Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
On Pragmatists
Although 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
You’ve hit on a point here that’s beyond important. Whatever we do will be immediately followed by a media barrage about the lives we’re ruining, polls that show how unpopular it is, and substantive attempts by Democratic officials to counter it. Every step of the way, every time.
Because the idealists think it will be easier than it will be, they don’t interpret the inevitable counter-attacks as par for the course but instead as a sign of defeat.
This even holds us back on messaging. For example, anything we might possibly come up with that could begin to peel black votes away from the Democrats will be decried as “racist” in the harshest of terms. So we either don’t even try, or if we try, we abort the mission the instant they fight back.
I agree.
But someone from Mars dipping into conservative media would think there is some special virus in this particular political party that makes them all act like wimps. That’s just not true. It’s a function of human nature, politics, and the state of our culture today. A quick look at other democracies confirms that. Criticism and challenges are warranted — it’s ridiculous that Lindsey Graham represents SC — but in the big picture the Republican Party is not the problem. It’s a symptom. To the extent that the Tea Party movement failed (and it didn’t completely), it failed because it focused on that symptom more than the disease.
The longer we have a leftist government, the more the country moves leftward on issues — apart from partisan polls. Meanwhile conservatives are pushing the party rightward. And they’re right to do so. But it creates a tension that the idealists need to address creatively, rather than simply denouncing those who have to deal with it.
Otherwise, we get the scenario where Boehner gives up and depends on Democrats to pass a bill. That’s a failure on both sides.
DeMint never managed to co-opt leadership. Ryan did.
I was referring more to the psychological defeat. Although we lost a few seats, the Republican leadership has not called for the dismantling of whole departments. There are candidates who do (Rand Paul, Rick Perry), but not the leadership during the remainder of the Clinton years, or the Bush years or the Obama years.
It’s going to take a lot of work to shake people out of their stupor. It’s going to take a combination of building trust and public support and by choosing targets that they reasonably think they are dismantle. My hope is that they can rebuild some confidence by accomplishing something.
More to come, but probably later after work.
Not all Republicans are wimps, but their leaders usually are. That reflects back on the rest of them.
You’re also correct that this is a reflection of today’s culture, but this is true largely because we’ve allowed ourselves to be bullied both culturally and politically. They call us a name, we back down, leading to more names, more backing down, the downward spiral.
Yes, the idealists need to get more creative. The pragmatists also need to recognize creativity, or at least recognize those who recognize it.
And part of the reason we remember it as a much worse electoral defeat than it was is that it was a psychological defeat like you say.
And the reason it was such a psychological defeat is that we expected it to be easy. Expect a long hard slog, if it ends up being easy, bonus. If you expect ease, a long hard slog will seem like a defeat.
This is one of those ways in which the pragmatist and the idealist need to work together, for the pragmatist needs to help the idealist reach his goals while keeping his feet on the ground.
That’s true. We also need people who will listen. Candidates need to spend less time playing to their own perceived strengths and more time to what people need. It’s like your experience in that political campaign. They had their model and couldn’t think outside of it. Or like the car salesman who tries to sell a sports car with a high profit margin to a couple who keep trying to explain that they need a vehicle to take their four kids to soccer practice. In the car lot of conservatism, there are a lot of vehicles to choose from. (Also true as a general life lesson.)
I did a post about a year ago during the primary challenge to Graham. The feedback from folks from South Carolina was that there were local considerations that help Graham get re-elected that aren’t factors in presidential elections. It’s like North Dakota have one Democrat and one Republican in the Senate even though North Dakota has not gone Democrat in a Presidential election since 1964. Some times, there is no substitute for local knowledge.
I’ll cite an example that I thinks bolsters this point. During the 2013 shutdown, there was a suggestion floated that if we couldn’t get repeal of Obamacare that maybe we could knock out a piece or a few pieces.
We can argue the merits of this at great length. One side argued that if we knock out the worst parts, we make it easier for the rest of the legislation to survive. One the other side, you take what you can now and come back for the rest later. Particularly at a point when Obamacare was already passed and Obama is still president.
