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 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Republicans’ lack of enthusiasm is generally a good thing
Los Angeles, California; 05/30/2020 (magraphy/Shutterstock)
“Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm.” – Steven Wright
Political violence has always been a feature of the left. If your goal is to maximize personal liberty and happiness, you don’t have to hold a gun to someone’s head to get their support. But if your goal is increased centralized control and more limited freedoms, some people are going to be reluctant to give up their liberty unless they’re afraid of what might happen if they stand up for themselves. So it would seem that the left would struggle to get anything done without at least the threat of force.
But I think another reason that the left tends to be violent at times is that they do a better job keeping their followers enthusiastic about their anger, and not merely depressed. One way that the left keeps their followers motivated is by convincing them that they are but helpless pawns, with absolutely no hope of improving their lives. At least, they have no hope without the sacrifices of selfless leaders of the working man like Fidel Castro, Adolf Hitler, or Joe Biden. Many people are reluctant to engage in violence unless they have no hope. So the left’s message of hopelessness paradoxically spurs people to action.
When I hear people on the right lament that our leaders do a poor job of motivating their base, my first thought is, “That might actually be a good thing.”
But I also wonder if it’s possible. I mean, if the message of the right is one of hope, and agency, and encouraging people to improve their lives, then it will be very difficult to then convince them that they have no hope and that they should lash out at their perceived oppressors.
So I think that the message of the political right will tend to be less likely to lead to jealousies, hatred, and violence. Which again, I think this is a good thing. But I think it at least partially explains the ‘enthusiasm gap’ that we see between Democrats and Republicans.
But this tendency may be changing. A bit. For better or worse. Donald Trump would have received almost no support from Republican voters even 10-20 years ago. But now he fills stadiums with adoring fans.
WILKES-BARRE, PA. (Brandon Stivers/Shutterstock)
That should give pause to the left.
Not because Mr. Trump is such an effective politician. But because Republicans appear to be starting to wonder if they have any hope, without radical changes.
Once people believe that they have no hope, they sometimes become unpredictable and even dangerous. Leftists have been using this technique for years. They should recognize how powerful it can be.
They should be focused on how to diffuse this newfound enthusiasm on the right. Because when Republicans are depressed rather than angry, that’s better for Democrats.
And everyone else, too.
I hope.
FREDERICKSBURG,VA (K2 images/Shutterstock)
I find it odd, and EXTREMELY concerning, that the left appears to be working to increase hopelessness and thus enthusiasm on the right, rather than finding ways to reassure Republicans that things are not as hopeless as they seem for them. Try to convince Republican voters that voting for another Mitt Romney is better than voting for another Donald Trump. Really, everything will be ok. We promise.
Is it possible that the left actually WANTS the right to engage in leftist-style violence? Or is it possible that the left doesn’t understand their own tactics? Or is it possible that, um, well, I don’t know. No other explanations leap to mind.
What do you think?
Published in General
I think that when what government does or doesn’t do is of such import that it inspires that much angst it’s a certain sign that that government is too darn big.
Once they have established that their violence is speech but our speech is violence, they can get away with things like calling January 6 an insurrection. Funny sort of insurrection, when no one has a weapon and the guards open the doors for you, but they control the language, so it’s an insurrection.
They have taken advantage of our equanimity and our inherent politeness for a long time. But as Robert Heinlein said about the British, you can push a British man around so far, but not one step farther.
Violence like the BLM movement does not seem to generate more votes on the R side in subsequent elections. Violence from those perceived to be Republicans, by democrats or progressives, or those in the middle, means more votes to counter those dangerous MAGA extremists who wander the halls of public buildings after the guards let them in and are then held without bail or trial for a year because democracy might collapse into a singularity, and then where are we?
Pissed off people do stupid things. So anger and violence should be encouraged by the left to generate the desired result, which paints their enemies as maniacs, and helps them. If a few eggs get broken along the way, it’s an omelette, etc.
It’s all just painting the picture. Unions tend to support Democrats, the same party that is actively inhaling millions of workers who will take pay at a fraction of a union member. As long as the right picture is painted, the narrative maintains, and its Republicans that are evil.
If so, they should give a care to what they wish for. They may get it, and then what will they do?
All the leftists’ brouhaha around J6, the so-called “insurrection,” the so-called “white supremacy,” and so-called “Christian Nationalism,” “systemic racism,” and on and on, are all designed to set the stage so when there is actually some sort of forceful pushback, by us normals outside the bubble of leftism, the PTB will use that as an excuse to try for suspension of civil liberties and national gun confiscation, the sine qua non of totalitarians everywhere, to disarm the populace so the left can impose its will to power without restraint. G-d help us.
I agree 100% … Oh, wait, the use of “100%” is now racist, too …
I wouldn’t say that message comes exclusively from the left. There certainly are people on the right who paint a picture of America as a hopeless festering garbage heap, whose only hope lies with a certain Republican politician.
