Putting Mobbishness on the Shelf

 

In episode 342 of the Ricochet podcast, James Delingpole said, “I don’t even know why anyone even cares what conservatism is anymore.” And I’m so glad he did. This is exactly what I was getting at when I wrote There’s No Philosophy In It two weeks ago.

You see, James Delingpole is at war. He says so explicitly. David Limbaugh says the same in episode 340. And they are right. There is a war. They are at war. But I’m not.

This war they speak of is not my war. This is not a war between the philosophical left and right. It is not a war between liberals and conservatives. It is not a war between Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz. It is a war between the Democrat mob and the Republican mob.

And as Chesterton said of mobs:

This popular spirit may take a good or a bad form; and a mob may cry out many things, right and wrong. But a mob cries out “No Popery”; it does not cry out “Not so much Popery,” still less “Only a moderate admixture of Popery.” It shouts “Three cheers for Gladstone,” it does not shout “A gradual and evolutionary social tendency towards some ideal similar to that of Gladstone.” It would find it quite a difficult thing to shout; and it would find exactly the same difficulty with all the advanced formulae about nationalisation and internationalisation and class-conscious solidarity.

That one mob is preferable to another in a strict binary sense might be true. But it’s the mobbishness I deplore.

What good are conservative policies if effected by a mob? What good is a wall if built by a king? What good is winning a race to the bottom?

I genuinely don’t see any good in it and the topsy-turvy arguments to convince me otherwise only make me dizzy.

Chesterton again:

We have grown used to a habit of calling things by the wrong names and supporting them by the wrong arguments; and even doing the right thing for the wrong cause. We have party governments which consist of people who pretend to agree when they really disagree. We have party debates which consist of people who pretend to disagree when they really agree. We have whole parties named after things they no longer support, or things they would never dream of proposing.

Tomorrow I’ll begin my Lenten Ricofast. I intend to sink deep into higher things and leave this exhausting war talk behind. I hope to return to calmer waters (both on and off Richochet) and to bring something fresh and new to the table. (And I hope to return to a Pirates 12 game winning streak.)

May your Lent be blessed and joyful. And may Ricochet be well.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 39 comments.

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

    One problem I have with the “politics as war” analogy is that wars end. Politics doesn’t. Even while the western allies were joined to Stalinist Russia in the fight against Hitler they were planning for postwar opposition to the Soviet Union. I’d have more time for the Delingpole view of things if there was some indication that he actually viewed the alliance with the alt-right as a one of convenience. Instead, he seems to have an attitude similar to that fellow travelers in the US had toward the Soviet Union.

    • #31
  2. agriff Member
    agriff
    @

    I think the post mischaracterizes Delingpole’s point, which like Andrew Breitbart’s is that the Left is “at war.” And that if you don’t want to join with those who are like-minded (though not exact-minded) to fight, you should resign yourself to world government and hate-speech laws. Mob rule is a strawman.

    On the Ricochet Podcast with Delingpole, Redsteeze argued (after Delingpole hung up) that the Right was winning. He cited the present majority in the state governor’s offices and legislatures and in the U.S. Congress. But this focuses on the recent electoral victories and both ignores the enormous lefty majority in the bureaucracies and overlooks the public culture, which the Left has been winning for decades—how’s civil society doing? the family? who runs the media? the academy? the arts? Is government shrinking? Isn’t the fact of a debate about “people with penises” using the girls’ bathroom proof enough that we’re losing?

    I don’t like the term “war” for this, but politics isn’t clean either. The mindset “this isn’t my war” is a reason why we keep losing. It’s the reason why 58 Senators vote against Robert Bork, and 3 vote against Ruth Ginsburg. The Left is “at war”; conservatives disagree.

    (I worry you’ll reject as “mobbish” my use of the term “we” to describe the members of Ricochet, which dubs itself “center right.” But I hope not.)

    • #32
  3. Sabrdance Member
    Sabrdance
    @Sabrdance

    April 12, 2014: We Need These Butchers.

