On Pragmatists

 

shutterstock_254757025Although I may well come across as one of those barn-burning conservatives inclined to cut off our electoral nose to spite our establishment face, I’m not. Despite my awful experience working for the GOP, I learned that there are sets of skills and knowledge that vast swaths of the base know very little about. We need “experts,” people who know voting and demographic trends, folks who can somehow deduce your stance on gun control from whether or not you own a boat, enjoy hockey, wear casual leather shoes, and drink domestic beer. There’s a lot of analysis and strategizing that happens behind the scenes that can – and often does — help good candidates win.

Regarding governance, our political system is one of checks and balances, ugly realities, and innumerable hurdles in the way of getting our message out. Sometimes, it makes sense to throw caution to the wind and push forward, regardless of how many votes we have in the Senate; sometimes, however, it does not. Although it can be beyond annoying to hear “You can’t do that” over and over, there are times when it’s exactly what we need to hear.

Firebrands like us are quick to identify — often correctly — those in the GOP establishment who are actual enemies of conservatism, the kind of politicians or consultants who wouldn’t push for defunding Planned Parenthood or overturning ObamaCare even if we did have the votes. But there is another kind within the establishment who genuinely want what’s best for America, who disagree with the base on tactics, but who ultimately want what we want. This posts is addressed to, and about, them: those pragmatists who are on our side, despite their obliviousness to what many of us would regard as obvious. It’s hard to tell these principled pragmatists apart from the cynical kind of pragmatist, but there is a difference.

Pragmatists are realists, those who fully understand “how Washington works,” the realities of what the American electorate will accept, the potential setbacks that might follow whatever steps we take, and the eternal principle which I previously described as A. Pragmatists are naturally inclined to emphasize what can actually be accomplished (and when), the ways the opposition will fight back, and what more we need — additional Congressional seats, favorable poll numbers, etc — to move our agenda forward in a tangible sense without getting whacked back down to earth by the realities of bad press or the filibuster.

These principled pragmatists — again, not the cynical, elitist, moderates who disguise themselves as such — support Tea Party candidates when they think they can win, they just tend to assume they can’t. As uninspiring as we may find them, they’re cognizant of realities that idealists often overlook. The perspective of the pragmatist may well be what keeps us from doing or saying something incredibly stupid that could cost us opportunities to effect real change.

However, as much as the pragmatists value reality, there are aspects of it they have an exceptionally difficult time grasping. As much as politics is a game of numbers, negotiation, compromise, interest groups, and back room deals, it’s also one of inspiration, idealism, belief, and a sense of belonging and purpose. All too often, the pragmatist dismisses the concerns — the feelings – of the base out of hand. The pragmatist doesn’t need a stirring speech to keep voting Republican, and consequently tends to view those who do as immature.

But just as idealism bereft of pragmatism leads to pure-believing firebrands nodding in agreement at each other at local Tea Party meetings, pragmatism bereft of idealism stifles every spark that could inspire someone to work on a campaign or convince his friend to vote this election. The pragmatist is utterly flummoxed by the conservative who supports the candidate he agrees with 60 percent of the time over the one he agrees with 85 percent of the time, failing to understand that Reagan and Truman both won largely because people liked and believed in them, even if they didn’t necessarily agree with them point-by-point on an issue checklist. “They’re not being rational!” complains the pragmatist. Correct. They’re not. People aren’t rational, not even most conservatives.

In doing so, the pragmatist leads his ideological allies to confuse him with the genuine enemies of conservatism, labeling them “stupid,” “spoiled brats,”, and “clowns.” The pragmatist leaps directly to rational argument when he’s addressing somebody who’s mad as hell, failing to recognize that such an approach tends to make people even more emotionally defensive, immediately switching to derision when “reason” doesn’t work. “I know this sucks, really, but this is the best we can do right now” works far better than demanding infinite gratitude for Harry Reid no longer being Majority Leader. “Let me listen to and explore your ideas (however harebrained they might seem to me at the moment)” gives people a sense you actually give a damn what they think. “You idiot, don’t you know Obama will just veto it!?” does not. Pragmatists — even the good ones — too often respond with variations of “Shut up and listen to us” when they should be offering (and asking for) constructive feedback about what can be done given current circumstances.

Some in the base have no clue “how Washington works,” others understand all too well and despise it. But the principled pragmatist conflates them, equating the ignorance of the former with the latter’s informed understanding of the risks. Moreover, the hyper-rational pragmatist typically can’t grasp that many of us could accept losing if we felt that our leaders understood the urgency of our cause, that they worked with our belief that things need to change now instead of hoping to stifle it, and that they’re really trying.

