Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. No More Sunshine Patriots

 

In the prologue to his book, “The Savior Generals,” Victor Davis Hanson asks the question, “What wins wars?” Is it superior manpower, resources, strategic planning, or cutting-edge technology? Hanson explains that these certainly play a role, but they’re not always enough. Sometimes it’s the human element that makes the difference. On rare occasions, “generals and the leadership of single individuals can still matter more than these seemingly larger inanimate forces.”

Hanson is talking about military conflict, but this observation can be applied to politics as well, to the culture war we’re fighting. Americans are, in some ways, like the Athenians who fled their city, a once-thriving democracy, as the Persian King Xerxes torched it, killing or enslaving all who stood in his way. We’re not facing physical threats and our cities are not literally burning, but our way of life is just as threatened, our vibrant Republic is on the brink of annihilation.

When it comes to wars, we often hear about battles that have been won or lost, but Hanson points out that there are times when wars are “saved,” when generals “who in extremis rescued rather than started or finished a war.” Maybe we, like many nations before us, are at a point where we need saving. It’s not just a matter of defending our way of life, but rescuing it.

There certainly is a sense of desperation among conservatives and libertarians—not despair, but a heightened awareness that something drastic must happen now or we will never be able to regain what we’ve lost. We are facing an American crisis.

“These are,” as Thomas Paine wrote, “the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”

To overcome this crisis, to win, we must recognize that we’re in a war. A war against tyranny. A war against progressive philosophies that seek to undermine and destroy the foundations of our freedoms. A war against those who disregard our Constitution and rule by fiat, who treat our homeland like a whore to be ravaged at will, and who violate our privacy in the name of safety.

If we’re going to triumph, we need good strategies and wise tactics, but we also need a leader, a savior. Not a messiah in the soteriological sense, but a “savior general,” a leader who is willing to face insurmountable odds as Henry V did and recognize that when it comes to war, passivity, civility, and compromise have no place.

In peace there’s nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility; but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the actions of the tiger; stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favor’d rage.

This band of brothers we call conservatives needs the kind of leader Shakespeare described, the tiger who will lead us to victory with hard-favor’d rage, with passion and determination.

But where will that leader come from? What does the savior general look like?

Hanson explains that savior generals didn’t come from the elite leadership, from the establishment. They were inevitably outsiders, usually common men, unsophisticated, but worldly wise and brave. They had “greater knowledge and insight, outspokenness, self-promotion, individualism, eccentricity.” These are the characteristics necessary for a leader to “galvanize dispirited troops and resurrect national will.”

History has shown, however, that these rogue leaders were often despised by the established leadership, inciting suspicion, spite, and envy. They were “outsiders well before their appointments,” and “even after their successes, most saviors did not enjoy the commensurate acclaim and tranquility that the moment of their military brilliance otherwise might have ensured.”

The Greek general Themistocles was one such leader. Experienced but never one to play well with others, he wasn’t the “ideal” man to save the Athenians from Xerxes’ armies. Yet, he did exactly that. Opinionated and strong, he stood toe-to-toe with other Greek generals who were prone to run rather than take risks to secure victory. He endured criticism and disrespect because he knew he was right. He understood the kind of war they were fighting and that they needed to make their stand at Salamis or their democracy would be lost. “Either win or cease to exist as a people,” he said.

Themistocles was a visionary, and, as Hanson writes, visionaries like Themistocles, like Churchill, are often “written off as alarmists and eccentrics by their contemporaries.” But history rises up in their defense. Wars would have been lost without men such as these.

We live in a time that cries out for this kind of leader. We weep over loss of freedom. We look to the future and see darkness on the horizon, not the bright light of hope our forefathers promised. We stand, as if alone, and feel hope slipping away with each new piece of legislation that speeds its way through Congress, with each speech given by a president who cares nothing for our national security or our national integrity, with each scandal that goes unresolved because no one has the courage to do anything about it. We watch helplessly as our churches are ridiculed and silenced and as our children cower before an intransigent school system that forces them to conform to its Orwellian ideals.

We grasp for leaders from our political party and long for one to rise up above the fray in the name of freedom, but all we hear are calls for compromise, consensus, and civility. But consensus is a luxury of peace. We are at war. A cultural war, but a war nonetheless. Like Margaret Thatcher so wisely said of consensus:

It’s the “process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values, and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner: I stand for consensus?”

