Set Phasers for Stun
In response to my minicolumn last night, Palaeologus wrote:
All together now: "Purify, Shrink, Lose," repeat ad infinitum.
The problem with the "purge" talk stems from it's unconservative nature. I'll leave aside tactical issues; is anyone here actually surprised to find that moderate Republicans, moderates generally, are wind-checking weasels? They're politicians for crying out loud, of course they shift with the polls, it's in their interest.
Isn't the job to move the "moderate position" to the right? Don't we want to make Tom Coburn into a squish, instead of being squish-free?
Palaeologus is mostly correct, but I do have a small - but important - quibble.
A couple months ago, the idea of the GOP taking the Senate was mostly outrageous, and limited to Dick Morris and... Dick Morris, I think. Then expectations rose so far, so fast, that Christine O'Donnell's victory in the Delaware primary launched a mini intraparty civil war, a kind of "Who lost China?" debate over the fate of the GOP Senate majority.
Outrageous!
Taking the Senate back might not even be desirable. Like the mistaken ousting of Gray Davis from the California governor's mansion, the Democrats need a chance to pay for their sins, to own their 18-month-long string of unforced errors. Take the House? Great -- we need to put a stop to all this borrowing. Take the Senate, too? Not so great -- why let Obama look like the statesman he isn't?
But what O'Donnell did do was move the entire Senate GOP caucus (and the rest of them, too, for that matter) solidly to the right. This is what Palaeologus got exactly right. Because while O'Donnell will almost certainly flame out four weeks from tomorrow, her defeat of Mike Castle was a warning shot across the bow of every Republican Senator from Mitch McConnell on down. They now are very well aware that their most credible opponents aren't Democrats in the 2012 or 2014 election, but their own Republican voters in the primaries.
We're not on a course of Purify, Shrink, Lose. We're on a course of Purify, Adjust, Win.
Now let's stay the course, shall we?
- Comment (29)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Set Phasers for Stun
Well, what the heck - Brazil just elected an illiterate clown (an actual clown) to their Congress. His campaign slogan was, "It can't get any worse."
And his promise to voters: he wouldn't do anything at all in Congress, other than report back to the people about what was really going on there.
Jul '10
Re: Set Phasers for Stun
I am generally on board with you Stephen, but I wince at the notion that any strategy that accepts losing as a "smart" deal. I do agree that pushing the party to the right will result in the most positive result - for the country as well as the party. But I beloieve that will be even more effective if we take the Senate. The signal that will send will overwhelm sophisticated political calculations. At least for now.
Sep '10
Re: Set Phasers for Stun
Patrick -- Look back at that Gray Davis recall election, and ask yourself if it was really a win for conservatism, or even merely for the California GOP. I'd argue that all California got was seven-plus years of the worst sort of rinocity. The kind that (almost) makes George Bush's "compassionate conservatism" look good in comparison. But that's a post for another evening!
May '10
Re: Set Phasers for Stun
One of the few things I remember from poli-sci class is that over 90% of voters are, even under the most generous standards, essentially nonideoligical. That simply do not place positions on a left-right spectrum. If you tell them that Christine O'Donnell is "to the right of" Arlen Specter, it is, to them, meaningless. Just so much noise.
So why the hell not just go for it? Why put up with the weasels?
Re: Set Phasers for Stun
I'm with you, Stephen. I see the job of conservative activists as pulling the middle in our direction. If we're successful we won't purge the RINOs, they'll just start trimming their sails in our direction. And that is just fine with me.
Jul '10
Re: Set Phasers for Stun
Succinctly put, George.
Though I must say, there would be a certain bloody satisfaction in purging the Orrin Hatch's of the world. Too bad Chuck Hagel isn't still around...
Aug '10
Re: Set Phasers for Stun
Anchovy olives and Glacier always add to the ambiance. Do you feel that you have walked down from a normally Repub overlook position or walked into a unknown but exciting new vantage point , fraught with risk and opportunity ? I'll tell ya- tea party is the most exciting thing since AUH2O, but I was young and fired up and we gig our behinds kicked. This is bigger than Newt . The dilemma is :who is Spartacus ? Loved the Muir today " I am Breitbartacus". Some messengers , no leaders, much momentum, no targets.
Aug '10
Re: Set Phasers for Stun
Anchovy olives and Glacier always add to the ambiance. Do you feel that you have walked down from a normally Repub overlook position or walked into a unknown but exciting new vantage point , fraught with risk and opportunity ? I'll tell ya- tea party is the most exciting thing since AUH2O, but I was young and fired up and we got our behinds kicked. This is bigger than Newt . The dilemma is :who is Spartacus ? Loved the Muir today " I am Breitbartacus". Some messengers , no leaders, much momentum, no targets.
Jul '10
Re: Set Phasers for Stun
Edited.
All I'll say is why say you're gonna lose a seat when the battle is not over?
Edited on Oct 4, 2010 at 7:03pmSep '10
Re: Set Phasers for Stun
Great comments so far, everyone -- thanks. One of them, in fact, gave me the inspiration for tomorrow's. (Hint: It involves an old Ralph Peters novel and a salty old Army General.) But looking over what I wrote this evening, you are all owed an apology. It's just dreadful when I'm the one providing the sober commentary. Tomorrow, we'll put all this behind us.
Jul '10
Re: Set Phasers for Stun
That's a good point, Stephen. Undoubtedly, targeting some "me-too Republicans" is useful. While an occasionally appropriate tactic, it's not a strategy. It's a long, hard slog to succeed in a representative republic. The key is to convince normal, non-ideological (as they see themselves) folk that conservative positions are sensible positions. I think we are, though losing, in the game.