The pragmatist is naturally risk-averse and so bogged-down in the details that he often gives the impression that he’s given up on his conservative hopes and dreams, even if he hasn’t. Thus, he fails to acknowledge the reality that giving the impression you’re actually doing something matters almost as much as actually doing something, especially during those times when doing something proves exceptionally difficult. People need inspiration: the sense they’re being led by somebody who wants what they want, who is disappointed by what disappoints them, and who dreams what they dream. McBoehnell is the opposite of that.

The principled pragmatist might argue that — for now – stopping Obama from furthering his agenda and keeping Hillary from winning the presidency might temporarily suffice as political victories. In the actual sense it won’t. Conservative leaders need to give reminders — evidence, you might say — that we’re fighters even if we lose and assurance we’re on the right track in a way that doesn’t come across as condescending. Conservatives need to know that the pollsters, consultants, and Congressional leadership want what we want, that we’ll get a respectful and sympathetic explanation for why the bill didn’t make it to the president’s desk like we were promised. Constant cries that “We can’t do anything to forward our agenda until we have the Presidency and sixty votes in the Senate” or “I know I said we could pass a bill overturning Obamacare using reconciliation but didn’t really mean it” are counterproductive.

Whatever the polling data might tell you, ignoring this is far from pragmatic. Yes, we need to be realistic, but we also need to push the bounds of reality a bit. A principled GOP pragmatist should respond to “Public opinion isn’t with us on this one” with “let’s start changing public opinion.” Boldness is among the most essential traits we need to change Washington; today, it might seem fruitless, but being bold under such circumstances breeds confidence that we will continue to be so when things improve. No matter how many seats we have in Congress or what party controls the presidency, the media, academia, bureaucracy, pop culture, and Self magazine will be just as against us then are they are now. It’s going to require courage to change things no matter what happens at the ballot box. Pragmatists need to show us they’ve actually got some of it; without it, no rational argument or cry of “President Hillary will be your fault” will convince many of us there’s any reason to vote for them.

Moreover, the Pragmatist needs to distinguish himself from the Washington elites who don’t want to effect actual change, the Chamber of Commerce types who plan to run primary opponents against perfectly electable Tea Party favorites, and who would voraciously oppose Ted Cruz especially if even if the polling data indicated he’d win in a landslide. At present, the principled pragmatist who believes in waiting for a more opportune moment to push a conservative agenda advocates the same short-term strategy as the elitist who wants to stifle anything that hints of breaking the “Washington Cartel.” Not being cognizant of how downright condescending he can sound, the principled pragmatist gives the impression that there’s nothing to differentiate him from Trent Lott.

Finally, the good pragmatist needs to admit that he’s sometimes wrong. I’ve yet to encounter a single one who’s admitted he was wrong about how Ted Cruz’s “government shutdown” attempt would keep us from taking the Senate in 2014, nor consider for an instant that it might be part of the reason we did so well. Under pragmatic leadership, the base feels ignored, uninspired, and that the GOP is as much opposed to doing anything about our mess in Washington as the Democrats. The pragmatists believes such beliefs are nonsense, failing to see how he — unwittingly and undeservedly – gave such an impression.

The base may be “unsophisticated,” but its passion has the potential to affect change far more reaching that anything “sufficient voter contacts” or focus group-derived talking points ever could. The base may be overly-inclined to believe that “telling it like it is” is a sure way to win every election, but the pragmatist is too quick to conclude that the same truth-telling surely leads to defeat. If it’s irrational to assume that every conservative firebrand will lead to Reagan-sized landslides, might it not also be irrational to assume that anyone to the right of Bob Dole will result in Goldwater-sized defeats?

Indeed, the charts and data and polling trends provide us with information we need to win elections, and the pragmatist understands this like the base never will. However, the base would be far more likely to heed the cautious advice of the pragmatist were he a bit less inclined to call them “clowns,” a bit more inclined to acknowledge that there’s political reality that can’t be neatly encapsulated in charts and graphs, and were his advice not quite so cautious all the time.

According to a poll I keep hearing about — but am unable to locate — that merely 20% of Republicans are happy with their leadership, whereas 60% of Democrats approve of theirs. The pragmatist likely assumes that this is because Democratic leaders have enough power to effect actual policy changes in their favor. What if it’s the other way around, that Democrats have power because they inspire their base? What if the Republican base is correct in its “unsophisticated” and “irrational” notion that it’s impossible to grow a “big tent” without risking driving its current occupants out? Has the pragmatist noticed that as he continually encourages his base to be patient, Democrats encourage their base to remain perpetually riled-up?

