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:
Aug '10
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
raycon Dont know to consider that eschatology scatologically, but you skirted right into the problem. I do think we should be pooling our fortitude and using our collective good sense and energy to accomplish something rather more pointed than sitting in a public square calling and repeating like drunken episcopalians .
Jul '10
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
Politics under the Constitution is about consensus. The powers are balanced so that only strongly supported consensus positions should stand a chance to become federal law. Unnecessary compromise is at the root of federal overreach and, yes, tyranny.
Feb '11
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
I’m not convinced, yet, that the whole notion of an ‘Art Of The Possible Candidate’ is coherent. If it is, I don’t understand it. I’m assuming that no one is advancing the ‘Art of constructing the square circle candidate’, as an alternative.
First bit of clarification: Do you mean by the AOTPC, that candidate who would be nominated by conservatives who place inordinate value on electability? Or do you mean that candidate who himself believes that politics should be the Art Of The Possible?
What, exactly, defines the alternative here? Would politics be not an art but a science? That sounds very Wilsonian & is surely not what anyone means to advocate.
I suspect that if I could get clear on exactly what folks here are trying to say, I still would find most of it indefensible. But I honestly would like to have a clearer understanding of what you all are advocating.
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
Winning the presidential election means appealing to people who pay no attention to these things whatsoever, and are surprised to discover, upon hearing a soundbite from that one debate that they sorta meant to tivo, that the Republican candidate wants to demolish the entire entitlement state. It will seem to be rather . . . extreme, dude. Why would you do that when you could just cut the military and raise some taxes? What sort of a raving lunatic is this guy?
"Electability" often means "will not scare the people who have little grasp of the realities of the situation, and often vote on hair, sax-playing ability, or other imprimaturs of Cool."
I have a dear relative who believes the entire reason for the deficit is the Iraq war. These people are unobtainable by the right. The people who suspect that public spending might be a problem as least as grave as Mr. Monopoly Moneybags kicking down their doors and carting off their sacks with dollar signs on the side - that's different. But they won't tumble for Ron Paul screeching about the error of putting a round in bin Laden's noggin.
Apr '11
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
Neither Perry nor Romney are David Cameron. The possible includes quite a lot more than Cameron has managed. Look to the states, heck, look to Canada, and you can see that people who Mr. Delingpole condemns (not just in this post, but in others) are doing pretty good jobs at limiting government. Not in every respect; this is a battle on many fronts. Unions, though, would be dealt severe blows whether Perry or Romney or Cain get in. Global Warming is essentially defeated in Congress. All of the candidates are keen to attack the budget. The right of the Conservative party, the Bill Cashes and the Lord Tebbits, are in many ways still to the left of all of the major candidates.
If Obama wins, the Employee Free Choice Act and more SCOTUS justices would make it very difficult indeed to ever cut a budget again. If any of the main republicans win, there will be a right wing government. Gardasil was terrible, but for the big scandal after a 10 year period running a state? It's not too bad. When Perry's positions are a little more fleshed out, they'll be good. Mitt has good stuff now.
May '10
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
All of this criticism of "Art Of The Possible" people is causing me cognitive dissonance. If it is not possible to elect a certain candidate, then it's not possible, and we shouldn't attempt it. It's not possible.
Please stop attacking a tautology. It's nonsense.
I guess y'all are really saying that common assessments of what is possible are in error. If so, please say it that way. The attacks on "Art of the Possible" as some sort of unneccesary compromise are nonsense.
Feb '11
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
There you go, Functionary. Pointing out the contradictions. You know what that sort of sounds like? It sort of sounds like heightening the contradictions. Gee, who said that?
You see, we’re on to you, pal. You and your logic.
(Logic is a plot.)
Jul '10
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
Functionary: All of this criticism of "Art Of The Possible" people is causing me cognitive dissonance. If it is not possible to elect a certain candidate, then it's not possible, and we shouldn't attempt it. It's not possible.
Please stop attacking a tautology. It's nonsense.
I guess y'all are really saying that common assessments of what is possible are in error. If so, please say it that way. The attacks on "Art of the Possible" as some sort of unneccesary compromise are nonsense. · Oct 9 at 5:01pm
No, in my case I am saying that the tautology has become an excuse to accept disastrous policies and candidates and the phrase has become a marker to indicate that some scoundrel is at it again.
May '10
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
Sisyphus
Sisyphus
Functionary: All of this criticism of "Art Of The Possible" people is causing me cognitive dissonance. If it is not possible to elect a certain candidate, then it's not possible, and we shouldn't attempt it. It's not possible.
Please stop attacking a tautology. It's nonsense.
I guess y'all are really saying that common assessments of what is possible are in error. If so, please say it that way. The attacks on "Art of the Possible" as some sort of unneccesary compromise are nonsense. · Oct 9 at 5:01pm
No, in my case I am saying that the tautology has become an excuse to accept disastrous policies and candidates and the phrase has become a marker to indicate that some scoundrel is at it again. · Oct 9 at 6:06pm
I see. Impossibility is merely an excuse.
Dec '10
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
What is desirable is not doable; what is doable is not desirable; therefore, it is urgent to wait.
Mar '11
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
Eh?
It's true that democracy failed us in electing Mr Obama. And Mr Lileks has pointed out that most voters are not paying attention. But, as Mr Churchill pointed out, it's not as bad as the alternatives.
