It's 2013 and We Won. Should We "Ram It Down Their Throats" if Necessary?
Let's suppose:
All breaks right in November 2012. We get our guy in the White House and big majorities in the Senate and House. We're going to change the world at last, by God: We ran on the Ryan vision and won!
But.....just as we begin to implement the vision--RyanCare, say, comes out of committee in all its detail--the American people get gun shy: The polls indicate that it's 2009 all over again, as Americans, capricious as they are, have now become wary of "radical" reform; tea-party scale marches in Washington and elsewhere protest our "draconian measures"; shrill, outraged (and misinformed, of course) seniors crowd townhall meetings in a Summer of Discontent. In short, it turns out the 2012 landslide was more anti-Obama than pro-us.
Do we conservatives do what the liberals of 2009 did? Do we disregard the manifest will of the people and "ram it down their throats" because, darnit, we ran on this stuff, and now we got the numbers? Do we plow ahead because "we know what's best"....and nevermind that this is the very conceit that outraged us in 2009?
Or do we compromise and draft more modest, bipartisan, sorta-center-rightish measures, since (rats!) hardcore conservatism isn't nearly as popular as we hoped it was?
It's a plausible scenario--maybe even the most likely one--so we should think it over.
- Comment (46)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Sep '10
Re: It's 2013 and We Won. Should We "Ram It Down Their Throats" if Necessary?
Ramming speed! This is no longer about politics. This is do or die (if we have not already passed that point). Tear as much of the guts out of the federal government as possible and then the pols that survive the political bloodbath can spend a few decades trying to rebuild leviathan. Hopefully the republic will survive. Anything short of a drastic reversal will end us.
Jan '11
Re: It's 2013 and We Won. Should We "Ram It Down Their Throats" if Necessary?
Neither.
Let me use a basketball metaphor. In a basketball game, the easiest play is a clean fast break where the defense is far behind, and all you have to do is dunk it. But very often, although your team gets the ball, the other team gets back on defense. That's what basketball guys mean when they call out "numbers!" If you have the numbers, go for the dunk. But if you don't have the numbers, your better strategy is to pull up and go into your half-court game.
I say that government is about consent of the governed. If we don't have the numbers, and the people don't consent, I say the better strategy is to pull up and go into a different mode. I agree with Pat Caddell. Stop. Make your case. Persuade. Do the hard work of actual politics. If you have the right answers, don't be afraid to stop and answer questions.
Sep '10
Re: It's 2013 and We Won. Should We "Ram It Down Their Throats" if Necessary?
It already happened in Wisconsin. We flipped the Governorship, and both houses of the legislature last fall. Then we rammed through an end to monopoly bargaining for public unions. The protests were massive, some days exceeding tens of thousands. Union thugs went into full intimidation mode. Millions of dollars were spent on a non partisan Supreme Court race in an attempt to turn it into a referrendum on the Republicans.
And we won.
Dec '10
Re: It's 2013 and We Won. Should We "Ram It Down Their Throats" if Necessary?
You have to win the argument. I am not saying you have to win the argument before you "ram it down" I am just saying you have to understand "ramming it down" for what it is. A failure to win the argument.
If I had to make the choice I would say ram it down now and make your argument later, but that's a poor choice. Best case in that senerio is that the economy picks up so much after the ram down that the independent voters lose interest in changing the new status quo, but in all likelyhood you are going to end up right back where you started 12 yrs later when the progressive rewrite history.
Sep '10
Re: It's 2013 and We Won. Should We "Ram It Down Their Throats" if Necessary?
The playing field isn't level because of the media. Democrats are able to get away with this stuff because their operatives will report what they want, when they want. So it won't be the same for Republicans.
But this is precisely why Republicans need a good communicator in the White House and someone who won't play into the media games. We need to have the argument and we need to win it, as Nyadnar17 says, then things will fall into place.
Republicans need to embrace Democrats' screaming hyperbole's, because at some point the tantrums will have to end. After "Republicans want to kill women" where are they going to go rhetorically? They are at the edge, keep pushing!
May '10
Re: It's 2013 and We Won. Should We "Ram It Down Their Throats" if Necessary?
Mark Belling Fan: It already happened in Wisconsin...... we rammed through an end to monopoly bargaining for public unions. The protests were massive,....