What great cause indeed? Who fights for consensus, for compromise? No one. If that is your goal, you’ve already lost the war. You will continue to prop up GOP establishment figures who toe the party line. And you will lose. Everything.

But not everyone will toe the party line. Not everyone will sacrifice their faith, their hopes, their dreams on the altar of compromise. Some are willing to fight, to go forth in battle, to stand for their beliefs in the face of ridicule and lies. Some want to save this precious country we call home, a home fought and paid for with the blood of our countrymen.

Some of us believe, as Ronald Reagan did, that “democracy is worth dying for because it’s the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man” and “no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.”

As we look at what is happening to our great country, we are dispirited. Though we fight it, pessimism and hopelessness hang like a heavy cloud across the landscape, casting shadows on everything we hold dear. We wonder if we will ever see the light again that illuminates our majestic mountains and shining seas. We fear that city on the hill will flicker and fade forever.

But it is at times such as these, when “all is forlorn,” as J.R.R. Tolkien wrote, that “hope is born.” It is in this hour that salvation breaks forth, those dark moments before the dawn. This is when the noble rise and leaders are born if only we let them.

They don’t always look like a leader, polished and poised. Like Moses, their words often stumble, their learning not so grand. Like Themistocles, their parentage isn’t high-born and they don’t have degrees from hallowed halls of learning. They often come from obscurity, from an unremarkable past that has aptly prepared them to work hard without needing affirmation or praise. They don’t care about fame and fortune or public approval. They’re contrarians by nature. Mavericks. They are fighters, defenders, saviors. They are willing to lay down their lives for their country, put their reputations on the line, laugh in the face of a critical media, of condescending party elites, and stand for what is right.

If we’re going to win this war, we need a visionary, a rebel. We’ve had enough of sunshine patriots and summer soldiers who wilt at the first hint of winter’s chill. We need a savior general, a fighter willing to stand, unapologetically, proudly, simply, for freedom. 

There are 170 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVeyJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    DC, this is like Michael Walsh’s constant fight-fight-fight. Feels good saying it, right? Fight who? Other Americans who are choosing to vote against our candidates? Fight how? Enjoy saying that lock-and-load stuff, fellow Cons, but it didn’t work out so well in the 1860s. 

    We have a place to fight–the ballot box–and we’ve proven to be utterly lousy at it. So get good–and that means winning the country over. Grunting and scowling and scary-looking face painting is a sad joke. 

    Now, if we’re talking about cultural fights, that’s at least do-able. So pick up a digital camera and beat the Left at its own game. I don’t agree with Live Action, but that’s what they’re doing, to great effect. 

    • #1
    • July 6, 2013, at 10:05 AM PDT
    • Like
  2. D.C. McAllister Inactive
    D.C. McAllister
    Gary McVey: DC, this is like Michael Walsh’s constant fight-fight-fight. Feels good saying it, right? Fight who? Other Americans who are choosing to vote against our candidates? Fight how? Enjoy saying that lock-and-load stuff, fellow Cons, but it didn’t work out so well in the 1860s. …

    Now, if we’re talking about cultural fights, that’s at least do-able. So pick up a digital camera and beat the Left at its own game. I don’t agree with Live Action, but that’s what they’re doing, to great effect. · 0 minutes ago

    I’m obviously not talking about violence here, and if you read it any other way, you’re simply missing the point. I’m talking about an attitude. I’m talking about a leader. Have you ever fought, nonviolently, for something? I have, passionately so. It might not involve real guns, but the sensibilities and attitudes are the same. It takes the same spirit to overcome. This is what I’m talking about. If you don’t see it, that’s fine. Mockery isn’t helpful, Gary. Let’s respect one another, okay? We can just agree to disagree.

    • #2
    • July 6, 2013, at 10:13 AM PDT
    • Like
  3. DocJay Inactive

    Incredible article! I also, unlike Gary, think we need a fire breather to handle this progressive takeover of America.

