The Significance of the Upset in Delaware
Christine O'Donnell's victory over Mike Castle in Delaware has certainly occasioned a dust-up. Mike Murphy and Karl Rove were by no means alone in being annoyed. But I think they both missed the significance of what has happened.
As I have remarked on this site more than once, had I been eligible to vote in Delaware, I probably would have voted for Castle. To this, I can add that, had I been eligible to vote in Alaska, I probably would have voted for Lisa Murkowski.
That said, I was by no means upset that Joe Miller and Christine O'Donnell won. It is, of course, possible -- many say likely -- that this means that the Republicans will lose a Senate seat in Delaware which otherwise they might have won. But this may be less important in the long run than another consequence.
As I have argued at length elsewhere, our political parties are odd entities. They are neither fish nor fowl. All had their origins as counter-conspiracies aimed at checking what each at the time represented as a grave threat to republican liberty. All were once principled – but because of federalism, the separation of powers, and the passage of time, all tended also to become parties of patronage: coalitions in service to local constituencies and special interests.
Lisa Murkowski and Mike Castle prided themselves on bringing home the bacon. In running this year, both represented themselves as figures who had looked after the interests of the folks back home. Both were overwhelmed by insurgencies aimed at transforming the Republican Party once again into a party of principle. Neither adequately attended to the direction in which the political wind was blowing.
The real significance of their defeat is the reconstitution of the Republican Party as a party of principle aimed at preventing a group of conspirators from destroying republican liberty in this country. Mike Murphy and Karl Rove are political tacticians of great eminence. Neither is a strategist. They know how to win battles, and this they have done. Neither understands how to win a war. Neither understands what it takes to effect a durable political realignment.
Abraham Lincoln once said, “In this and like communities, public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed. Consequently he who moulds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed.”
Joe Miller and Christine O’Donnell may be inferior to Lisa Murkowski and Mike Castle in most particulars, but in one particular they are superior. They will both appeal to first principles in making the case against what Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid have attempted to shove down our throats. They will attempt to mold public sentiment. They will contribute to the great rethinking that is underway. Murkowski and Castle were first and foremost members of a party of patronage; Miller and O’Donnell – whatever their defects may be in other regards – are parties to the attempt to restore high principle to American politics.
Tactics are necessary. You can win political battles by way of maneuver, and it is important to win. But strategy is more important. To win a political war, you must make the argument and make it forcefully and persuasively. When Abraham Lincoln confronted Stephen Douglas in his quest to be elected to the Senate from Illinois, he was outmaneuvered, and he lost the battle – but, in making his argument as forcefully as he did in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, he laid the foundations for winning the war.
One could reply that it is absurd to compare Joe Miller and Christine O’Donnell with Abraham Lincoln. But it is good to remember that, when Lincoln first confronted Douglas, he, too, was a virtual unknown. Moreover, if they are inferior to Lincoln (as they almost certainly are), it does not matter. Murkowski and Castle were not intent on molding public sentiment. Miller and O’Donnell are. We do not live in ordinary times.
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.
- Comment (24)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: The Significance of the Upset in Delaware
Don't get me started on Lincoln...
Jun '10
Re: The Significance of the Upset in Delaware
Paul A. Rahe: "Both were overwhelmed by insurgencies aimed at transforming the Republican Party once again into a party of principle."
Spot on. I find it curious that so many people like myself have become insurgents for this very reason. Curious because the Tea Party movement is so thoroughly grassroots. We the People have not forgotten our founding principles even if our leadership has.
Jun '10
Re: The Significance of the Upset in Delaware
I think you've hit right on the source of the disagreement (about O'Donnell) among conservatives. How you see it depends on the time frame you're looking at. Rove is looking out six weeks, to the election. Others are looking out six years, or even six generations.
Sep '10
Re: The Significance of the Upset in Delaware
All great points and there is a refreshing lack of condescension.
I would add the fact that many of us are absolutely fed up with Republicans who give cover to Democrats on crucial votes. For each Republican who votes for cap and trade or immigration reform, there is a Democrat from a purple State holding up these votes as an example of why he too finds the bill acceptable. Only a few people read these bills and know what is in them, certainly not those in the media. They just use a Republican/Democrat scorecard as a shortcut and then get some GOP squish to disparage his colleagues and call it a debate.
How much mileage did Democrats get out of claiming that Republicans are all extremists because none of them voted for Obamacare? How much harder was it for Democrats to get their own on board, and what did all that horsetrading reveal about them? It wasn't simply because the bill was egregious. The stark contrast prevented Democrats from pretending this was yet another bill that the extremist Republicans were the only dissenters, and the Democrats who did vote for the bill are stuck with the baggage.
May '10
Re: The Significance of the Upset in Delaware
Thank you Paul. Happy Constitution Day!
Jul '10
Re: The Significance of the Upset in Delaware
The Southern Campaign
Nathaniel Greene was given the responsibility of the Southern Campaign by General Washington.
The first thing Greene noted was the tenuous supply position that the British faced in the Colonies.
So he would engage the enemy, loose the battle, and draw the British out of supply.
In the overall revolutionary war, Greene didn’t win any battles, but he won the campaign.
George Smith Patton once said, in describing the need for The Redball Express, “Strategy and Tactics win battles, Logistics win Wars.”
This isn’t a game to the Tea Party.
This is a struggle for the Character, and Life of the United States.
The Tea Party is tired of a ratchet, they see this election as time for a pendulum.
The Tea Party holds the Republican party in as much esteem as the Democrats, yet they see in the Republican Party at least a glimmer of hope for the future.
Delaware was a Logistical victory for the Tea Party.