The principled pragmatist encourages caution, and sometimes caution is appropriate. Unfortunately, these are perilous times, times during which caution simply will not suffice. Everything that could possibly engender change requires risk, so it’s time for the pragmatist to use his expertise to maximize the effectiveness of bold strokes instead of discouraging anybody who might consider them, and to step aside and allow some creativity.

The only reason I can tell the difference between the principled pragmatists and the cynical elites who genuinely oppose conservative principle is that I’ve personally interacted with enough of each to tell the difference. I’ve had long conversations late into the night with realists who’ve shown me that they want what I want, but staunchly disagree with me strategically. Most of the base has had no such opportunity. They’ve no reason to believe the pragmatists actually support them when the only thing they’ve ever heard from them is “not yet.”

So Mr. Pragmatist, you may know from the depths of your heart that you’d do everything in your power to effect actual conservative change if given the actual chance. We don’t, and we won’t until you prove it.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 77 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Leigh Inactive
    Leigh
    @Leigh

    Martel: I suspect his strategy is to eventually harness Trump’s support by letting the other candidates rip into him until they marginalize him enough to get out.  Were he to criticize Trump that wouldn’t happen.  Regarding the morality of his approach, it’s not like Trump is going uncriticized; he’s just letting the other candidates do it.

    I agree that’s what he’s doing.  It’s the inconsistency that bugs me.

    Basically, Cruz (like DeMint before him) is someone I really want to like but who manages to actually drive me crazy.  Except DeMint wisely chose not to run for President.  (People wanted him to.)

    • #31
  2. Leigh Inactive
    Leigh
    @Leigh

    Quinn the Eskimo: That said, we all bear our own responsibility for dealing with hardship.  When time get tough, some people strive to do better and some people reach for the bottle (or the noose).

    The difference between Denethor literally burning it all down and Frodo pressing on against hope, and Galadriel and Elrond realizing that what had been could not be again, but that freedom was still worth it.

    Maybe we can make a difference and turn things around.  Maybe we can’t.  Importantly, that’s in God’s hands ultimately — all I can strive to do is the right thing.  And the right thing is never to simply burn it down.

    • #32
  3. Quinn the Eskimo Member
    Quinn the Eskimo
    @

    Leigh: Martel: I suspect his strategy is to eventually harness Trump’s support by letting the other candidates rip into him until they marginalize him enough to get out. Were he to criticize Trump that wouldn’t happen. Regarding the morality of his approach, it’s not like Trump is going uncriticized; he’s just letting the other candidates do it. I agree that’s what he’s doing. It’s the inconsistency that bugs me.

    I’ll go a little further.  If he thinks Trump is doing something wrong, as a matter of leadership (and he does want to be President of the United States) , he probably has to say something.  If he thinks what Trump is doing is fine, then he doesn’t.  Waiting around for Donald Trump to implode with the hope of picking up the pieces isn’t leadership.

    It’s not disqualifying per se, but a little underwhelming.

    • #33
  4. Jim Kearney Member
    Jim Kearney
    @JimKearney

    Martel: Collecting and compiling such data is a science, but aspects of knowing what to do with such data is often more of an art. I’ve worked with those of such a scientific temperament, but I’ve seen firsthand how their left-brained approach all to often misses things that are obvious to somebody a bit less analytical.

    Couldn’t agree more about left-brained analysis falling short in an era which is becoming more and more driven by imagery, emotion, instinct, and tribal bonding.

    • #34
  5. Quinn the Eskimo Member
    Quinn the Eskimo
    @

    Martel: You’re not incorrect. However, to help people become what they should be we first have to recognize what they are. Indeed, each person is responsible for making morally correct decisions. Yet human nature being what it is is horribly flawed. Part of the reason the Constitution and Christianity have been so successful is that each understands people thoroughly. After acknowledging our sinful nature, we can do wonders. When (like lots of GOP politicos) we just pretend people aren’t going to get mad and count on them to do the right thing, all too often they won’t. People are mad. Rational or not, we can’t ignore that.

    I’ve been trying to say, over the course of the last few weeks, that I acknowledge everyone’s anger.  I’m angry too.  But at the same time, anger is not a plan and that people should not lose sight of the larger agenda because you angry at party leaders who have disappointed you.

    I think these are all things that are true.  None of it involves name calling.  None of it speaks to questions of electability or even moderation.  It is strictly an appeal to the conservative agenda.

    If there is a better approach, I’ll take all of the advice anyone has.