    • #3
    • July 6, 2013, at 10:20 AM PDT
    • Like
  4. Mauritius Inactive

    DC, an excellent post! I found myself saying YES, YES, YES while reading it through. We have often discussed the type of elected officials we would like to see fill the offices of Congress and the White House. And the preferences have often rested on what I consider cosmetics – and yes, I would say things such as how articulate, or “smart” that person appears to be, falls into the category of cosmetics. Good character, and a grounding in the original categories of our Constitutional Republic are absolutely essential to good leadership. Reagan had this grounding, and he became articulate through years of speechmaking before running for elected office. But after winning a national election, he was derided as a Bozo by the elite class. We need absolutely real leaders, fearless like Themistocles. Some of these leaders will likely be derided as well, or even accused of crimes against the state. But isn’t that the character of good leadership – the willingness to lose everything to do what is good and righteous.

    • #4
    • July 6, 2013, at 10:27 AM PDT
    • Like
  5. Kay of MT Member

    I agree wholeheartedly D.C. I think you come pretty close to the person you are describing. We certainly don’t need Hilary.

    • #5
    • July 6, 2013, at 10:32 AM PDT
    • Like
  6. Mauritius Inactive

    As a follow up, don’t we here hate it when a politician or judge “grows in office”? Or when we see one flip-flop? A “once-promising” new conservative leader (see Marco Rubio) might get steered from the course they mapped out in their election campaign, especially when battered (or seduced) by a national news media, lobbyists and court whisperers. But without a deep rudder to guide, and a good and fearless character that can heed good advice and ignore poor advice … aren’t they all apt to drift? good leadership seems to be a rare commodity and all but lost these days. We tend to elect those that look good on camera and maintain their composure, keeping to safe and acceptable talking points. In other words, professional politicians.

    • #6
    • July 6, 2013, at 10:35 AM PDT
    • Like
  7. Casey Inactive

    I like this.

    • #7
    • July 6, 2013, at 10:37 AM PDT
    • Like
  8. D.C. McAllister Inactive
    D.C. McAllister
    kohana: I agree wholeheartedly D.C. I think you come pretty close to the person you are describing. We certainly don’t need Hilary. · 0 minutes ago

    Ha! No, I’m not a leader. Just a pamphleteer. :) Gary asked who we fight. Hillary for starters. Someone needs to stand up to her, counter her, fight back against the lies and manipulations she has put out there for years to bolster her career. We need to stand up against policies that damage our freedoms. Fight to hold people accountable for all of these scandals. We don’t have people willing to fight because they put too much value on their status. We need people who don’t care about that. They might not be perfect people (Themistocles was rather ignoble and he died in disrepute, but he believed in his vision at that moment in time, he stood for what was right and was willing to stand in opposition to established leaders to save his people). That’s what I’m talking about. Courage. Single-mindedness. Winter patriots.

    • #8
    • July 6, 2013, at 10:38 AM PDT
    • Like
  9. D.C. McAllister Inactive
    D.C. McAllister
    Mauritius: A “once-promising” new conservative leader (see Marco Rubio) might get steered from the course they mapped out in their election campaign, especially when battered (or seduced) by a national news media, lobbyists and court whisperers. …

    I agree. I think the problem with Rubio isn’t that he doesn’t have strong principles. That’s what’s frustrating. He does. But I think the problem comes from one of the very things we value about him—his identity politics. We, admit it or not, value him as a Hispanic candidate—that perfect man who will connect with that voting bloc. But herein lies the trouble. It’s that very element that has undone him. He sees himself that way too, at least it seems so. That’s why the immigration issue is so front and center for him. It has to be, in a way. But this is a lesson on why we can’t go on identity politics. We need to stand on principles, and it doesn’t matter what the candidate looks like.

    • #9
    • July 6, 2013, at 10:45 AM PDT
    • Like
  10. jetstream Inactive

    Sarah Palin, Allen West, Ted Cruz … are all fire breathers, Palin and West are both megawatt leaders, if Cruz also has the leadership gene, then we have a starting field of at least 3 …

    • #10
    • July 6, 2013, at 10:57 AM PDT
    • Like
  11. Mauritius Inactive

    Agreed. The entire national conversation has steered itself to the lesser categories of class identity, equality (of outcomes) and fairness, and the smaller “rights” – such as the right to a cell phone, or free birth control, or …. It might be difficult at this point to have an adult discussion that centers on the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But, if we don’t begin that conversation in earnest, our path will trend further and further from the spirit and likeness of our founding charter.