Gun confiscation is going nowhere. We have stronger 2d Amendment protections today than 20 years ago. There aren’t enough police who would cooperate and nobody is going to call out the National Guard to go door to door.
I think the more likely approach would be restrictions on ammunition purchases and/onerous taxes on firearms and ammunition. I can see some governments going there.
The left: “Whatever it takes.”
But as student of the CCP, and other regimes, I think I see where this is going.
When I was growing up, people said the reason left wing protests were so large was because the protesters didn’t have jobs to be at. The Silent Majority was busy working and taking care of family responsibilities.
Still true today.
I also think much of Trump’s support comes from disenchanted right wingers who believe the national Republican Party has failed to accomplish anything significant since the end of the Cold War. At some point even the truest Reaganites have to question the sincerity of politicians who promise fiscal responsibility and smaller government while failing in almost every respect.
Amen!
Similar to Heinlein’s statement, I heard of a quote from someone (politician or historian) that Americans have to be kicked in the teeth before taking action – Pearl Harbor and 9/11 come to mind . . .
Students (and faculty) certainly have more time than working people, especially working parents.
There was, however, another reason if you’re old enough to be referencing Viet Nam era protests. Those protests had a kind of fight-or-flight urgency, as in “don’t even think about sending me over there. It’s personal, now.”
When our personal freedom is threatened, all bets are off. If one side is fighting for a threatened personal freedom and the other is working off a theory, the freedom fighters tend to win.
Being in a “silent” majority — one prioritizing family responsibilities, for example — also limits how much many conservatives can do at work to change the status quo. Careers in academia, media, journalism, etc. are so competitive and closed that it may seem irresponsible for a family man (or woman) to try to break in and rise to success and influence. Do liberals understand social influence better, or do they just prioritize personally “interesting” work over being safe and responsible family providers?
Personal beliefs and passions have much to do with our choices for action or passivity. Self-interest, key to conservative economic understanding, is also a prime driver of social engagement. So are one’s feelings about what makes for a meaningful role, beyond our survival instincts.
What Biden is trying to do (and the Left along with him), in my view, is to precipitate a civil war. That is why he is a worse president than James Buchanan. Buchanan permitted the idea of secession to take hold (unlike Andrew Jackson who threatened nullification with hanging and promised to personally lead 50,000 federal troops into whatever State even thought about secession–he had South Carolina in mind, the home state of his Vice President). Biden, on the other hand, seems to be fomenting division in the nation at every opportunity, with his rhetoric, with his policies, with his obdurate insensitivity to and abuse of those who are opposed to him politically. As well as to those who are already in his camp, on his side, or neutral–which is why those usually in his camp are leaving his side like citizens fleeing California.
He delivers speech after speech that accuses his political opponents maliciously of the most vile offenses, uses lawfare relentlessly, coordinating legal action in the States against his opponent as well as pursuing federal charges through the DOJ (better termed the DOIJ), demonizing the political opposition, lying about his opponents incessantly, even sending FBI agents to the homes of those individual citizens who post tweets criticizing his policies and actions. Now he announces Transgender Visibility day, celebrating the great (imagined) contributions of Transgenders to America. To coincide with Easter Sunday. A thumb in the eye if there ever was one to ordinary Americans, shoving down our throats a national agenda to apotheosize the most psychologically derange among us and demand that we participate in their profound psychosis. While throwing money at illegal immigrant criminals who murder our citizens. And he seems ever more pleased with himself. Every day he seems to exult in outdoing himself with new abuses of American citizens.
The Right is not going to indulge in the kind of political violence the Left aids and abets and lionizes and subsidizes. Those rioters are being paid to commit violence. They are not doing it out of the frustration Dr. Bastiat perceives. It is a well organized approach to political intimidation.
And Jan 6 was nothing like what the Left has done. There is evidence that it was more like the Reichstage bombing exploited by Hitler to seize absolute power. (as an aside, the reason why the Left keeps accusing us of being Fascists, is because they are Communists and can’t avoid using the rhetoric of the last Century to demonize their political–if not ideological–adversaries).
When the Right has had enough, and has the opportunity and is forced of necessity (which will come when the Left seeks to dissolve the nation outright), the Right will do what Black slaves did when they saw the possibility of freedom: They did not riot like Nat Turner. Not at all. They braved death to reach safety behind Union lines, and then virtually to a man, able bodied males signed up for military service with the North (initially without pay). They participated in the most legitimate fashion available to them to fight for their own freedom. Ultimately, when Democrats from the North abandoned the fight because Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation (Democrats in the North were fighting to preserve the Union, not to free the slaves), it was the more than willing participation of Blacks in securing their own freedom that bucked up the North to finish the fight, with Blacks comprising by that point somewhere between a quarter and a third of Union Troops–far beyond their representation in the population.
The Right will not resort to violence until there is no alternative for them, and then it will be in the most legitimate fashion possible. Like the freed slaves. Not in violent infantile tantrums as the Left.
