Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Establishment Republicans Could Destroy the Country
Remember the good ol’ days when we had different kinds of Republicans, some deeply conservative, others pretty moderate, and others who were barely Republican at all? But we managed to tolerate each other. We were known as a party that was friendly with the Democrats; the parties were all like lawyers, who would fight to the death in court and then argue over who would buy lunch afterward.
Those days are long gone and are unlikely to return, certainly not in my lifetime. And that change is a significant opportunity for the Republican party to take a close look at itself and ask just what kind of party it wants to be.
The problem that faces Republicans is that they are reluctant, for a myriad of reasons, to move into the 21st century. Their own self-interests are mired in the traditional mores of doing business, making them resistant, if not downright hostile, to making the changes that Republicans need to make if they are to survive.
And they could not only destroy the party but the country, too, as a result of their reticence.
So, what are the biggest roadblocks? The first glitch in the approach of the Republicans is that they’re stuck in what they’ve always done, and that covers a lot of factors: most of them see making changes as inconvenient, time-consuming, and annoying. The next glitch is the Republicans’ mentality about what it means to be a Republican: being seen as cooperative has become more important than sticking to one’s values and beliefs. Then there are all the people who want to call them evil, nasty, selfish, greedy, and any other derisive label that will hurt their feelings. Or those who are actually supporting the Left/Democrat agenda but do that behind the scenes, making up excuses for their conflicted allegiances. And finally, they have used President Trump as their scapegoat to avoid taking responsibility for their lack of action and decisions.
There was a time that a diversity of opinions to operate as Republicans was celebrated; the more, the merrier. But they no longer have the luxury of being “diverse” or rancorous within the party. That time is long past. Ironically, if Republicans want a model to follow for solidarity and victory, they don’t have to look far. As much as we criticize the Leftists for being in lockstep with their leadership, they get a lot of things done.
Which is more than Republicans can say.
So am I suggesting we should be acting more like Democrats? Not exactly. What I am saying is that we can no longer be petty about issues and decision-making. Republicans need to decide what is really important (and that doesn’t necessarily mean each person winning his next election). So what does it mean?
It means reaching agreement within the party on the critical issues.
It means not indulging in insignificant arguments.
It means putting up with the viciousness of the Left.
It means taking unconventional action against injustice and tyranny by the Left.
It means being able to face one’s self in the mirror and know that you ultimately may not be doing what is best for your personal election chances, but that you are doing the very best you can do for the country.
No more excuses.
Published in Politics
Reagan, like Trump, was willing to take the battle to the Democrats and put them on the defensive. Why was he able to do that? Simple. He wanted to. That differentiates Reagan and Trump from all of the Republican nominees from 1988 to 2012.
The first time I heard the “time to lose the Reagan nostalgia” argument, it was from the founder of the squishy “reform” conservative movement, David Frum. Naturally, Frum and the other “reformo-cons” are Never-Trumpers.
One of Reagan’s mantras, “Peace through Strength,” is growing in relevance today, as China becomes more belligerent.
Speaking as a Trump supporter, I say let’s keep Reagan.
From your lips to G-d’s ears!
At least you (surprisingly) agree that NTism is a disease.
By the way, I see you have no response to @BAstiatJunior’s challenge with Principles? Ok, Name Them.
You intellectually bailed. This shows a lot.
The evil party and the stupid party. Until the stupid party sheds the RINOs and gets back to brawling with the evil party, they’ll not get a penny from me and many others like me.
I don’t blame you, Craig. I think a lot of us are feeling that way!
Anyone who is not a RINO is unelectable according to slugs such as Hogan and pond scum like The Turtle. Just heard Hogan on Deface the Nation refusing to endorse the GOP candidate for governor.
I’m baffled by the number of people who simply can’t see the big picture of politics and governance. This election is not about your personal preferences; it is about first steps to save the nation.
We now know who the RINOs and NTs are and we know that they were never interested in the nation, just their own fortunes.