I can see both sides of the argument. I thought Heritage weighing in so that a vote for anything less than repeal would get a negative score elevated a good faith question of strategy to an ideological question. That was unnecessary. In the time since, the person who has done the most to wreck Obamacare is Obama himself. Meanwhile, Democrats keep saying that the law is here to stay while I continue to think that a death by a thousand cuts strategy would make Obamacare more vulnerable.
Even if other conservatives think I am wrong, it rankles if it is because they think I am a squish.
So far as I can tell, Paul Ryan is in principle just as conservative as Jim DeMint. But you wouldn’t know it from Heritage Action.
It’s especially unhelpful when news sites like Breitbart insert scores from some of these groups into their articles as though they are the last word on a politician’s philosophy. (I don’t know exactly where they get their score, but I think you know what I mean.)
I probably would have denounced Trump in the strongest appropriate terms and then turned around and said that Republicans don’t accept that kind of bad behavior in our ranks while Democrats are thrilled to use thinly veiled anti-Antisemitism to try to get their way on the Iran deal.
I like the way you think and it would be the right approach in more circumstances, but I think what Trump said was extremely wrong, even if there were no political considerations.
There is too much emphasis on scoring. The reasons for each vote are more important.
It’s like the Supreme Court. Sometimes Kennedy votes for the 4 liberals. Sometimes Scalia votes with the 4 liberals. No one thinks that Kennedy’s vote with the liberals means the same thing as Scalia’s vote.
Or on federal drug questions. There is a difference between thinking there are federalism issues and thinking drugs are cool, even though the vote would be scored the same.
I try very much to distinguish between those I disagree with on tactics and those who disagree on principle. Part of the purpose of this post was to alert idealists that there is a difference.
I like prefer my idea because although Republicans saying dumb things is problematic, how the media frames every dumb thing a Republican says, Republicans coming across as apologetic, and an alienated base much moreso.
For although your response criticizes Obama, you also criticize statements that lots of the conservatives like. Trump’s comments were poorly worded, but we’ve got to be very careful we don’t seem more inclined to attack too-strident Republicans than we are the media and left.
Moreover, attacking the comments de facto legitimizes the idea that it’s appropriate for interviewers to force every Republican to either attack or defend every comment a Republican makes.
However, your response is far better that those of most Republicans because you do in fact attack. At this juncture defense is a loser. We need to push our agenda forward at every opportunity. I don’t think your response does that as well as it could, but it still does it.
I appreciate that you do. That is why this conversation has been so productive.
I appreciate the political considerations. I might give them more weight except for the extremity of the circumstance. That is (1) I believe what he said was wrong and I believe it would be dishonest to defend it and (2) I don’t think he said was conservative, in fact, quite unconservative. Conservatives always treated people as individuals and judged a man on his own merits. If I believe that if someone is leading conservatives off the path, I think one has an obligation to speak. I don’t think that means being insulting to Trump supporters (and I have been scrupulous polite, even when it taxes my patience), but it does mean being honest.
If people want to talk about illegal immigration and crime, Victor Davis Hanson has done some great work explaining how willful blindness towards illegal immigrants results in willful blindness towards other crimes. It’s a great argument I’ve never heard anyone else use.
In which case, don’t defend it but instead just go on the attack against something Democrats say.
There are over 100,000 things about Democrats and 50,000 about Republicans I’d love to attack, but decisions regarding what to attack when should be strategic. I believe that telling the truth is morally imperative, but considering there’s no human way possible to tell all the truth, I select those truths I tell to be those I find most advantageous. (Obviously, there are times when it’s imperative to tell the whole truth. Political campaigns aren’t one of them.)
He did say he believes some of them are good people, indicating that however much the beginning of the statement sounded like a blanket condemnation, he showed that he recognizes individual distinctions, however inartfully expressed.
His discussions on this and the overall degradation of California are brilliant, agreed.