    • #35
  6. Jim Kearney Member
    Jim Kearney
    @JimKearney

    Martel: the Koch brothers support gay marriage.  Still, as much as I oppose gay marriage, the Kochs are with me often enough to consider them allies.

    Just got back from buying (Koch-owned) Brawny paper towels as a way of saying thanks for their leadership. I’m with them on SSM, but not on everything. They are as influential today as WFB/NR were in defining the conservatism of a past era.

    Martel: This exemplifies the “scientific” mindset I described earlier, essential yet too detail-oriented to work effectively without an “artistic” counterpart.

    Good data scientists are adept at pattern recognition, deriving “personality” from the aggregated data, and yes, it’s something of an art. So is asking the right questions. Once you recognize the pattern, sometimes you dive deep to find the surprise inside. Targeting voters must be done correctly, which brings us to …

    MartelI’ve seen firsthand how their left-brained approach all to often misses things that are obvious to somebody a bit less analytical.

    Your wrenching tale of woe about the idiots at State Capitol is not merely about linear, half-brained, bias-skewed pseudo-analytic thinking. The people you describe are incompetent fools, numskulls, drones, non-listeners, self-serving parasites, schnorrers, gonifs, and worse.

    I’m glad they were all involved in sexual relationships with one another, because that’s time they weren’t screwing up more at work. Great story, though, thanks for sharing. I’ll bet your post would give the actual data scientists working for the Democrats a good laugh.

    • #36
  7. Jim Kearney Member
    Jim Kearney
    @JimKearney

    Martel: focus groups also say they want politicians who “can reach across” the aisle but then vote for the most partisan member of the Senate over the guy who said “reach across the aisle” every time he spoke.

    I think people from each party want the other party to elect politicians who “can reach across the aisle.”

    Within our own party, we need to elect people who can reach across the aisle in districts where only such a person can be elected.

    It is also useful to have national candidates who at least have the proven potential to win large, crucial swing states. What kind of reaching across the aisle such a person should do as President or VP should depend on how many moderate “reachers” the opposing party sends to Congress from districts and states they control.

    • #37
  8. Martel Inactive
    Martel
    @Martel

    Quinn the Eskimo:

     

    I’ve been trying to say, over the course of the last few weeks, that I acknowledge everyone’s anger. I’m angry too. But at the same time, anger is not a plan and that people should not lose sight of the larger agenda because you angry at party leaders who have disappointed you.

    I think these are all things that are true. None of it involves name calling. None of it speaks to questions of electability or even moderation. It is strictly an appeal to the conservative agenda.

    If there is a better approach, I’ll take all of the advice anyone has.

    Anger isn’t a plan in and of itself, but it can be the spark that inspires one to come up with the requisite plan.

    Of course it needs to be focused and honed, but don’t forget that there are indeed times when anger can be productive; when Reagan barked out “I paid for this microphone!” he was angry.

    When subservient to the brain and used strategically, anger can be a great tool.  The left uses it against us to great effect.  I suspect there are times we could do likewise if we keep our heads about us when doing it.

    • #38
  9. Martel Inactive
    Martel
    @Martel

    Jim Kearney:

    Martel: This exemplifies the “scientific” mindset I described earlier, essential yet too detail-oriented to work effectively without an “artistic” counterpart.

    Good data scientists are adept at pattern recognition, deriving “personality” from the aggregated data, and yes, it’s something of an art. So is asking the right questions. Once you recognize the pattern, sometimes you dive deep to find the surprise inside. Targeting voters must be done correctly, which brings us to …

    Quality science is partly artistic, quality art is partly scientific.  I’m with you.

    Martel: I’ve seen firsthand how their left-brained approach all to often misses things that are obvious to somebody a bit less analytical.

    Your wrenching tale of woe about the idiots at State Capitol is not merely about linear, half-brained, bias-skewed pseudo-analytic thinking.

    Not “merely” about unimaginative thinking, but partially, yes.  Given their (horribly) erroneous assumptions, much of what they did was perfectly logical.

    The people you describe are incompetent fools, numskulls, drones, non-listeners, self-serving parasites, schnorrers, gonifs, and worse.

    Almost all of whom are more influential in Republican circles than they were then.  They can check off all the right qualification boxes, you see.

    I’ll bet your post would give the actual data scientists working for the Democrats a good laugh.

    I was friends with somebody who ran a Democrat campaign center in 2008.  She loved her job and was thoroughly impressed with her superiors.