I think Trump over exaggerated the problems but by focusing on lessening government regulation and going against the swamp of paternalistic corruption that is the government he improved the lives of poor Americans but letting them make more money.
The hyperbole was annoying but the policies were worth it because they addressed legitimate concerns and had good results.
The believe they will win like they did after J6.
The Republican Party gave them good reason to feel that way.
The J6 crowd was peaceful until the capitol police fired on them with crowd suppression weapons. At that point, the hopeless feeling and associated anger set in.
You give Biden a lot of credit for a well-conceived master plan. But it could just be that he is a doddering incompetent old man with no real ideological goals other than retaining power and who is desperate for votes as the second-place candidate in polls.
An excellent summary!
Or his wife is enjoying her two minutes of royalty
I am always surprised by how few states have a full range of school choice options: There are only 12 states in which “parents may be able to select any traditional public school for their child, in any school district.” There are some school choice options, including publicly funded charter schools, in many other states, but full school choice is allowed in only 12 states. Education is a local issue, but the constant struggle school choice advocates have to face started under Ronald Reagan. School choice was a major issue during his campaigns and terms in office.
To me, it’s an indicator of the many areas in which conservatives have the sense that they are losing. There’s certainly a lot of frustration out there.
Do you believe that there is less school choice today than in decades past? I am under the impression that over the last two or three decades school choice has been expanding. It’s not full-blown school choice in all 50 states, but in the majority of states there is more choice than there was in each of those states a couple generations ago.
It is apparently a mixed bag. The easiest way for me to answer is to refer you to the article I linked to. :)
Many parents in solidly conservative suburban school districts are comfortable in the knowledge their schools are good. And they fear change will be bad for their schools.
In other words, school choice proponents have not made the sale.
What’s worse is they haven’t made the sale to inner city parents. Although, I think that is changing, albeit at a glacial pace.
I think the change is happening faster than you think. I thought I saw a statistic showing that charter schools and school choice were expanding rapidly since the Covid mania.
And even before that, with those promoted by Thomas Sowell for example. Their problems aren’t lack of interest, it’s regulation.
A massive new one popped up here. Opened this year.
Not a master plan. He just has a knack, a gift, an instinct, an inherent capacity, for such things. Exercised over a long political career and honed to perfection, along with his Democrat colleagues. Remember, he was the source of the term “Borking.” Which succeeded. Which may have surprised him, like the dog that caught the car. Nothing more vile has been done in America since, except of course, for the hearings of Justice Thomas and Justice Kavanaugh, inspired by Biden’s gift at achieving these kinds of things. He has been preparing for his current role all of his political life.
And I think there is the very prevalent idea among Democrats that the more chaos they can create, the more crises they can instigate and not let go to waste, the better their chances of increasing their hold on power and the less constrained they will be in the exercise of the power they achieve. Take for example the 2008 financial meltdown, caused entirely by government policy driving subprime mortgages and the response of financial institutions (Wall Street Banks and Insurers, Mortgage lenders, and of course Fannie and Freddie Mac); or the approach to COVID. One could add the unbridled Democrat support for Antifa and Black Lives Matter riots, burning, and looting, mayhem and murder. And then toss in Joe’s border policy, spreading crime, measles, and tuberculosis all over the nation, not to overlook the likely terrorists hiding in plain sight awaiting the call to act. It’s as if the Democrats opened the gates of Rome when the barbarians were at the gates, and approvingly watch as the nation is literally sacked and looted and burned by organized gangs from other nations that terrorize the citizenry. Toss in their “defund the police” and no bail policies, and it is hard to deny the intent to destroy the nation, even without a masterplan. As Andrew Klavan likes to say: Not a conspiracy; just a concordance of interests and incentives. Such interests and incentives!
Also you should keep in mind that Democrats have long practiced such things. Democrats created the Klu Klux Klan (who else would have used ‘K’s like that?). Their great president Woodrow Wilson was the first to screen “Birth of a Nation” in the White House, no less. Not to mention Democrats started the first Civil War. And they worked up to that with “Bleeding Kansas.” Why would they not do it again?
Also remember that Biden was an avid supporter of the terrorist IRA. And colluded with Teddy Kennedy when he was working with the Soviets trying to impede Reagan in the effort to wing the Cold War.
The summum bonum of all such chaos would be to start another Civil War. Democrats likely think they would then enjoy unlimited power forever. Reminds one of Lyndon Johnson’s remark that the Democrats would have the Black vote for a hundred years (Johnson’s administration destroyed the Black family and sure enough, Democrats have been able to take the Black vote for granted for at least 60 years, headed toward a hundred, although that seems to be changing as I write…the Democrats are the ones who put Black Americans back in the chains of welfare dependency, and they are proud of it–to the point that they deny Black identity to anyone who doesn’t vote for them!).
Kinda makes you wonder…
Uhhh, I better not.
Please do.