And we won. ·
But wasn't most of the demonstrating from the special-interest Left? What if the outrage in 2013 is from "ordinary Americans," as it was in 2009?
Franco:
.. this is precisely why Republicans need a good communicator in the White House and someone who won't play into the media games. We need to have the argument and we need to win it, as Nyadnar17 says, then things will fall into place.
Agreed. But what if they don't fall into place? What if, try as we might, we just can't win the message war...and our once-in-a-generation window looks to be closing?
Is it any-means-necessary jam-down time? Or do we accept the people's will and reach across the aisle (which, come to think of it, will be our only option if we're short of 60 senators)?
I'm inclined to think it's jam-down time if we can somehow pull it off....but I must acknowledge my own hypocrisy.
Feb '11
Re: It's 2013 and We Won. Should We "Ram It Down Their Throats" if Necessary?
I'm with KC and Nyadnar. Win the argument. Nothing will be solid without that.
Aug '10
Re: It's 2013 and We Won. Should We "Ram It Down Their Throats" if Necessary?
The masses have become asses. Nothing in our Republic is working as it should. I say "Ram it!" We're in a civil war, declared by 'progressives'. For now it's cold, but that won't last when the excrement hits the fan - economically..
Lincoln had to suspend habeus corpus and jail some newspaper editors temporarily.
Oct '10
Re: It's 2013 and We Won. Should We "Ram It Down Their Throats" if Necessary?
If by 'Ramming it down' we could make changes that wouldn't be undone for a generation or two, then of course that would be the honorable course and damn the consequences. But since everything could be altered in an election cycle or two, dang it--wait, that's how we'll stop Obamacare--then I guess we'd better convince the electorate.
So the search is on for a great communicator. Have I mentioned Ryan/Rubio...
May '10
Re: It's 2013 and We Won. Should We "Ram It Down Their Throats" if Necessary?
Hmmm, do we test it, or not. The Dems tested it with Obamacare and failed rather spectacularly. Wisconsin gives me courage on this issue. As Mark Belling Fan notes well, they threw everything they could at it, in a lavender state at best. And we won.
If we can do that in Wisconsin, what does that tell us about the stomach of the country? Iron-clad, it seems to me. And the difference will be in 2012, we ran on cutting spending in big, bold letters, front and center. They didn't run on Obamacare, and people were taken by surprise by it.
As the RINO squish voice of moderation, I say go for it. Let the dice fly, as Caesar said (often fatalistically and wrongly translated as "the die is cast.")
Mar '11
Re: It's 2013 and We Won. Should We "Ram It Down Their Throats" if Necessary?
KC Mulville: Neither.
I say that government is about consent of the governed. If we don't have the numbers, and the people don't consent, I say the better strategy is to pull up and go into a different mode. I agree with Pat Caddell. Stop. Make your case. Persuade. Do the hard work of actual politics. If you have the right answers, don't be afraid to stop and answer questions. · Apr 15 at 7:47am
Absolutely - beautifully put. The basketball analogy is helpful, but it implies that there are two equally valid teams. In this game there is, ahem, right and wrong. The wrong side had to try to ram through as much as possible. Now of course the Dems don't consider they are wrong, but deep down they know that their more radical and really basic ideas are not mainstream. Our ideas are consistent with the majority of Americans and the founding principles.
We have reason and morality on our side. We can and should be respectful of the process and the people. If it takes baby steps, so be it. Truth will win if we are consistent to it.
Edited on Apr 15, 2011 at 11:47amApr '11
Re: It's 2013 and We Won. Should We "Ram It Down Their Throats" if Necessary?
I think this is why we must be making the case against Obamacare and high deficit spending now and frequently. We need to state things clearly, and even better that we need to do so in positive terms.
The Democrats say only government can take care of you; we say the government needs to get out of your way so you can take care of yourself as you choose.
If we wait until after 2013 to make the case to the end of Obamacare and the Welfare state as we know it, we'll be stuck with the choice of whether or not to "ram it down their throats."
Edited on Apr 15, 2011 at 11:53amAug '10
Re: It's 2013 and We Won. Should We "Ram It Down Their Throats" if Necessary?
Fight to change the way people look at government and its responsibilities. Fight the philosophical battle. Don't get caught up in a short term tactical victory, this is a fight for the souls of mankind. Do we want people who believe in freedom, or those who are willing to become a part of a species being?
Win the argument.