    • #11
    • July 6, 2013, at 10:59 AM PDT
    • Like
  12. dittoheadadt Inactive

    We need to fight the media.  We need to fight, destroy, and emasculate the media and their influence in America.

    The rest – academia, public schools, Hollywood, pop culture – would follow in turn. But so long as the media are allowed to deliberately distort, lie, withhold, suppress, and manufacture the news solely to advance their ideology and agenda, without a substantial counteroffensive to destroy them and their influence America cannot and will not survive.

    We need not fight the political Left per se. We don’t need another Ronald Reagan. In fact, with today’s media another Ronald Reagan is impossible.

    We need to fight – to dismantle and destroy – the monopolistic influence, whether directly or indirectly, the media have on virtually all elements of American life. They are the cancer in our midst.

    • #12
    • July 6, 2013, at 11:02 AM PDT
    • Like
  13. OkieSailor Member
    OkieSailorJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member
    D.C. McAllister

    We need to stand up against policies that damage our freedoms. Fight to hold people accountable for all of these scandals. We don’t have people willing to fight because they put too much value on their status. We need people who don’t care about that. They might not be perfect people (Themistocles was rather ignoble and he died in disrepute, but he believed in his vision at that moment in time, he stood for what was right and was willing to stand in opposition to established leaders to save his people). That’s what I’m talking about. Courage. Single-mindedness. Winter patriots. · 16 minutes ago

    Do you include Sarah Palin as one who stood up to the ‘elites’? She did well as Governor but was ridiculed as extremist when she hit the national scene. I think we do have several governors and even a few in Congress who could fulfill the role you prescribe, the question is whether the voters will elect them if/when they run.

    Reagan, BTW, was inclusive, bringing in anyone who wasn’t completely opposed and he won quite a few Democrat votes.

    • #13
    • July 6, 2013, at 11:05 AM PDT
    • Like
  14. D.C. McAllister Inactive
    D.C. McAllister
    dittoheadadt: We need to fight the media.  We need to fight, destroy, and emasculate the media and their influence in America.

    The rest – academia, public schools, Hollywood, pop culture – would follow in turn. But so long as the media are allowed to deliberately distort, lie, withhold, suppress, and manufacture the news solely to advance their ideology and agenda, without a substantial counteroffensive to destroy them and their influence America cannot and will not survive.

    We need not fight the political Left per se. We don’t need another Ronald Reagan. In fact, with today’s media another Ronald Reagan is impossible.

    We need to fight – to dismantle and destroy – the monopolistic influence, whether directly or indirectly, the media have on virtually all elements of American life. They are the cancer in our midst. · 5 minutes ago

    Agree. 100 percent! ditto!

    • #14
    • July 6, 2013, at 11:09 AM PDT
    • Like
  15. dittoheadadt Inactive

    Folks, no matter what we do, no matter who is our savior General, no matter how great a person we have leading us, no matter how much firebreathing he does, no matter how visionary, how rebellious…WHO will deliver that message to the American people? What is the ONLY means of communicating the message, the leader, the value, the importance, the necessity, to the American people?

    The media!!! The g*ddamned Leftist corrupt stenographers-for-the-Democrat-Party state-subservient MEDIA. They are no longer just biased. They are now willing accomplices in the “fundamental transformation” of America.

    Mitt Romney, for all his faults as a moderate or conservative, and as a politician, is a smart, decent, honest, good man. A far better man, a far better person, a far better American, and far smarter than Obambi. And the MEDIA called him a murderer, and it stuck with many low-information voters!

    Now, see post #12.

    • #15
    • July 6, 2013, at 11:13 AM PDT
    • Like
  16. Brad B. Inactive

    Not to play the pessimist, but what will one person be able to achieve? Is this the conservative “great man” theory in action? Even had a true Regeanite been elected in 2012, he would have been stonewalled for 4 years without a majority in the Senate. I’m not so convinced we’ve had a “progressive takeover” in the country. But instead we have a near majority of Americans who are either Progressive themselves or have a healthy leaning in the direction of statism. Not to take away from your post at all Denise, it’s great. I just think we set ourselves up for disappointment by praying for a savior politician.