    • #39
  10. Martel Inactive
    Martel
    @Martel

    Jim Kearney:

    Martel: focus groups also say they want politicians who “can reach across” the aisle but then vote for the most partisan member of the Senate over the guy who said “reach across the aisle” every time he spoke.

    I think people from each party want the other party to elect politicians who “can reach across the aisle.”

    Within our own party, we need to elect people who can reach across the aisle in districts where only such a person can be elected.

    It is also useful to have national candidates who at least have the proven potential to win large, crucial swing states. What kind of reaching across the aisle such a person should do as President or VP should depend on how many moderate “reachers” the opposing party sends to Congress from districts and states they control.

    This is an untested thesis, but I suspect that conservatives want to elect conservatives, leftists want to elect leftists, and moderates want to elect leaders.

    Moreover, if a Republican announces up front he’s willing to “reach across the aisle,” conservatives suspect he’ll be a sellout.  However, if he’s proven his conservative credentials, he’ll be able to do so and conservatives will give him some leeway because they trust him.

    That said, I’ll concede that we’ve more leeway to elect conservatives in Kansas than Vermont.

    • #40
  11. Quinn the Eskimo Member
    Quinn the Eskimo
    @

    Martel: Anger isn’t a plan in and of itself, but it can be the spark that inspires one to come up with the requisite plan. Of course it needs to be focused and honed, but don’t forget that there are indeed times when anger can be productive; when Reagan barked out “I paid for this microphone!” he was angry. When subservient to the brain and used strategically, anger can be a great tool. The left uses it against us to great effect. I suspect there are times we could do likewise if we keep our heads about us when doing it.

    If I thought this was happening, I’d feel differently.  But this isn’t like 2009-10 with the early Tea Party days.  Anger isn’t making people more productive.  It seems like they are getting high from it.  If you see something, point it out, because I could use the encouragement.

    As for what the Left does, I would be wary about using that as a model.  On the Left, they have their Establishment candidate who is being challenged by a socialist who is being run off the stage by Black Lives Matter activists.  The Left is shutting down free speech and due process on college campuses.  I expect everything to end in ashes and blood on their side given enough time.  There is a reason far left regimes end in Killing Fields.

    • #41
  12. Quinn the Eskimo Member
    Quinn the Eskimo
    @

    P.S. I appreciate, Martel, that you have been respectful in all this and have listened.  I feel like hardly anyone wants to talk about this.  There has been too much venting and ranting and name calling and not nearly enough real conversation.

    • #42
  13. Leigh Inactive
    Leigh
    @Leigh

    Martel: This is an untested thesis, but I suspect that conservatives want to elect conservatives, leftists want to elect leftists, and moderates want to elect leaders.

    Scott Walker would tell you your thesis has been tested and proven — that is exactly, almost word-for-word, his argument about why he won in Wisconsin.  Right or wrong, I don’t know.

    Quinn the Eskimo: If I thought this was happening, I’d feel differently.  But this isn’t like 2009-10 with the early Tea Party days.  Anger isn’t making people more productive.

    There’s a difference between purposeful anger and blind irrational fury.  Anger is a weapon that can be most dangerous to the one wielding it.

    • #43
  14. Martel Inactive
    Martel
    @Martel

    Quinn the Eskimo:P.S. I appreciate, Martel, that you have been respectful in all this and have listened. I feel like hardly anyone wants to talk about this. There has been too much venting and ranting and name calling and not nearly enough real conversation.

    I agree, which is part of why I wrote this post.  Although I was more critical of the pragmatists than idealists, I believe it’s important to figure out how to work together with those with whom it’s possible.  Yes, I put more of the impetus on the pragmatists to change, but that’s largely because they’re in a better position to do so and they have more leverage and power.

    Regarding your prior comment, I evaluate all political tactics for two things:  Does it work, or doesn’t it?  Is it moral, or isn’t it?

    Some tactics the left employs I find abhorrent and would never advocate using.  Some of what they do simply works better than what we do.  Although I’d rather we could remove anger from political discourse altogether, we can’t, leaving us with the question of how we’re best going to deal with it.

    Whereas I believe the left unnecessarily stokes the anger of its base, the right unnecessarily tries to stifle its base’s anger.  But (in case you haven’t noticed) that doesn’t work particularly well and just makes the anger grow.

    (continued below)

    • #44
  15. Martel Inactive
    Martel
    @Martel

    Moreover, the left’s establishment simply seems more hungry than the right when it comes to winning elections and the like.  Yet I see some pretty powerful feelings on our side, all of which seem to get lost in some committee somewhere.