    Still holds up pretty well, I think.

    • #33
  4. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    Damocles (View Comment):
    Trump’s over-the-top rhetoric that accompanies a possibly revolutionary and realized conservative agenda

    There’s no such thing as a “revolutionary conservative” agenda, it’s an oxymoron, a self-contradiction.  The struggle is between the forces of revolution vs. the forces of conservation.  If the conservatives become revolutionaries, then there’s no one left to conserve the old Constitutional order, and the Republic is doomed no matter which mob wins.

     

    • #34
  5. derek Inactive
    derek
    @user_82953

    I’ve wondered how a place like Detroit could happen. And how a place like Chicago could continue operating their corrupt one party state for generations.

    Now I see the final piece fall into place.

    I don’t want to be part of a mob. I’d rather lie low, or better yet move on to better pastures. It isn’t my fight, I have principles.

    So where are you going to go? Detroit is surrounded by functional cities where people moved to. Much easier than to do the really dirty and nasty work of making Detroit functional.

    And by the way, Delingpole has lived through the inexorable decline of a nation driven by leftists and go along to get along Conservatives. He knows the stakes.

    • #35
  6. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    derek (View Comment):
    I’ve wondered how a place like Detroit could happen. And how a place like Chicago could continue operating their corrupt one party state for generations.

    Corrupt systems can continue for as long as enough people continue to get paid.

    Detroit’s economy was dominated by only three large corporations, so when corrupt politicians tried to put the screws to ’em it was fairly easy for them to move their business elsewhere.

    In Chicago, the economy is more diversified, so corrupt politicians can more easily play businesses and unions against each other without killing the economy entirely.

    Washington D.C. will continue to operate until the heat death of the Universe, because so many beds remain feathered thanks to its corruption.

    • #36
  7. Casey Inactive
    Casey
    @Casey

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Casey (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):
    I don’t understand, in such polarized times, how we got Trump vs Clinton, instead of Cruz vs Sanders.

    I’ve been trying to figure this out for the last several years. My long answer from last June: http://ricochet.com/archives/the-noise-in-the-fog/

    My short answer is that we aren’t polarized along the right-left line anymore. There’s something else going on. I think we’re transitioning to a north-south polarization.

    If Casey isn’t still following, does someone else understand what he means by the “north-south” polarization?

    My thought is of a grid with right-left on the x-axis (west-east) and some other division on the y-axis (north-south). Not sure what Casey is putting on that axis, but I’m assuming that’s what he means by a change in polarization.

    Yes, that’s right.

    What we call Left and Right, or Liberal and Conservative, are in opposition.  One set of ideas vs another.  But those ideas are no longer part of our political reality.

    The tension… the WAR…. is between two sides who are not pulling directionally right or left.

    • #37
  8. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Casey (View Comment):
    Yes, that’s right.

    What we call Left and Right, or Liberal and Conservative, are in opposition. One set of ideas vs another. But those ideas are no longer part of our political reality.

    The tension… the WAR…. is between two sides who are not pulling directionally right or left.

    Thanks, Casey. Welcome back.

    • #38
  9. Casey Inactive
    Casey
    @Casey

    Misthiocracy (View Comment):

    Casey: What good is a wall if built by a king?

    Well, this sentence is just silly.

    a) A wall is a wall. It’s an inanimate object. The good or ill it does is entirely independent of who built it. If a king builds a wall in the right place it does good. If a democratically-elected legislature builds a wall in the wrong place it does ill.

    b) It is entirely within the constitutional power of the President of the United States to propose a border wall and to ask Congress for the funds to build it. That is not a king’s prerogative. It is a president’s prerogative.

    Points A and B are very good points about something else.  But to clarify what I was saying, to build a wall to protect the American way by changing the American way to build a wall means we’ve no reason to build a wall.

    If the result is all you want then it doesn’t matter how you get there.  The heart of conservatism is in how we get there.  Once we’ve given up on conservatism to get policies then we’ve stopped doing conservatism.

    • #39
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.