If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
Sometimes I feel a bit impertinent as an Englishman lecturing you from the other side of the pond on how you should best conduct your political affairs. Then I remember: "No hang on, wait. Didn't I once write a book called Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work? And was not this book - published shortly after Obama's inauguration - so prescient about the coming Obamatrocity in every way that some men do now call me the British Nostradamus?"
Actually, that last bit's not true. No one has ever called me the British Nostradamus but they jolly well should because I was right about Obama and I'm right about what I'm going to tell you now:
Don't, whatever you do, let Romney or Perry get the Republican nomination. Do so and you're toast. We all are.
How can I be so sure? For the same reason I was so sure about Obama: because I've already experienced your future.
In Obama's case, the prototype ultra slow motion rail crash disaster - for reasons we need not go into here: read the book - was Tony Blair.
In the case of Romney/Perry, the example you have to fear is the current British Prime Minister David Cameron.
When Cameron first became leader of the Conservative party much concern was expressed among more ideologically-minded conservatives that for a conservative he did seem to spend an awful lot of time apologizing for conservatism. Apologists for Cameron's apologism explained that this was part of a vital strategy called "detoxifying the brand." The theory went that "elections are won in the center ground" - and that therefore there was no point trying to court the votes of traditional conservatives who believed in stuff like small government, low taxes, liberty and other dangerous right-wing ideas. What mattered far more, was to court more left-leaning swing voters by hymning the praises of gay marriage, visiting melting glaciers to show how much the new-look Conservatives cared about Man Made Climate Change, worshipping at the shrine of socialized healthcare, and so on.
I'm not saying the comparisons are exact. But what I'm hearing now from the Romney and (though to a lesser extent) Perry camps are the same ones I heard being advanced for David Cameron: that he may not be ideal but that he represents the "electable" face of conservatism; that to choose a more radical candidate runs the risk of his being defeated by the disastrous incumbent, so therefore it is better to play safe rather than go for the riskier candidate (a Cain or a Paul, say) whose views more closely represent what needs to be done if the US is not to go the way of 5th century Rome.
"Politics is the art of the possible," all these armchair sages tell us. Are they aware who came up with that phrase? It was Bismarck, famous - inter alia - for being about as far off from small government conservatism as it's possible to be.
And it's a phrase which, now more than perhaps at any time in history, should be expunged from the vocabulary of all true conservatives (and libertarians). What makes it so dangerous is that it legitimizes the notion that politics is about give and take, about compromise, about stitching up cozy deals, about expanding the size of the state no matter who's in power, about giving public sector workers their wish lists rather than pay checks you can afford. Why do you think things have gotten to be as bad as they are now? Why do you think the Western economy is about to fall off a cliff? It's because the post-War political consensus, among conservatives only to a slightly lesser degree than among liberals, is that it's possible to go on and on expanding the size of government while yet maintaining a healthy economy.
And as we're about to experience, you can't.
Which is why we so badly need a US president who understands this. Not one who thinks he can get away with going on doing all the things that got us into this mess in the first place.
- Comment (44)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
James: top marks on spelling them "pay checks" - that's playing to the crowd.
Couldn't agree more on the disastrous slippery-slope of the 'vote for us, we can manage the welfare state better than the [other] socialists' temptation.
On another matter, perhaps you can explain why Andrew Sullivan is chosen by The Times to explain the US to middle England.
Jun '10
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
I'm starting to like Newt Gingrich a lot more, if only because he doesn't seem to care too much if he wins or loses. He's basically there to tell other people that they're being unrealistic and stupid. I admire that.
Mar '11
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
Sorry, but you lost me at "the riskier candidate (a Cain or a Paul, say) whose views more closely represent what needs to be done if the US is not to go the way of 5th century Rome".
In what alternate universe could Ron Paul possibly "represent what needs to be done"? I would choose Perry on the merits long before I would accept Ron Paul. In fact, I would rather brace myself for another four years of the Obamatrocity than risk armageddon with Paul.
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
@genferei The UK MSM - which I plan, by reader request, to write about in more detail some day - has much in common with the US MSM, which is to say that voices like mine are all but never permitted for they are seen to represent dangerous extremism.
Andrew Sullivan is the only kind of "conservative" that the (left-of-center) Times would permit to represent conservatism.
Aug '11
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
If it helps, you're probably one of the few who actually considers it impertinent.
Mar '11
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
The word "electable" should be should be stricken from the conservative lexicon. I'm sure that proves dyspeptic to those who proudly wave the "center-right" standard as they charge toward greater moderation, tolerance, and ruin, but I'm also quite sure that I don't care about their discomfort. Compromise is a cancer and "sudden and relentless reform" is the painful, wrenching therapy we require.
There is no way around it.
Edited on Oct 9, 2011 at 12:04pmMar '11
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
James: Perhaps you can share with us what you reckon the consequences might be should we opt for the "more radical", "riskier" option if that option gets smashed by Obama in the 2012 election?