    • #16
    • July 6, 2013, at 11:15 AM PDT
    • Like
  17. D.C. McAllister Inactive
    D.C. McAllister
    OkieSailor
    D.C. McAllister
     

    Do you include Sarah Palin as one who stood up to the ‘elites’? She did well as Governor but was ridiculed as extremist when she hit the national scene. I think we do have several governors and even a few in Congress who could fulfill the role you prescribe, the question is whether the voters will elect them if/when they run.

    Reagan, BTW, was inclusive, bringing in anyone who wasn’t completely opposed and he won quite a few Democrat votes. · 4 minutes ago

    I never mentioned anything about inclusiveness for or against. Reagan expressed conservative principles in a way that appealed to Democrats, but he never compromised his principles. 

    Sarah Palin definitely stood up to the elites and people love her for it. She’s a rather complicated figure as far as her electability though. I think she made some unwise choices. Quitting as governor. While I understand, I don’t think it did her any favors. Nor did her reality television show. That appeared more like marketing than “fighting the good fight.” She stepped outside of political leadership and into celebrity. That’s fine, but I think it harmed her politically. Unfortunately.

    • #17
    • July 6, 2013, at 11:16 AM PDT
    • Like
  18. D.C. McAllister Inactive
    D.C. McAllister
    dittoheadadt: Folks, no matter what we do, no matter who is our savior General, no matter how great a person we have leading us, no matter how much firebreathing he does, no matter how visionary, how rebellious…WHO will deliver that message to the American people? What is the ONLY means of communicating the message, the leader, the value, the importance, the necessity, to the American people?

    The media!!! The g*ddamned Leftist corrupt stenographers-for-the-Democrat-Party state-subservient MEDIA. They are no longer just biased. They are now willing accomplices in the “fundamental transformation” of America.

    I know what you’re saying and agree, but I think we can get around them. If we’re smart and willing to spend the money wisely. Romney’s advertising campaign stunk, and his social media campaign was all but nonexistent. We can push back the media with our own, but we just have not had good leadership on that front. We haven’t been as clever as the Dems.

    • #18
    • July 6, 2013, at 11:18 AM PDT
    • Like
  19. D.C. McAllister Inactive
    D.C. McAllister
    Byron Horatio: Not to play the pessimist, but what will one person be able to achieve? Is this the conservative “great man” theory in action? Even had a true Regeanite been elected in 2012, he would have been stonewalled for 4 years without a majority in the Senate. I’m not so convinced we’ve had a “progressive takeover” in the country. But instead we have a near majority of Americans who are either Progressive themselves or have a healthy leaning in the direction of statism. Not to take away from your post at all Denise, it’s great. I just think we set ourselves up for disappointment by praying for a savior politician. · 3 minutes ago

    Obviously, it won’t take the “savior politician” alone. It didn’t happen that way in wars with the savior generals. They still have strategy, resources, armies to maneuver. But what I’m saying is we won’t be able to do it without the “savior politician” without a single leader who embodies and communicates our principles and fights for them. The right leader will rally the troops, employ the right strategies, and bring it all together. 

    • #19
    • July 6, 2013, at 11:22 AM PDT
    • Like
  20. D.C. McAllister Inactive
    D.C. McAllister
    Byron Horatio: Not to play the pessimist, but what will one person be able to achieve? Is this the conservative “great man” theory in action? Even had a true Regeanite been elected in 2012, he would have been stonewalled for 4 years without a majority in the Senate. 

    The other thing is that I’m not saying a strong leader will make everything perfect immediately. It will be a fight. It will take years. It will be an ebb and flow. What I’m saying is that we won’t even get on the right track without a steady, uncompromising leader who is willing to stand up to the media, the Dems, and even his/her own party to stand for our principles. People are hungering and thirsting for that kind of leadership. Don’t you see it? We need it. That person won’t be perfect. That’s kind of the point. But he will be uncompromising and he will be a fighter. I’m sorry, but Romney wasn’t a fighter, and he lost.