Contemporary American skepticism of government bureaucracy is the proof. Were Americans broadly skeptical of the Great Society? No, mostly committed ideologues and racists opposed it, though it was obviously counterproductive. Normal folk no longer assume that spending = results.
We can win this fight, but self-gratification ("purges") must be subordinate to convincing folks why we're right.
Jul '10
Re: Set Phasers for Stun
May '10
Re: Set Phasers for Stun
Winning the Senate & House would be a big deal if the Republicans manage to deliver on their agenda. If, OTOH, they can't, then their failure just gives Obama cover come the next election.
Anyway, I have to disagree with here--at least a bit. The Davis recall wasn't a bad idea; the bad idea was in backing Arnold for the position of replacement part. This is an "I told you so" moment for me because I spoke loudly against him at the time.
What makes it bad, though, was that the GOP could have won the election with Tom McClintock who was more qualified and more conservative.
Bustamante ended up with less than 32%--I'm sure some of the independent vote would have gone into his bucket--but McClintock had an excellent chance to win the election if Arnold hadn't run. If McClintock won, he would have done a much better job of addressing the state's economic issues.
My point: it's still a win if you can do something positive once in office. In that light, Arnold winning wasn't good for conservatives. It was just good for Arnold.
May '10
Re: Set Phasers for Stun
I have to admit something else: I'm pulling for even a slender minority. It would be nice to start playing offense again--in a lot of ways, defense is easier in politics but you don't set the agenda.
I want conservatives to start setting the agenda.
Re: Set Phasers for Stun
David Jones: What makes it bad, though, was that the GOP could have won the election with Tom McClintock who was more qualified and more conservative.
Bustamante ended up with less than 32%
David, I'm with you. Boy do I admire Tom McClintock and wish he had become governor. While Tom would have easily dispatched the Round Mound of Sound, the Terminator was another matter.
Jul '10
Re: Set Phasers for Stun
Never forget that three words not spoken gave us Bill Clinton as president.
What three words were those?
"Read My Lips."
Oh, they were promised. Quite loudly.
But when the Scenerio that was described actually occured, and Brokaw, Jennings and Rather began a full court press, and Sam Donaldson said, "It is time for the President to realize he's not running for office now, he's running the country."
Well....
He said, "Oh, Okay!"
Had he called a press conference and gotten in front of the cameras, veto pen in hand, and said what we were all waiting for him to say, "Read My Lips, No New Taxes." Ross Perot would have fared about as well as John Anderson.
.
Dick Morriss has it right that voters are looking for sinserity this election. People who MEAN WHAT THEY SAY!
And the RINOs had better realize that their actions will speak louder than their words. They had better be albe to distinguish the difference between Compromise and Surrender. They had better be able to figure out that they're being sent to Washington to do a job, not to be a title.
Or 2012 may be even more shocking than 2010.
Edited on Oct 4, 2010 at 9:37pmMay '10
Re: Set Phasers for Stun
Around 40% of the population call themselves conservative. Somewhere between 5%-10% of the Senate population are conservative. I suspect that Purify-Shrink-Lose is not a huge danger at the moment. People getting excited and involved for the first time about politics, holding their representatives accountable, is a great thing. Who cares if the execution is not "perfect" as defined by some pundits or "experts." I believe that the trend is heading strongly in the correct direction and worry only about the tenacity of the movement.
I think it is great that the citizens of Delaware elected O'Donnell over her moderate opponent. The moderate wanted to lower the standard of living of everyone in the USA via a carbon tax to combat the hypothetical effects of a scientific hypothesis that has resisted every attempt to prove itself - where even the raw data used to formulate it is suspect. Given the choice, I can't find a lot of fault with their selection.
May '10
Re: Set Phasers for Stun
The real problem will come after the election. You're going to have a bunch of wide-eyed freshmen up on the Hill and the friendly "veterans" will guide them on what they have to do to get the right committee assignments and more importantly, begin to become team players by learning how to work the phones and the lobbyists. Oh, never in the office, that would be illegal. They will be shown the National Republican Club of Capitol Hill.
Or as they bill it, "A short distance from the U.S. Capitol stands the Capitol Hill Club, a refined and elegant environment for your business, political, and social activities."
Those staff hires will mostly be among the campaign staff and their job will be stay in campaign mode, working the local press back home and designing the myriad of "official communications with constituents" that will be four color layouts and every bit as slick as campaign literature. But better. These will be printed by the government and franked through the postal service.
*continued*
May '10
Re: Set Phasers for Stun
*from above*
They will be taught that freshmen have no real power, that only comes with seniority. And that comes with reelection. And that comes from doing as you're told. Because if you don't then there's no more PAC money, no more help from the RNC or the House/Senate Campaign Committees or anyone else.
And this depressing charade starts all over again.
Unless they vow to caucus on their own and be consequential.
Re: Set Phasers for Stun
I've been reading a pretty great book this week called Last Call, about Prohibition, by Daniel Okrent. It's made me realize that ideas -- especially big ones -- need to percolate a bit out in the culture. (Of course, the example of Prohibition isn't such a happy one, but it's the process that interests me here....)
People bruited it about for years until it seemed ripe. I think that's what the left does, extremely well. Imagine telling a person from Calvin Coolidge's administration all of the pies that government has its fingers in, all of the ways it intrudes in our lives, in the name of "helping." But these lefty welfare ideas just kept getting talked about, mentioned, suggested, until at a certain point they seemed....plausible.
We need to do the same -- with the flat tax, with school choice, with a host of other things. Maybe that's the best thing that can come out of this election, and the Tea Party movement: it's making a lot of our ideas seem inevitable.