There's Something About Michael
So what is it about Mike Murphy that brings out the claws in the Ricochet faithful? It can't be anything personal since the only ones here who really know him well are Rob and Yeti. I only know him peripherally though a mutual friend.
If it is not the man then it is surely what he embodies: The professionalization of politics. And it's not that he's hated for his organizational skills. No one would deny the importance of that or the reality that someone needs to keep ahead of the Byzantine labyrinth that is federal election law. No, it all comes down to The Lie.
The Lie is not the one that's told about the opponent, the slanders that include everything from drug running, "October Surprises" or fake National Guard memos. It's worse than that. It's the messaging. It's the focus group policy stances, the answers the candidates mouth because they've tested well. It's the fundamental dishonesty that pervades the system. It's what lets problems rage out of control until it's too late because just talking about fixing them is deemed a loser. After all, winning and perpetuating power is the bottom line, correct? If you accidentally do the right thing along the way, that's good, too.
But in the end we're all being lied to. Pundits speak of buyer's remorse and then wonder why. Mmmm, well, I just bought this box of "New Formula Hope'N'Change" but it looks like the same old crap that they've been offering for years under another name. It's the same feeling I had when I bought that box of "Compassionate Conservatism" in 2000 and that tube of "Read My Lips" back in '88. Or the "Buy One, Get One" of 1992.
Murphy offers his opinions and experience honestly. But he's like the steroid pusher in sports. "Look, ya wanna win, kid? Then ya gotta do this my way. 'Cause ya know the guy on the other side of that line of scrimmage is usin', too! I know! 'Cause I know his dealer! Welcome to the National Football League!"
In Murphy, our ideals clash with his reality. We want to win but there's a part of us that only wants to win cleanly. We want conservatism to prevail because it's the right thing and because the country is standing on the precipice of the long decline. But Murphy is our own version of Al Davis, pacing the sidelines and growling, "Damnit, it's the NFL! Just win, baby!"
We'll root for the team, but we don't have to like the way it's being run.
- Comment (59)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: There's Something About Michael
Thank you Dr. Hill. You have clearly stated what I inarticulately yell at my computer during Mike Murphy podcasts. For him, it is paramount, read; his paycheck, that the GOP wins. A rather secondary concern is whether Americans win. And obviously, for the last 50 or more years, that has been the outcome periodically. That is, when we all don't get so fed up that we really do not care if the Dems win, because it makes so little difference.
For the last two years we have experienced a first, the Republicans AND Americans are winning. Mike Murphy's message... we'll never build the party THAT way.
Thanks Mike, we needed that reminder.
Edited on Jul 8, 2011 at 8:58amJul '10
Re: There's Something About Michael
Does Al Davis call his players "nuts" and tell them they can't win?
Jan '11
Re: There's Something About Michael
Murphy reflects the conflict between elections and governance. You can't govern unless you win, but you can't win without respecting (and accounting for) the opinions of people who don't agree with your theories of governance. After all, liberals may be wrong, but they are as much citizens as we are, and their vote counts as much as ours. So when Murphy tells us that the rest of the country won't go along with some conservative policies, that's democracy in action, and we need to respect that.
But ...
I agree with Murphy about what the status quo is. I disagree with Murphy's acquiescence to it.
So long as our politics is always a half-a-loaf deal, we can never establish truly coherent governance. What we need is a campaign (and a candidate) that can persuade, who can do more than simply stake out positions ... (s)he can explain why they make sense in unison.
Political pros have a habit of polling each issue in isolation; and then calculating the combination of most popular positions, rather than pushing a coherent whole. That made Reagan different; Reagan started with a philosophy. Issues followed.
Sep '10
Re: There's Something About Michael
Bravo, EJ!
The Tea Party movement is based almost completely on Mr. Murphy's anti-thesis.It's a strong counterpoint to the conventional wisdom, and an example of how we conservatives can have our cake and eat it too: winning through idealism.
KC is right, too. The only truly winning strategy is a holistic approach, a complete, but flexible philosophy. Not "triangulation" of the issues and focus-grouping your "message."