If Mr Obama gets re-elected we will know we are well and truly scr...., err, in big trouble. We shall see.
Oct '10
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
We begin by knowing that there is a God and He is the Author of our faith. We trust Him to keep us in His will as we seek the good.
We steel ourselves to the chaos that will inevitably follow a collapse of the business as usual civil climate we all grew up with. If you have spent much of your life in the "third world" you already know much of the drill.
Do not expect from the government anything the brochure says you should expect.
Need help from violent assailants? Forget 911, look to Mr. Shotgun. Don't have one? Now is the time to get to know him.
Expect fresh greens from Safeway? You might consider an alternate source... perhaps in your own back yard.
Love fresh bread? Do you know how to bake your own? Have 250 pounds of wheat and a grinder?
Like lots of frozen foods? Do you have a generator for power for the freezer?
The list goes on and on. Let your imagination soar... but then act!
Oct '10
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
As above, we start our journey into the post Western world by knowing what we believe and why. Then the hard part begins. Think of you favorite survival movie. A lot of the stuff regarding bad guys and survival can be very instructive. As I said above, if you have spent a lot of your time in third word countries, you already know that the "government" will be of no use to you. Get in a car wreck in Mexico? Settle with the other guy for cash within the next half-hour, or the policia will take you both in for a day or two until you settle up, and add their cut into the settlement.
That is the future we have invited upon ourselves. Do it yourself or live with the alternative. And forget the high school civics lessons. No longer true.
Jul '10
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
Functionary: Sisyphus
Sisyphus
Functionary: All of this criticism of "Art Of The Possible" people is causing me cognitive dissonance. If it is not possible to elect a certain candidate, then it's not possible, and we shouldn't attempt it. It's not possible.
Please stop attacking a tautology. It's nonsense.
I guess y'all are really saying that common assessments of what is possible are in error. If so, please say it that way. The attacks on "Art of the Possible" as some sort of unneccesary compromise are nonsense. · Oct 9 at 5:01pm
No, in my case I am saying that the tautology has become an excuse to accept disastrous policies and candidates and the phrase has become a marker to indicate that some scoundrel is at it again. · Oct 9 at 6:06pm
I see. Impossibility is merely an excuse. · Oct 9 at 6:31pm
A false pretext, actually.
Aug '10
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
I credited Mr. Delingpole with being well informed, up to the point at which he categorized both Herman Cain and Ron Paul as candidates "whose views more closely represent what needs to be done".
Ron Paul is a lunatic. And further proves it every time he opens his mouth.
His views do not remotely represent what needs to be done nor, for that matter, those of anyone I could even minimally respect or want anywhere even conceivably within reach of a seat of true power.
Herman Cain is a very different story. A practical, down-to-earth problem-solver with the experience, imagination, and drive to take hold of an out-of-control economy, he also strikes me as someone with both the common sense and intelligence to surround himself with those who are at the top in their own fields and build a strong, solid administration that can work to rebuild the present while laying the groundwork for the future-- in otherwords, the ideal chief executive.
I'll happily support him all the way to the White House.
I hope he will not again be done the extreme disservice of having his name mentioned with that of Ron Paul.
Nov '10
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
Oct '10
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
To a certain degree, I agree with James. But we shouldn't kid ourselves; what needs to be done will not be popular, nor are we guaranteed to hold on to power afterwards.
Jul '11
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
Shoshanna: I credited Mr. Delingpole with being well informed, up to the point at which he categorized both Herman Cain and Ron Paul as candidates "whose views more closely represent what needs to be done".
Ron Paul is a lunatic. And further proves it every time he opens his mouth.
I disagree completely. Ron Paul is a veteran of the Senate. He usually will add things to a spending bill in favor of his district - and then vote against it. In other words, he votes his principles, but knows how in the absence of a consensus, work the system. Cain is a great guy and I will certainly vote for him if the time comes, however he lacks the savvy to work within the Political system - that we know of. In other words, he is not a known entity - and has a higher risk of turning into a Cameron.
BTW @Delingpole - welcome, fiunally, to my side :-)
Mar '11
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
James: There’s a world of difference between courageous daring and foolhardy recklessness. I’m entirely unconvinced that pulling the lever for Ron Paul because he talks a more radical, often wild-eyed game is some great act of noble patriotism rather than a ghastly failure of judgment.
It is not as if our choice in this election is between a great conservative philosopher statesman who is articulating the cause of limited government and has the chops to pull it off, and some other schlub that doesn’t scare 51%. NOBODY in this race occupies the former position.
Mar '11
Re: If politics is the art of the possible, we're toast
Re: “politics IS the problem. Politics is essentially a process of the left rather than the right.”
This is an opinion that I have found common among many libertarians, and it is why I cannot call myself one, though I share some convictions in common.
I will refrain from writing a dissertation in rebuttal and will merely note that many libertarians seem to think politics is some ancillary activity that diverts the best men from what they ought to devote their time to—trade. We tolerate only as a necessity—like bathroom breaks on a road trip.
To say that this view inverts the order of these activities that we find, for example, in Aristotle is an understatement. But it is also not the view held by any of the earlier classical liberals.
Or, said more succinctly (although, not without paradox): politics recognizes man’s humanity and the activity proper to it, and thereby it is profoundly moderate and conservative. It is when politics becomes theology that it becomes most dangerous.