    Were we able to harness the raw energy so many of us feel in a productive manner we’d be far better off.  But that’s not going to happen so long as GOP leaders just repeat “be patient” ad infinitum.

    Some of our leaders don’t know how to handle such energy because they don’t feel it themselves, others are threatened by it (perhaps because it genuinely threatens their cozy positions of power).  I’d like the former to acknowledge that value of the passion of its base so that it can be directed in such a way as to actually get things to happen.

    I’ll be writing future posts in a similar vein so I hope you’ll read them.  I appreciate talking with you, too.

    • #45
  16. Martel Inactive
    Martel
    @Martel

    Leigh:

    Martel: This is an untested thesis, but I suspect that conservatives want to elect conservatives, leftists want to elect leftists, and moderates want to elect leaders.

    Scott Walker would tell you your thesis has been tested and proven — that is exactly, almost word-for-word, his argument about why he won in Wisconsin. Right or wrong, I don’t know.

    Quinn the Eskimo: If I thought this was happening, I’d feel differently. But this isn’t like 2009-10 with the early Tea Party days. Anger isn’t making people more productive.

    There’s a difference between purposeful anger and blind irrational fury. Anger is a weapon that can be most dangerous to the one wielding it.

    When “purposeful anger” is ignored, stifled, mocked, and pooh-poohed, it tends to turn into the “blind irrational” kind.  That’s what I’m hoping our leaders recognize.

    If they don’t, the next person who capitalizes on it will make Donald Trump look like Tinkerbell.

    More on this here.

    • #46
  17. Leigh Inactive
    Leigh
    @Leigh

    Martel: When “purposeful anger” is ignored, stifled, mocked, and pooh-poohed, it tends to turn into the “blind irrational” kind.  That’s what I’m hoping our leaders recognize.

    But if that anger is channeled into supporting someone who embodies much of what hate while neglecting credible leaders, it has already become blind and irrational.

    I don’t know if you have a preferred candidate yet, but take one of those generally considered credible: perhaps Rubio, Walker, or Bush.  What specifically do you believe he should do to address that anger?

    • #47
  18. Leigh Inactive
    Leigh
    @Leigh

    On your original post, here is one thing up in Congress this fall that I think is relevant to your point: there is a bill — and because the Democrats are desperate to be rid of NCLB the President is very likely to sign it — which would end Arne Duncan’s rule-by-mandate and stop all federal attempts to impose Common Core.  It won’t be perfect, but it would be a real victory.  I only know about this because I follow education politics.  That’s a failure on the part of congressional leadership — and of  the conservative media.

    Also, I don’t forget that these Republicans stuck their necks out in a big way by voting for Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan.  That was an exceptional thing for a bunch of politicians to do.  David Cameron’s Conservatives would never do that.

    I realize they can be wobbly and cynical.  But in the global scheme of things, our current set of Republicans are no worse than anyone else’s set of politicians, and maybe even a little better.

    • #48
  19. Quinn the Eskimo Member
    Quinn the Eskimo
    @

    Leigh:

    Quinn the Eskimo: That said, we all bear our own responsibility for dealing with hardship. When time get tough, some people strive to do better and some people reach for the bottle (or the noose).

    The difference between Denethor literally burning it all down and Frodo pressing on against hope, and Galadriel and Elrond realizing that what had been could not be again, but that freedom was still worth it.

    Maybe we can make a difference and turn things around. Maybe we can’t. Importantly, that’s in God’s hands ultimately — all I can strive to do is the right thing. And the right thing is never to simply burn it down.

    For the last few days, I had been thinking about a different Lord of the Rings reference.  Boromir and the temptation of the Ring.

    • #49
  20. Quinn the Eskimo Member
    Quinn the Eskimo
    @

    Martel: When “purposeful anger” is ignored, stifled, mocked, and pooh-poohed, it tends to turn into the “blind irrational” kind. That’s what I’m hoping our leaders recognize. If they don’t, the next person who capitalizes on it will make Donald Trump look like Tinkerbell.

    Once again, I agree that Republican leadership in Washington is bad.  I think in particular that the immigration debate has gotten beyond adjectives.  (If you are not securing the border and cracking down on people who overstay visas, you are not really talking about “comprehensive” immigration reform because you aren’t solving the underlying problem.)  I think you have something similar in Europe where more reasonable (not even particularly restrictionist) views are forbidden by the major parties and have given an opening to actual fascist parties.

    I worry that when our leaders hear Trump talk about Mexicans who come to this country as rapists that they get so embarrassed that they compensate by moving in the other direction.  It becomes a vicious cycle.  I believe (perhaps naively) that there is a conservative position that is persuasive and could move the leadership.  There is an aspect of catching the deer.  If you come at him too aggressively, he’s going to run off.  If you are calm, you can get a bit closer.