Feb '11
Re: There's Something About Michael
Thanks for writting this post. I was really astonished that so many members posted some very heated (to say the least) comments about Mr. Murphy. I agree with your theme; I respect his experience and his candor. I may not agree with everything he says but I hope he continues to visit us here at Ricochet. Sometimes we need to hear what we don't want to especially in a site of like minded members. I think Mr. Murphy is pointing out the cold hard reality and as a movement we need to acknowledge it. Like others it doesn't mean we acquiesce but understand.
Jul '10
Re: There's Something About Michael
The impulse I'm seeing among some Members to shut Mike Murphy up reminds me, uncomfortably, of the type of people who shout down Ann Coulter or David Horowitz on college campuses.
The guy has his point of view. If it give you vapors to hear it, don't listen.
May '10
Re: There's Something About Michael
I think Mike believes in sticking with what works for him. He makes money from liberal left-leaning organizations like Time-Warner and NBC-Universal by bashing the Republican base as fringe nut-jobs. That's why they like him and hire him. (Of course they don't denounce the leftist fringe because to them Michael Moore is "mainstream.")
He won't change his style based on his audience. Since his compensation here is probably limited to dinner at Rob's, he might find his payday in getting some of us all bent out of shape.
As I wrote here, we conservatives are just as susceptible to the group-think of the mobs as those on the left. We all fall for the conventional wisdom and regurgitate the accepted beliefs. On the other hand, much of politics in the latter half of the 20th and beyond defies the conventional and is littered with firsts. First Catholic, first black, first sitting VP in 150 years to succeed his boss, etc.
Re: There's Something About Michael
Thanks, EJ, for an excellent distillation of the issues here. Very thoughtful. Very Ricochet. Here's my problem: I like to win. And I know myself well enough to know that half of the time, when I get riled up about politics, I think, "To hell with it! I'd rather lose on principle than compromise on big stuff." And then I remember Goldwater in 1964, which was a crushing defeat that a lot of conservatives -- like me -- enjoy romanticizing. But the truth is, from 1964 to 1980, this country signed a suicide pact -- those were disastrous years, and the concrete programs enacted are precisely what are bankrupting us today. Losing in 1964 wasn't some glorious Charge of the Light Brigade. It was a colossal calamity. And we haven't yet recovered even slightly. Winning is important. Winning is crucial. Our side only has one third of the federal government. In order together the White House back, or the Senate, a lot of people who don't usually vote for the Republicans are going to have to vote for the Republicans. This scares me. So though I'm a little more right wing than Murphy on some stuff, I respect his realism.
Nov '10
Re: There's Something About Michael
OK, Rob. Convince me that Mike Murphy knows how to win campaigns. Meg Whitman doesn't disturb you just a bit? And Pat Caddell would say that the Delaware loss was due to people like Mike Murphy, who instead of incorporating and recruiting the Tea Party energy, chose to run against the Tea Party. Dividing and infuriating the party's base does not sound to me like a strategy for winning elections. If the base stays home, we lose (McCain). If the base gets out, we win (Reagan).
May '10
Re: There's Something About Michael
If Mike looks at the electorate and thinks they're rubes... it might be because he's right. The mass outside of "we happy few, this band of brothers" we call Ricochet is grossly misinformed.
I reprinted a line from a help wanted ad a few days that's typical of the television industry, looking for someone who can produce "compelling" stories with "strong visuals." Can you do that with the budget, the economy or anything for that matter, and do it in a minute and 25-seconds? Maybe Caylee Anthony, but that's trivial. It gives you the highest ratings in HLN history but doesn't help steer us away from this cliff we're on.
At some point though, someone is going to have to defy and rise above the conventional wisdom, educate the electorate and deal with the issues. If they don't, we might as well start stocking that food and ammunition now.
Sep '10
Re: There's Something About Michael
My problem with Mike Murphy isn't his realism, it's his argumentative laziness. I have no interest in banishing him or any such thing, but I would much rather be cursed at than called anti-intellectual or crazy because I happen to be on an opposite side of a particular question. Call me crazy; I'm bored with bluster.