    • #20
    • July 6, 2013, at 11:24 AM PDT
    • Like
  21. billy Inactive
    jetstream: Sarah Palin, Allen West, Ted Cruz … are all fire breathers, Palin and West are both megawatt leaders, if Cruz also has the leadership gene, then we have a starting field of at least 3 … · 11 minutes ago

    Part of good generalship is choosing the right battlefield. The D.C/NYC/Hollywood nexus will never concede the power and wealth they have amassed. They will ridicule and marginalize anyone who steps up as a national conservative leader.

    Sarah Palin is the perfect example of this. She was a very effective governor; she only be became a crazed Christian extremist after she was nationally known.

    Reforming Washington is a pointless task. The pushback can only take place on the state and local level.

    • #21
    • July 6, 2013, at 11:25 AM PDT
    • Like
  22. dittoheadadt Inactive
    D.C. McAllister
    dittoheadadt: …The media!!!…They are now willing accomplices in the “fundamental transformation” of America.

    I know what you’re saying and agree, but I think we can get around them. If we’re smart and willing to spend the money wisely…We can push back the media with our own, but we just have not had good leadership on that front. We haven’t been as clever as the Dems.

    Denise, I agree. We can get around them…but so far NO ONE on the Right is doing anything but playing the game by the same ol’, same ol’ rules.

    I am not saying that I have all the answers, but shortly after the election I posted a whole host of ideas that might be ways to bypass the media and get our message directly to the American people. After 8 months it’s gotten just 12 comments. But Rico discussions about Earth’s age have garnered over a thousand.

    We’re just not serious enough about fighting the right enemy. The Right doesn’t seem to recognize the need for a paradigm shift. And anything short of that is pointless and will be fruitless, IMHO.

    • #22
    • July 6, 2013, at 11:30 AM PDT
    • Like
  23. D.C. McAllister Inactive
    D.C. McAllister
    billy
    jetstream: Sarah Palin, Allen West, Ted Cruz … are all fire breathers, Palin and West are both megawatt leaders, if Cruz also has the leadership gene, then we have a starting field of at least 3

    Part of good generalship is choosing the right battlefield. The D.C/NYC/Hollywood nexus will never concede the power and wealth they have amassed. They will ridicule and marginalize anyone who steps up as a national conservative leader.

    Sarah Palin is the perfect example of this. She was a very effective governor; she only be became a crazed Christian extremist after she was nationally known.

    I think Sarah did some things to damage herself outside of what the media did. I don’t think Allen West, Rand Paul, or Ted Cruz would make those mistakes. What do you think? As for a national conservative leader, are you saying you don’t think a conservative will ever be president again? That we should just concede all national elections from here on out? While I understand that gut reaction, I just can’t go there, not yet. I think a good fight with the right leader can spell victory, but maybe that’s just me.

    • #23
    • July 6, 2013, at 11:32 AM PDT
    • Like
  24. D.C. McAllister Inactive
    D.C. McAllister
    dittoheadadt
    D.C. McAllister
    dittoheadadt: …The media!!!…They are now willing accomplices in the “fundamental transformation” of America.

    Denise, I agree. Wecanget around them…but so far NO ONE on the Right is doing anything but playing the game by the same ol’, same ol’ rules.

    I am not saying that I have all the answers, but shortly after the election I posted a whole host of ideas that might be ways to bypass the media and get our message directly to the American people. After 8 months it’s gotten just 12 comments. But Rico discussions about Earth’s age have garnered over a thousand.

    We’re just not serious enough about fighting the right enemy. The Right doesn’t seem to recognize the need for a paradigm shift. And anything short of that is pointless and will be fruitless, IMHO. 

    Believe me, I understand your frustration. This is why we need a leader to stand for us and speak for us, to make these decisions, and employ these strategies. We’re so fragmented now, so little unity. What you’re feeling and writing about is exactly why we need to focus on a leader.

    • #24
    • July 6, 2013, at 11:34 AM PDT
    • Like
  25. D.C. McAllister Inactive
    D.C. McAllister
    dittoheadadt

    ….but so far NO ONE on the Right is doing anything but playing the game by the same ol’, same ol’ rules.