Dec '10
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
Your word to the wise about Cameron and England is helpful. The part of the analogy that most concerns me is the difference between the American and English systems. The American system is not parlimentary. You get one chance only every four years winner take all. The election for president has been dragged out by the strong primary system so that it is now 16 months. Perry got in with only 14 months and they said "he got in late". Fund raising and organizational commitments are happening right now. Worse, the MSM looks for an easily packaged narrative that it can repeat thousands of times. After that they just watch the polls like it was baseball season.
The first time I went white water rafting I didn't know what to expect. As we approached the first rapid everyone was laughing and joking. The captain of the raft called out commands but everyone just laughed. Going through the first rapid we were soaked to the skin with freezing cold water. The feeling of being completely out of control had turned everyone's face white. On the next rapid when the captain said "paddle right turn" everyone paddled like crazy.
Edited on Oct 9, 2011 at 1:20pmAug '11
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
We need someone who will take a wrecking ball to big government, not someone who will freshen up the wallpaper.
Jan '11
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
Mr. Delingpole touches on something that's been simmering here for some time, the "C Word" - compromise.
We've been compromising with Progressive/Leftists for nearly 100 years. Where we are now is a logical result of those compromises. Romney may very well win - "we" won't. There have been several posts lately about the GOP retaking the Senate and holding on to the House, keeping Romney on the straight & narrow - how well did that work with G.W.Bush?
We're approaching decision time, I wish he had some governing experience but I'll still go with Cain. He's the most (electable) articulate advocate of conservatism. A rollback of the entitlement/regulatory state is the only thing that can save us.
Mar '11
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
The left wants expanded government. We want smaller government. Why is it then that when we "compromise," we always seem to end up with more government than when we started? Shouldn't this be breaking our way every once in a while?
Yup, that would be it.
When my guy "reaches across the aisle," I want to hear that it was to deliver a dope-slap or two.
Mar '11
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
Oh, yes, Delingpole. Isn't he the one they call "the British Cassandra"?
Yeah, I'm discouraged.
Mar '11
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
Spot on - which is why I support Mr Cain (not Mr Paul). However, there are big differences between the US and UK, not least of which is the Tea Party, which is unlikely in the UK - it is too far down the socialist road, or over the waterfall, as Mr Steyn says. His prescience is also because he has seen it all before.
Feb '11
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
Politics most definitely is about compromise. Whenever you agree to accept the outcome of a vote, even if it doesn’t go your way, you are compromising. Whenever you accept the legitimacy of any political decision that is even slightly different from your preferred decision, you are compromising. Politics is about compromise. It is about push and pull. If you don’t believe that, then you are no democrat.
It does not follow from this that you should support the "electable" candidate. In fact, trying to decide who to support based on who you think other people are likely to support is usually unwise. But this is because predicting the future is well-nigh impossible. It is not because some self-proclaimed Nostradamus wrote a book.
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
@crowsnest The consequences of Obama being re-elected are, of course, unthinkable. But then, so too were the consequences of the D-Day landings being beaten off the Germans at the beaches unthinkable. I don't recall that being used as an excuse by Eisenhower to replace it with some kind of more manageable, lower-risk strategy.
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
@smatthewstolte And politics IS the problem. Politics is essentially a process of the left rather than the right. So you're right, no, I don't believe in democracy such as it is because democracy has failed us. Perhaps it needs to be based on property ownership, something like that, like in the old days.
Feb '11
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
Do you mean that the right to shape public policy would belong only to property owners? I can imagine reasons that could support a conclusion like that. But if that’s what you are advocating, then it doesn’t make sense to suggest that there would be no need for compromise. Property owners would still have disagreements among each other. They’d have to figure out some non-violent way of resolving their disputes.
Oct '10
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
Western civilization has already crossed the Rubicon through over 100 years of willingness to dilute the American Republic into a demo/mobocracy. A truly brilliant and courageous foundation has simply been urinated away through greed and stupidity.
Any conservative who isn't working hard to develop the independent fortitude to survive the excrement which will inevitably be hitting the fan will will not survive the trauma and be here to begin the restoration process, if God were to give us a second chance.
Feb '11
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
What sorts of steps can a conservative take to develop that independent fortitude?
Dec '10
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
I find it instructive to imagine the candidates functioning within the existing congress.
Contemplate that, for a moment.
Harry Reid is prepared to use the nuclear option, not on something important, but on a mess that even professional politicians agree is a mess, that even some Democrat senators won't vote for.
Where is the middle ground, in that debate? What concessions do we grant to mollify Reid in this instance? Does our "Art Of The Possible" candidate meet Harry Reid half way?
Yes. That is all "Art Of The Possible" people know how to do. When has somebody like that, ever, negotiated with conservative citizens and representatives to ever diminish incremental statism? Not since the early 1980s and never under a Bush. When do conservatives, ever, get a chance to govern?
We already know that moderates and liberals are disasters, yet have never had an opportunity for conservatives to lead in the legislature and executive. Experts will tell us to go with the bleeding and leeches, one more time. Under the circumstances, I suggest we push pins into our always-wrong expert dolls. I suggest we direct pins towards their Twitter hands.