Well Put. The GOP is in need of some bare knuckles brawlers who aren’t afraid of confrontation. That doesn’t mean saying stupid things that will be picked up by the Democratic media; we’ve seen too much of that.
That is why I’m a bit dissatisfied with our candidate for the Senate, J.D. Vance. I don’t want him to fight like a Yale-trained Lawyer (which he is); I want him to fight like a Marine (which he was). If he does that, he’ll win easily.
I wonder if the finesse required for these kinds of confrontations is too scary or too difficult for some people. They’re going to have to move out of their comfort zones and be forthright, yet passionate and in control. Maybe that will be too much to ask?
It shouldn’t be. That commercial of DeSantis illustrated that. It was totally fantastic when he faced down those hostile members of the media.
You may be right about it being too difficult for some Republicans. They’re so used to being polite that they’re frozen like a deer in the headlights when they should be more forceful. Can you imagine someone like Mitt Romney facing down reporters in the manner that DeSantis did?
Not a chance!
No more Karenskyites.
Historically, I’ve been called a “burn it all down” Tea Party whack-o and so forth. Naturally, I would characterize that differently, but I can see why people would commit such an error.
More recently, I greatly enjoyed working the polls (poll-watcher for early voting, and polling official on election day) in Virginia. I’m happy to say that it went quite well for us — record-breaking wins.
There are two main effects I would like to emphasize beyond simply ensuring accountability and transparency in the process (the manifest purpose).
One is the opportunity to help shape the party from within. I remain an old-school angry Tea-Partier, and our best leverage is from within. That said, we must present a credible threat to the comfortable GOP lackeys. My resolution to this dilemma is focused fire.
The other effect is the demoralization of Democrat poll-thieves. I escorted ballots back to precinct at the end of the day with the poll chief who had been doing this for years. He was a Danish socialist, a very nice man, but nonetheless a bitter commie, and he was just crushed. He complained that there was so much scrutiny now, and tried to impress upon me the difference between an error rate of 1 in 100 vs 1 in 10,000. I certainly did not debate him. Instead, I asked if this was a common sentiment, and if he hadn’t been driving, he would have thrown up his hands in exasperation. “Yes! Everybody is worn out!” In this context, ‘everybody’ of course meant the usual crew of fellow-travelling useful idiots and commie agitators who have owned our polling stations and vote-counting operations for decades.
It is WELL WORTH YOUR TIME to get involved in the machinery of local politics. Don’t think. Don’t plan. Just go and be helpful.
I’m going to throw a flag on the play. Being a Marine is never past tense, except maybe after you’re dead.
Well, if he loses this election, he’ll be dead to a LOT of people in Ohio.
(But I get your point)
I’ve been trying to respond to Bryan’s post about his emotional reactions, and I find that I can’t. I use emotions in decision-making, but to respond I think and speak rationally. But rationality doesn’t really effect emotional feelings. And I don’t think I’ve ever responded to anyone with sad emotions purely emotionally.
It’s probably a fault of mine, but I don’t think it’s unique to me alone. (Maybe it’s a guy thing.)
My view is: Life is an endless train of situations of “wanting my cake and eating it, too.” The desiring both things may be valid, but it is purely emotional, and the rational fact is that only one is possible, and you can’t have it both ways. When a progressive says “I want my privilege and hate having privilege,” my only response can be “I understand your desires, but you can’t have it both ways”.
And this is not understandable to someone who is ruled almost exclusively by emotions rather than reason.
How does one respond helpfully and effectively to an emotional conundrum?
Punt.
A good plot features a series of choices between unacceptable alternatives.
I think republicans have been punting for decades.
I’d like to think that my decision-making is similar to yours (I think). Both the rational and emotional come into play (we are neither automatons nor feeling creatures exclusively). So we can use, even indulge, both up to a point. Then I think for me that it’s important to find the balance so that wisdom has a chance to kick in. And wisdom requires both, I believe. This doesn’t mean that all my decisions are wise (trust me, they’re not), but at least I try. Also, for decisions that are not as important, I might indulge emotion more, but that approach assumes I don’t hurt others unnecessarily.