    • #50
  21. Brad2971 Member
    Brad2971
    @

    Leigh:

    Martel: This is an untested thesis, but I suspect that conservatives want to elect conservatives, leftists want to elect leftists, and moderates want to elect leaders.

    Scott Walker would tell you your thesis has been tested and proven — that is exactly, almost word-for-word, his argument about why he won in Wisconsin. Right or wrong, I don’t know.

    Quinn the Eskimo: If I thought this was happening, I’d feel differently. But this isn’t like 2009-10 with the early Tea Party days. Anger isn’t making people more productive.

    There’s a difference between purposeful anger and blind irrational fury. Anger is a weapon that can be most dangerous to the one wielding it.

    Is media-driven anger really anger? Or is it just an attempt to keep and hold an audience? Because I can tell you with near-certainty that media (regardless of erstwhile ideology) has driven a LOT of anger coming from conservatives for the last 20-25 years.

    • #51
  22. Quinn the Eskimo Member
    Quinn the Eskimo
    @

    Martel: Moreover, the left’s establishment simply seems more hungry than the right when it comes to winning elections and the like. Yet I see some pretty powerful feelings on our side, all of which seem to get lost in some committee somewhere. Were we able to harness the raw energy so many of us feel in a productive manner we’d be far better off. But that’s not going to happen so long as GOP leaders just repeat “be patient” ad infinitum.

    I think conservative cultural confidence hasn’t been the same since the shutdown of 1995-6.  That was a tough one.  I think after all of the rhetoric about shrinking the size of government, they thought it would be easier and after they lost (and it turned out to be much closer than they thought) and the stigma of losing that fight never left them.

    I think there is a lot of rebuilding that has to be done and never got done.  It was easier to focus on impeachment or ride George W. Bush’s coat tails than to work towards convincing people that the government was too large.  I think there are things that can be done, but I think some of them are hard and I don’t think the politicians like hard.  So in all likelihood, Congressional Republicans will do little unless a Republican President is elected to give them some cover to show a smidgen of courage.

    • #52
  23. Brad2971 Member
    Brad2971
    @

    Martel: Whereas I believe the left unnecessarily stokes the anger of its base, the right unnecessarily tries to stifle its base’s anger. But (in case you haven’t noticed) that doesn’t work particularly well and just makes the anger grow.

    You mean to tell me that Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter (among many others) stifle the base’s anger? As opposed to fomenting it and feeding the beast on a near-daily basis?

    The right’s politicians aren’t the only ones to have effective voices.

    • #53
  24. Brad2971 Member
    Brad2971
    @

    Quinn the Eskimo: I worry that when our leaders hear Trump talk about Mexicans who come to this country as rapists that they get so embarrassed that they compensate by moving in the other direction. It becomes a vicious cycle. I believe (perhaps naively) that there is a conservative position that is persuasive and could move the leadership. There is an aspect of catching the deer. If you come at him too aggressively, he’s going to run off. If you are calm, you can get a bit closer.

    Regretfully, whatever happens with Trump, he likely, by his actions, shut off the vast majority of GOP articulated opposition to immigration in this country. He most certainly shut off all emotional opposition.

    • #54
  25. Quinn the Eskimo Member
    Quinn the Eskimo
    @

    I think there is a portion of the base that believes, in essence, “If you build it, they will come.”  That seems overconfident to me.  I don’t expect that what we have to do is going to be easy.  I expect it to be hard and I expect to have to fight for it an inch at a time.  Everyone thinks the left is just sweeping things away but often forget that they have been working at it for over a century.  It’s going to take something more like sustained determination. The Left is not just going to pick up its marbles and go home.

    • #55
  26. Martel Inactive
    Martel
    @Martel

    .Leigh:

    Martel: When “purposeful anger” is ignored, stifled, mocked, and pooh-poohed, it tends to turn into the “blind irrational” kind. That’s what I’m hoping our leaders recognize.

    But if that anger is channeled into supporting someone who embodies much of what hate while neglecting credible leaders, it has already become blind and irrational.

    I don’t know if you have a preferred candidate yet, but take one of those generally considered credible: perhaps Rubio, Walker, or Bush. What specifically do you believe he should do to address that anger

    “Specific” examples of steps in the right direction I’ve seen thus far include Rand Paul turning accusations he’s an extremist on abortion right back onto Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Huckabee’s refusal to back down on his oven comments, Fiorina’s artful handling of every interview I’ve seen, Walker’s tangible successes in Wisconsin, and Cruz’s speech attacking McConnell on the Senate floor.

