where the Democrats tar them as anti-woman bigots who hate science.
Spoken like a true someone-who-thinks-social-conservatives-are-anti-woman-bigots-who-hate-science.
One man's meat is another man's shiny thing.
Aug '10
Re: Don't Get Distracted by Shiny Things
Kenneth
Fix illegal immigration? Simple
Notice that "amnesty" isn't mentioned anywhere above?
And that's just the problem. What most conservatives want to do about illegal immigration is the opposite of what most liberals want to do. It's not a matter of getting together some sufficiently mature individuals from both sides; it's a matter of fighting until one side wins. Hopefully, ours.
Jul '10
Re: Don't Get Distracted by Shiny Things
Noonan can be really irritating. However, she has a good point here (not one she's thought of, I think, but nevertheless)... the next government would do well to concentrate concentrate concentrate on cutting spending ... across the board will do much of the job to begin with. Targeting (my own favorites being the EPA and Education), will only cause needless uproar. And I really will be disappointed to see the Republicans go after the Democrats on ethics. Better to just cut budgets. As Steyn says, slash and slash and burn ... but in a fair way, across all parts of the Federal government.
Then, look to the 10th Amendment. And take it seriously. And destroy the Commerce Clause...
May '10
Re: Don't Get Distracted by Shiny Things
For the immediate future, yes, it's spending and taxes. Longterm, though, the conservative movement must always remain a three-legged stool: Fiscal conservatives, advocates for a strong defense, and values voters. Reagan created the winning formula that endures to this day.
So let's play to the fiscal crowd today, but remember not to gratuitously offend or antagonize the social conservatives. There'll come a day--sooner than we think--when we'll be coming to them on bended knee--and rightly so, because we share common interests.
Jul '10
Re: Don't Get Distracted by Shiny Things
Paul DeRocco
Kenneth: Exactly why I have been smashing crockery for 20 years every time the Republicans decide to get into family feuds over social issues.
By the time they get through lacerating each other during the primaries over abortion, gays, stem-cell research or "family values", they limp into the general elections, where the Democrats tar them as anti-woman bigots who hate science.
Spoken like a true someone-who-thinks-social-conservatives-are-anti-woman-bigots-who-hate-science.
One man's meat is another man's shiny thing. · Sep 4 at 8:00pm
That's all you got?
Read the 10th Amendment. Then tell me which of those issues shouldn't properly be left to the states.
Jul '10
Re: Don't Get Distracted by Shiny Things
heathermc: Noonan can be really irritating. However, she has a good point here (not one she's thought of, I think, but nevertheless)... the next government would do well to concentrate concentrate concentrate on cutting spending ... across the board will do much of the job to begin with. Targeting (my own favorites being the EPA and Education), will only cause needless uproar. And I really will be disappointed to see the Republicans go after the Democrats on ethics. Better to just cut budgets. As Steyn says, slash and slash and burn ... but in a fair way, across all parts of the Federal government.
Then, look to the 10th Amendment. And take it seriously. And destroy the Commerce Clause... · Sep 4 at 8:05pm
Bingo
May '10
Re: Don't Get Distracted by Shiny Things
Ya, abortion should be left to the states, Kenneth. But it can't, because of Roe v Wade. Get it?
But these exchanges only prove Noonan's--and if I do say so myself, my--point: Focus. On. November.
Geez.
Aug '10
Re: Don't Get Distracted by Shiny Things
"One man's meat is another man's shiny thing."
Yes, I worry about this problem myself. I, too, would like to shift focus from social to fiscal issues, to the fact that whatever the government should be doing, it's doing too much right now and costing even more.
But I still sometimes wonder whether I'm projecting my preferences onto the nation as a whole. After all, the issues I'd rather lay aside really do seem to move a lot of people.
Edited on Sep 4, 2010 at 10:54pmJul '10
Re: Don't Get Distracted by Shiny Things
Scott Reusser: For the immediate future, yes, it's spending and taxes. Longterm, though, the conservative movement must always remain a three-legged stool: Fiscal conservatives, advocates for a strong defense, and values voters. Reagan created the winning formula that endures to this day.
So let's play to the fiscal crowd today, but remember not to gratuitously offend or antagonize the social conservatives. There'll come a day--sooner than we think--when we'll be coming to them on bended knee--and rightly so, because we share common interests. · Sep 4 at 8:07pm
Actually, Reagan did not build the evangelical, social-conservative movement. That movement emerged spontaneously in support of Jimmy Carter, who they believed to be a fellow-traveling, Southern, born-again Baptist family-values guy. It was only when they realized they had been duped that Jerry Falwell formed the Moral Majority in 1979 and got behind Reagan. - after playing a despicable little game about agonizing over Reagan's divorce and Hollywood background.
My point is that organized evangelical "values voters" really represent only a tiny minority of the electorate. But they have a death-grip on the early primaries.
Jul '10
Re: Don't Get Distracted by Shiny Things
Scott Reusser: Ya, abortion should be left to the states, Kenneth. But it can't, because of Roe v Wade. Get it?
But these exchanges only prove Noonan's--and if I do say so myself, my--point: Focus. On. November.
Geez. · Sep 4 at 8:33pm
Don't be snarky, Scott. You're too nice and too smart.
My point on abortion is that it should be left to the states, yes. But the anti-abortion zealots compel every single candidate for Federal office to beat their breasts so histrionically that it disgusts women and independent voters.
Fact is, a candidate for Congress or President can't do squat about Roe v, Wade, other than nominate or vote for a constructionist for SCOTUS, in hopes that he or she will be the swing vote to overturn a truly lousy decision.
But the sort of candidates we should be electing would vote for that sort of Supreme Court Justice anyway.
Even Rudy Giuliani would have nominated a good SCOTUS candidate, but he had zero chance in the early primaries, because he wasn't willing to run around screaming "baby killers!" in order to get the nomination.
May '10
Re: Don't Get Distracted by Shiny Things
Kenneth
Scott Reusser: Ya, abortion should be left to the states, Kenneth. But it can't, because of Roe v Wade. Get it?
But these exchanges only prove Noonan's--and if I do say so myself, my--point: Focus. On. November.
Geez. · Sep 4 at 8:33pm
Don't be snarky, Scott. You're too nice and too smart.[..]
Even Rudy Giuliani would have nominated a good SCOTUS candidate, but he had zero chance in the early primaries, because he wasn't willing to run around screaming "baby killers!" in order to get the nomination. · Sep 4 at 8:47pm
You misinterpreted my passion as snark. Really.
As for Guliani, what was so doggone frustrating about the guy is that he refused to say RvW was wrongly decided. He could have easily taken a pro-choice position, while also saying that the matter was obviously not addressed in the Constitution and should therefore be left to the states. It was a no-brainer, and his obtuseness there made me wonder if he really would have nominated decent candidates for the court(s).
May '10
Re: Don't Get Distracted by Shiny Things
Just came back to this thread. Looks like we got distracted by shiny things.
Jun '10
Re: Don't Get Distracted by Shiny Things
Paul DeRocco
One man's meat is another man's shiny thing. · Sep 4 at 8:00pm
Ain't that the rub?
Question: what is "meat" for conservatives? In contrast, what are shiny things?
As I understand it, moral superiority/outrage about issues that offend our religious/cultural sensibilities is essential to the conservative position. Isn't that what separates conservatives from Libertarians?
Or is this post about political expedience? We have a chance to unite long enough to win an election, so focus on the fiscal responsibility shtick until we win, then back to the distractions?
:-)
Or is this post about political expedience?