Re: There's Something About Michael
Well, Lucy, Mike has a pretty great record of getting conservatives elected. I think you're cherry-picking the most recent vote because it serves your argument, and forgetting about Jeb Bush, John Engler, Lamar Alexander, and a host of others. And why exactly do you hold Pat Cadell to a lesser standard? Couldn't I just as easily impugn Pat, by virtue of his record? His high water mark was working for Jimmy Carter. And the idea that Mike Murphy -- or Karl Rove -- contributed to our loss in Delaware is pretty impossible to prove. Delaware is a Blue state. And what folks say on news shows has zero effect on the electorate. Mike Murphy is a great guy and a good friend, but when he's in pundit mode, he doesn't move any votes. My big takeaway from Mike's points was this: it's a big country, and most of the electorate voted for Barack Obama. And Democrats have demographics on their side. For now, anyway. So the question is, how do we take power away from the left, and convince the big middle that we're worthy of their votes? Because that's what we have to do in order to win.
Nov '10
Re: There's Something About Michael
Perhaps. Or perhaps the mood of the country has changed, and recent votes are a better indication of how to win elections now. I'm not sure. And as for Pat Caddell, you're right about his record, but what about his point? That Delaware was essentially lost by people who couldn't figure out how to play nice with the Tea Party, and thus allowed the primary to go to a candidate who wasn't appropriate? Isn't there a real point there--that you don't win by alienating your base?
Dec '10
Re: There's Something About Michael
Thanks for the elegant post, EJ. It saved me from posting some ungracious words of my own.
Mar '11
Re: There's Something About Michael
I hate to inflict Canadian content on anyone outside the GWN, and I don't like to comment too much about U.S. politics, but the conservative experience in Canada over that last 20 years may be instructive. Twenty years ago, the conservative government was basically a coalition led by "Red Tories" (RINOs). The right-wing (socon & fiscal) split away and formed a separate party. The result? Thirteen years of Liberal misrule.
Eventually, the different strains of conservatism re-united. Since 2006, Stephen Harper has walked a tightrope and managed to retain power, moving the country back to the centre. Incrementalism is his by-word.
Harper's government has lots of flaws and he's compromised on conservative principles. But his political genius is to understand that you can't change anything until you get power. And you can't get power in a Western country with an ideologically pure conservatism.
I think that's what Murphy is telling you.
Oct '10
Re: There's Something About Michael
And that is a problem. Politics isn't sport. It isn't a game to cheer or curse at the final whistle then come back next season to do it all again. Politics is the price of democracy being the least worst way to manage Leviathan. What do we really believe in - human flourishing? human perfectibility? the city of God? If something doesn't advance that goal (whatever it is) then helping 'our guy (or gal)' to 'win' is just a (fatal) distraction.
(And a big thanks to EJHill.)
As I've said elsewhere, I'd listen to a Mike Murphy podcast on the unseemly guts of politics with pleasure. But I'd feel dirty (-:
Edited on Jul 8, 2011 at 12:22pmMay '10
Re: There's Something About Michael
I don't mind the views. I mind the message that those that disagree with them are crazy or simple minded or close minded or cowards. I mind getting compared to Fascists.
If you want to deliver a message, you don't start by attacking the other side's character. You don't dismiss their passion. There is a reason the Tea Party is hacked off, and to just up and dismiss them is going to get a response.
Oct '10
Re: There's Something About Michael
Rob... Barry Goldwater was the first actual conservative to run in modern times, and he ran as a Republican. We all were blindsided by the degree to which the MSM was already in the tank for the Left, and had no effective counter. Goldwater wasn't up to it, and neither were Republicans in general. Also, the Rockefeller GOP was in full control at the time, and did what they tried to do, later, to Reagan.
The most important takeaway from EJ is that in order to move the voters significantly, a candidate must have an ideology, that is a coherent body of thought on governance and a vision for the future of America.
Staking out talking points is a worthless effort at deception, not genuine leadership.
Jul '10
Re: There's Something About Michael
I visited the podcast thread because I was glad to see in the contributor feed column that Murphy was addressing the assembled. But I found his response vain and insulting. I am less enamored than Rob of the value of a consultant that helped elect a Bush. It is not as if that dynasty lacked prior accomplishment in that regard.
May '10
Re: There's Something About Michael
EJHill In Murphy, our ideals clash with his reality. We want to win but there's a part of us that only wants to win cleanly. We want conservatism to prevail because it's the right thing and because the country is standing on the precipice of the long decline. But Murphy is our own version of Al Davis, pacing the sidelines and growling, "Damnit, it's the NFL! Just win, baby!"
We'll root for the team, but we don't have to like the way it's being run. ·
Don't hate the player - hate the game.