    We’re just not serious enough about fighting the right enemy. The Right doesn’t seem to recognize the need for a paradigm shift. And anything short of that is pointless and will be fruitless, IMHO. · 4 minutes ago

    We need a leader who will play by different rules, smart strategies, core principles. A leader will give us focus, create a rallying point, simplify our messaging, and unite us toward victory. Right now there are too many cooks in the kitchen, I think.

    • #25
    • July 6, 2013, at 11:37 AM PDT
    • Like
  26. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVeyJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Denise, it wasn’t my intention to mock, and I apologize for not seeming like I read every word of a long, thoughtful posting that I simply disagree with. But my bumper-sticker reaction was based on genuine surprise at the idea that, in effect opposition to the Left is dormant, and it’s about time we stood up. The whole Right has been standing up.

    It’s not mocking to say that the call for a strong, if mocked as “uncultured”, that is non-elite-approved leader to emerge from the middle of the country can go decidedly the wrong way. It’s no surprise that most of the commenters are going to agree with you, so here’s a question for them: can you define what you mean by “fight”? Not a St. Crispin’s Day speech from your heart: I mean a line-by-line translation from the head. Fight= start a different media? Stage stockholder revolts? Cultivate a generation of non-elite artists and creatives? Retake the country through the state capitals? The churches? Ignite that national debate on school choice? Sincerely: when you say fight, can you spell out what you intend to do?

    • #26
    • July 6, 2013, at 11:38 AM PDT
    • Like
  27. TJ Inactive

    Great post, D.C.

    Who are we fighting? While we’re certainly fighting progressives in government, at least as much I think we’re fighting leftist radio hosts who, during the 2012 campaign, said that voting for Mitt Romney was like stabbing yourself in the throat with a scissors. And we’re fighting against the rabid listeners of such shows who called in claiming that if Mitt Romney won, within 6 months all women in America would be wearing burkas.

    While the leader of the movement may be important, the actual movement that leader inspires is more so. It’s the movement that will vote the progressives out of office and force big government to downsize.

    • #27
    • July 6, 2013, at 11:41 AM PDT
    • Like
  28. D.C. McAllister Inactive
    D.C. McAllister
    Gary McVey: It’s no surprise that most of the commenters are going to agree with you, so here’s a question for them: can you define whatyou mean by “fight”? 

    First of all, the point of the post wasn’t to lay out strategies or tactics of the fight. This doesn’t mean I’m simply being heartfelt without thinking, it means I’m focusing on a single point— that we need a leader who fights. A visionary, a man of conscience, a common sense conservative, a brilliant leader, etc. I don’t think we can employ all the strategies we need in the fight without leadership from a single person. Our party is not doing it. It must come from a single person, a “savior” leader if you will. But, if want to expand on the post and talk about all the ways we can fight, we can, but we do cover all this often at Ricochet. That’s my point. We have lots of great ideas about how to fight, how to push back the media, how to oppose policies, etc. But we are not unified. We are not focused. We need a leader.

    • #28
    • July 6, 2013, at 11:48 AM PDT
    • Like
  29. D.C. McAllister Inactive
    D.C. McAllister

    As for the fight. Attitude is a great starting point. We need leaders who recognize that we are actually in a fight and not just a college classroom discussing political science and campaign strategies. Some might not agree that we’re in that fight. I, obviously, disagree with them. We are losing our freedoms. We fight back through our own advertising initiatives, focusing on issues that are Constitutional rights—2nd Amendment, school choice, free markets. We fight back through creating legislation that will actually reduce the size and power of government, not increase it. We fight back by calling out Democrats for what they are. No more “Thank you for your wonderful service to our country, Mrs. Clinton.” No more of that BS. Call it as it is. She’s been a terrible secretary of state. Call out every Democrat who lies, expose their manipulations on Obamacare. There should be a media campaign going on RIGHT NOW about how bad Obamacare is. Passionately so. Not just a “read the guide to Obamacare to see how bad it is.” Etc. Etc. etc.

    • #29
    • July 6, 2013, at 11:52 AM PDT
    • Like
  30. Brad B. Inactive

    Gary, to go a little farther, how many of us are really willing to pledge at the minimum our “fortunes” let alone our lives for liberty? Should this savior actively support a tax revolt?

    • #30
    • July 6, 2013, at 11:55 AM PDT
    • Like

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.