    However, it’s less a question of “specific” actions and more one of attitude, for a candidate with a fearless (not reckless) attitude infuses his entire campaign with the sense that he or she is a leader who won’t be afraid to do what’s necessary.  He’ll reframe interviews in such a way that the interviewer will look bad if they’re being unfair, make opponents hesitant to attack because they know he’ll “punch back twice as hard,” etc.

    Have the right mindset and the specific actions will follow.

    • #56
  27. Martel Inactive
    Martel
    @Martel

    Leigh:On your original post, here is one thing up in Congress this fall that I think is relevant to your point: there is a bill — and because the Democrats are desperate to be rid of NCLB the President is very likely to sign it — which would end Arne Duncan’s rule-by-mandate and stop all federal attempts to impose Common Core. It won’t be perfect, but it would be a real victory. I only know about this because I follow education politics. That’s a failure on the part of congressional leadership — and of the conservative media.

    Considering how well-informed I am and that I’ve never heard of it, you’re correct.

    Also, I don’t forget that these Republicans stuck their necks out in a big way by voting for Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan. That was an exceptional thing for a bunch of politicians to do. David Cameron’s Conservatives would never do that.

    Good point.

    I realize they can be wobbly and cynical. But in the global scheme of things, our current set of Republicans are no worse than anyone else’s set of politicians, and maybe even a little better.

    They may be (and I do give them credit for not letting us become quite as socialist as Europe and holding fast on gun rights).  However, these are challenging times.  A “little better” than most politicians simply isn’t good enough any more.

    • #57
  28. Martel Inactive
    Martel
    @Martel

    Quinn the Eskimo:

    I worry that when our leaders hear Trump talk about Mexicans who come to this country as rapists that they get so embarrassed that they compensate by moving in the other direction. It becomes a vicious cycle. I believe (perhaps naively) that there is a conservative position that is persuasive and could move the leadership. There is an aspect of catching the deer. If you come at him too aggressively, he’s going to run off. If you are calm, you can get a bit closer.

    The media has the tendency to hold only individual Democrats responsible for controversial comments while holding every Republican responsible for any controversial comment by any Republican.

    To counter this, every Republican who’s about to be interviewed should have at least 2-3 recent stupid or extremist comments by Democrats at the ready in their heads.  When asked about recent comment by Whoever, Republican should say “Why didn’t you ask Sen. Gillebrand if she agrees with the President that everybody who opposes the Iran deal is making common cause with Iranian extremists?  I’m no more responsible for what Whoever said than she is for what the President said.”  He can then either cite more examples of stupid things Democrats say, or if he agrees with the basic crux of the comment can say “I wouldn’t have worded it that way, but the border is a serious problem” and press on with the promoting conservative views on the issue.

    • #58
  29. Martel Inactive
    Martel
    @Martel

    Quinn the Eskimo:

    I think conservative cultural confidence hasn’t been the same since the shutdown of 1995-6. That was a tough one. I think after all of the rhetoric about shrinking the size of government, they thought it would be easier and after they lost (and it turned out to be much closer than they thought) and the stigma of losing that fight never left them.

    Yet although we lost seats in that election, we still held onto the House.  It was a defeat, but hardly the defeat we remember it being.

    More on this tendency in a response to Leigh below.

    • #59
  30. Martel Inactive
    Martel
    @Martel

    Brad2971:

    Martel: Whereas I believe the left unnecessarily stokes the anger of its base, the right unnecessarily tries to stifle its base’s anger. But (in case you haven’t noticed) that doesn’t work particularly well and just makes the anger grow.

    You mean to tell me that Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter (among many others) stifle the base’s anger? As opposed to fomenting it and feeding the beast on a near-daily basis?

    The right’s politicians aren’t the only ones to have effective voices.

    I was referring to Republican leaders, not conservative media.  Yes, conservative media isn’t exactly lacking in fervor.

    However, Levin, Hannity, and Limbaugh don’t hold office.  They don’t speak for the party.  They can’t pass legislation.

    To an extent these folks may “stoke” some anger, but they also reflect it.  (When Rush first hit it big the response he always got was “I didn’t know anybody besides me actually thought this way.”)  However, unlike with Democrats, those with actual power don’t want the base to get too enthused (except perhaps after primary season until election day) because it puts pressure on them.

    Democrat leadership wants its base loud and angry all the time.  Republican leadership wants its to calm down except for about three months every two years.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.