Mar '11
Re: It's 2013 and We Won. Should We "Ram It Down Their Throats" if Necessary?
If we reach that happy state in 2013 the media and lefties (but I repeat myself) will go crazy, there will be rioting in the streets (a giant version of Wisconsin), all hell will break loose, but President Ryan (doesn't that sound great?) will calmly and confidently direct the Senate and House to enact his plan.
All the Democrat senators and congressional representatives will take a row-boat to Cuba (the land of their dreams), hoping to avoid Quorums, (not sure if that rule applies at the Federal level), and be lost at sea, provoking a Constitutional crisis...
Oh, sorry, Rob is the one who does fantasies (I am half-way through the latest podcast, and need to get some anti-depressive medication).
Update: We are already seeing the beginnings of this today in the House vote.
Edited on Apr 15, 2011 at 12:27pmMay '10
Re: It's 2013 and We Won. Should We "Ram It Down Their Throats" if Necessary?
Great question, Scott! This is a philosophically terrible answer, but there's something to be said for being right. If one party says, "We're going to stop promising things we can't deliver" and the other screams, "They're murdering orphans! Vote for me and The Rich will pay for everything!" there's not a ton of room for middle ground.
That said, I love this point --
If conservatives win in 2012, I'd imagine it's because we've won the size-of-government argument; no ramming should be necessary. If class warfare wins in 2012 or 2013, we... lose the future.
(I'm sorry.)
May '10
Re: It's 2013 and We Won. Should We "Ram It Down Their Throats" if Necessary?
First, the scenario must be a electoral victory without doubt (Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004). Between January 2001 and September 2001, the media and/or the democratic party constantly brought up the Supreme Court's December 2001 decision. For the next 7 years, the administration's focus was skewed to fight Islamic terrorists, and no policy decision to limit the role of government could move forward.
Second, the new president must be a good communicator (no strategery, etc.). If the two prerequisites are satisfied, see Nathaniel's post.
Nathaniel Wright: Fight to change the way people look at government and its responsibilities. Fight the philosophical battle. Don't get caught up in a short term tactical victory, this is a fight for the souls of mankind. Do we want people who believe in freedom, or those who are willing to become a part of a species being?
Win the argument. · Apr 15 at 11:54am
Oct '10
Re: It's 2013 and We Won. Should We "Ram It Down Their Throats" if Necessary?
KC Mulville: Neither.
... I say that government is about consent of the governed. ... Make your case. Persuade. Do the hard work of actual politics.
We can do this. See my post on the member feed.
Jul '10
Re: It's 2013 and We Won. Should We "Ram It Down Their Throats" if Necessary?
Make Andrew Klavan the anti-czar of communication and do what needs to be done.
May '10
Re: It's 2013 and We Won. Should We "Ram It Down Their Throats" if Necessary?
The argument should be won before the elections, not after. Republicans should already be arguing for Ryan's Roadmap. Their campaigns must explicitly lay out their budget plans.
Polls are meaningless. They never offer full context. Votes, on the other hand, represent not just citizens' views on specific issues but the balance of their views. For example, Romney voters in 2008 generally prioritized economic interests, though most probably had other interests as well.
Only votes matter. Republicans must argue for reforms now and make their intentions crystal clear before next November.
If voters reject them, so be it. Honoring representative government means ensuring citizens know what they're voting for, but it's fruitless for politicians to put their fingers to the wind every few months.
Dec '10
Re: It's 2013 and We Won. Should We "Ram It Down Their Throats" if Necessary?
I believe "ramming " to be the absolutely wrong solution. All of America is on a budget clock. When the clock hits zero we will have a financial doomsday; however conservative Americans are also on a demography clock. When the next generation of immigrants, young people, and unmarried women arrives, conservatism in this country will meet an electoral doomsday. If we can't win the arguments of entitlements, public sector unions, and taxes now, its better if we let things come to a head while there is still a sizable portion of this country that is conservative enough to recover from a financial meltdown.
Its a matter of treating the symptoms not the disease. If we ram the medicine America needs down its throat, my fear is that we will merely be covering up the symptoms, thus enabling welfare babies more time to increase in number without changing their ideology. In a generation or two they will reverse all our reforms and by then conservatives will be such a small percentage of the population there will be no hope for recovery from the inevitable crash that will follow.
If we don't win the argument now there will be no later.