May '10
Re: The Significance of the Upset in Delaware
Jaydee_007: So he would engage the enemy, loose the battle, and draw the British out of supply.
In the overall revolutionary war, Greene didn’t win any battles, but he won the campaign. · Sep 17 at 7:54am
This is a small point, but the outcomes at Cowpens, Kings Mountain and - to a lesser extent - Guilford Courthouse are to the contrary. (And, yes, I realize Greene was not the commander on the ground at Cowpens and Kings Mountain.)
May '10
Re: The Significance of the Upset in Delaware
She's going to win in Delaware.
Her Republican establishment foes have badly overshot their mark, discrediting themselves. They put out the story that she's "embarrassing and delusional". Now the public is going to hear her speak and debate and their reaction is going to be: "She sounds pretty damn good for someone who was supposed to be such a basket case. Who cares about her personal problems? Who has none of those? Her principles and policy proposal sound a lot more like what this country needs than Coons'. I'm going with the wave."
Jul '10
Re: The Significance of the Upset in Delaware
Colnel (breveted General) William Campbell commanded The Battle of Kings Mountain (2 months before Greene took command)
General Daniel Morgan Commanded at Cowpens (Only one month after Greene named commander)
Battle of Guilford Court House (From Atlas of Military History)
The battle, although actually a draw, so weakened the British that they withdrew to Charleston, where Greene penned them during the remaining months of the war.
Greene's Southern Campaign showed remarkable strategic expression. What he excelled in was dividing, eluding and tiring his opponent through the use of long marches in retreat. When in actual conflict he would force the British to pay heavily for what ended up being a temporary advantage; this was a price that he recognized that they could not afford. However, he was defeated in every pitched battle he fought against the British during his time as southern commander.
Edited on Sep 17, 2010 at 9:25amMay '10
Re: The Significance of the Upset in Delaware
Interesting bit of trivia that is truly neither here nor there - my office overlooks Morgan Square in Spartanburg and I'm about eye level with the statue of General Morgan.
May '10
Re: The Significance of the Upset in Delaware
Joe Miller and Christine O’Donnell may be inferior to Lisa Murkowski and Mike Castle in most particulars, but in one particular they are superior.
Why because they haven't been in Washington long enough or there yet?
Jul '10
Re: The Significance of the Upset in Delaware
one of the very few British Commanders who actually looked good during the Southern Campaign was Lieut General Archibald Campbell of Inverneill, Argyll. In my website, I have a huge section on this gentleman. If you're interested, go to www.knapdalepeople.com.
If I do say so myself (and I do) I did a good job there. I finally received a book by David K Wilson, "The Southern Strategy: Britain's conquest of South Carolina and Georgia, 1775 to 1780.
Jul '10
Re: The Significance of the Upset in Delaware
Just an FYI. Christine O'Donnell has raised 1.7M$US in a few days.
Jul '10
Re: The Significance of the Upset in Delaware
Dick Morris has said 2010 isn't about idiology as much as it is about SINCERETY.
Thus far I think that the Tea Party Judgement regarding sincerety has proven better than the Establishment's judgement when you consider the actions of Murkowski and Crist, and possibly Castle after their defeats.
Re: The Significance of the Upset in Delaware
I'm certainly pulling for her. If O'Donnell doesn't win this time around, she or someone else articulating constitutional conservatism will prevail on a later date--that's the strategic part of all this. Perhaps next time, Delaware Republican officials will pay some attention to the conservative wing before going all-in behind a RINO.
May '10
Re: The Significance of the Upset in Delaware
The mistake that the pragmatic tacticians who support folks like Castle make is that they think we can hold our nose and vote for the RINO in each of these instances, and yet somehow emerge from it all with a party that can produce meaningful conservative reform in Washington. The party itself needs to change. It cannot give us the Castles of the world as their favored pick. Had the party encouraged more mainstream and proven conservative candidates, we wouldn't have had to choose between a RINO and a inexperienced eccentric. The time frame is not six weeks, it's 2012 and beyond. Unfortunately, we may have to pass up control of the Senate to take advantage of a "teachable moment" for the party.
Edited on Sep 17, 2010 at 9:43pmMay '10
Re: The Significance of the Upset in Delaware
I love your optimism!
May '10
Re: The Significance of the Upset in Delaware
I agree with Franco above when he says RINOs give the left "biparisan" cover for their leftist agenda. I am tired of that. I want real conservatives.
I don't care if O'Donnell has had some financial trouble. Join the club! I don't buy the idea that means she can't manage money. Maybe she just made a bad call or a mistake and learned from it. Personal growth that comes from gakking something? Perish the thought! Maybe we should only elect rich guys who can buy their way out of trouble. I want someone who has a few knocks and dings on them and have learned from them. I make a distinction between character flaws and bad decisions. One you grow through and the other you don't. As long has O'Donnell doesn't admit to killing a man in Reno just to watch him die or something like that, a few rough edges are OK, even desirable.
I am not asking her to marry me, just to do a job. Do it the way I want it done. Vote conservative. No go-along-to-get-along. The last guy clearly sucked at it.
Jul '10
Re: The Significance of the Upset in Delaware
I'd tote their baggage up the stairs of the Empire State Building if it meant that the bill didn't pass.
Jul '10
Re: The Significance of the Upset in Delaware
Paul A. Rahe: "When Abraham Lincoln confronted Stephen Douglas in his quest to be elected to the Senate from Illinois, he was outmaneuvered, and he lost the battle – but, in making his argument as forcefully as he did in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, he laid the foundations for winning the war."
Yes, but that was ultimately a hard fought scrap between moderates. Lincoln detested slavery, but his position was not abolitionist. He wanted to marginalize it by restricting it to the places it already existed, and help it to slowly die.