Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. You Need to Be Purged

 

Yes, you! You are corrupting and destroying conservatism, and need to go!

It seems the one thing conservatives can agree on is that we need purge the conservative movement of the other side. Trump supporters and opponents want to eliminate the opposing side for betraying conservative principles. Social Cons don’t trust the libertarians / squishy urban fiscal cons, while they see the social cons as backward theocrats. Race issues have one side calling the other either neo-Confederate racists or delusional egalitarians living in denial of reality. There are also conservatives who believe all Muslims are evil – these conservatives believe their opponents are dhimmis taken in by deception and, in turn, people condemn them as bigots willing to toss every Muslim in the same box as ISIS. Pro-police or anti-police? Immigration skeptic or proponent? Neocon or paleocon?

Even worse, you can be a moderate on an issue. Then both sides want to purge you – you must choose a side! Almost as bad as being a moderator, and thus be only worthy of being stuffed into a nuclear reactor.

So, obviously, this means someone wants you to be purged for the good of the conservative movement. And the only way for everyone to get their way is for everyone to be purged. No one is spared. If we eliminate the conservative movement, then we can be sure that all of those useless disgraces to the conservative movement are gone. And isn’t that the important thing?

If we don’t want to eliminate the conservative movement, the only way to survive is to resist the purging impulse. Obviously, there have to be rules (there is no conservative case for a Communist dictatorship or an Islamic theocracy, I don’t care how many think-pieces you write) but we have to keep somewhat of a broad tent in order to get our ideas turned into policy. Parties can be stricter — if you vote straight-ticket Democrat, you are not a Republican — but the movement as a whole is not an exclusive club, and it is not as valuable to try to set the boundaries.

The Left uses this against us — when people tried to kick out the alt-right, lefties and some purge-happy folks started calling everyone they did not like alt-right. We have actually benefited by the Left purging the insufficiently woke. There are numerous people driven out of the Left that have moved rightward, including much of the so-called Intellectual Dark Web. Playing the Left’s game here only helps their cause.

So, the next time you consider making those other supposed conservatives walk the plank, keep in mind that you might have to follow them, and you are feeding them to the Left, not sharks.

Published in Politics
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 growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 59 comments.

  1. Dr. Bastiat Member

    Leftism is a religion

    Conservatism is a political movement.

    In leftism, arguing is heresy.

    In conservatism, arguing is healthy. That’s how we work out better ideas and policies. We don’t all have to agree. In fact, it’s better if we don’t.

    Keep arguing, everybody!

    • #1
    • November 18, 2019, at 4:55 AM PST
    • 19 likes
  2. Vectorman Thatcher

    OmegaPaladin: Almost as bad as being a moderator, and thus be only worthy of being stuffed into a nuclear reactor.

    LOL!

    And we know some Ricochet Moderators that need to go… ;-)

    • #2
    • November 18, 2019, at 4:58 AM PST
    • 6 likes
  3. I Walton Member

    The center of the problem is that all moderate leftist views, if concentrated in Washington serve bureaucratic interests. That’s just a fact, and it narrows through time. The problem is and has been for about a century now, Washington. It’s why we dismembered the military after the wars, why the constitution gives power to the people and, at most in some cases to the States. The States were small then. We have to figure this out again for a giant nation but we’re arguing about how to do it from Washington. We can’t. It’s from the people up not the government down.

    • #3
    • November 18, 2019, at 5:44 AM PST
    • 6 likes
  4. Susan Quinn Contributor

    OmegaPaladin: If we don’t want eliminate the conservative movement, the only way to survive is to resist the purging impulse. Obviously, there have to be rules (there is no conservative case for a Communist dictatorship or an Islamic theocracy, I don’t care how many think pieces you write) but we have to keep somewhat of a broad tent in order to get our ideas turned into policy.

    I especially liked this statement. If I ever fall into a purging mentality in my writing, please slap me upside the head! As angry as I might get at the views of some people, driving them out is not in my plan. In some cases I’ve given up trying to see things differently, but they still have a right to be with us. I just stop reading their posts!

    • #4
    • November 18, 2019, at 6:11 AM PST
    • 9 likes
  5. Franco Member

    “Obviously, there have to be rules (there is no conservative case for a Communist dictatorship or an Islamic theocracy, I don’t care how many think pieces you write) but we have to keep somewhat of a broad tent in order to get our ideas turned into policy.”

    Oh, no? We are almost there already.

    How about there not being a conservative case to allow partisan leftist Democrats and their media overlords to use the impeachment mechanism as a massive smear tactic?

    What about turning a blind eye to embedded intel operatives seeking to overthrow the will of the voters, on top of rapidly rescinding all of our constitutional freedoms? Every damned one!?

    There is no conservative movement. 
    There are conservatives, but there is no ‘movement’. 

    The people who are advocating for a unified conservative movement are, for the most part, working for its continued paralysis in the political arena, leaving the left to make continuing and unprecedented gains. This is clear since the election of Trump.

    This faction has several interesting things in common. They are all protected. They are themselves not threatened in the least by higher taxes, foreign war adventures, unrestricted immigration or dubious trade agreements and promises to unilaterally inhibit our economy to the hectoring voices like Saint Greta.

    They seem to all be funded by think tanks or write for publications that are, they are well educated ( over-educated) and very dependent on the acceptance of other elites traveling in Democrat Party circles. They will not be deplatformed as long as they pay tribute to certain conventions.

    It’s not a movement because these guys and gals are advocating stasis with every act, vote and article.

    Our conservative brain-trust would be useful if they had a sense of the political pulse coursing through right-leaning voters, and/or an understanding of what goals, strategies and tactics the opposition ( the left) had and were using.

    As strategists and tacticians they are complete failures. Advocating for conservative causes from the pages of the Dispatch or lectures held on cruise ships does nothing.

    Going on Chris Wallace’s show to tell the Fox audience that there is indeed some merit to this transparent and obvious sham is not helping ‘conservatism’. 

    Finally ( oh I could go on, believe me) there is the matter of primacy. 63 million Americans, almost all of whom are either conservative or lean conservative, about 95% are anti-leftists (which is the # 1 threat to all of conservatism) are having their chosen leader undermined by forces on the left, and these so-called conservatives are helping them!

    This is not playing on our team. This is going rogue. Not even. Going rogue would imply there was some level of popular support from the right. There isn’t. There is much more support from the left. So it’s more a betrayal than anything else.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    • #5
    • November 18, 2019, at 6:30 AM PST
    • 17 likes
  6. Old Bathos Member

    Some distinctions are in order. The genuinely diverse political spectrum that includes libertarianism as well as cultural conservatism is alive and well and mutually tolerant. But the motivation is increasingly driven by external forces. The Republican Party is increasingly comprised of those who realize their lives, values and property have been targeted for destruction by radical left nutballs for reasons of religion, class, ideology or even race.

    The limit to tolerance even within what is, in essence, a survival coalition is reached when there are expressions of racism or antisemitism. 

    Gavin McGinnis and the Proud Boy shtick and the alt-right crowd are all about being naughty and defiant by expressly violating taboos. They do not really want to be included or tolerated. If their antics were limited to tweaking PC nonsense it would be fun and harmless–to our side. But oppositional adolescents of all ages are largely incapable of operating within limits.

    For the broader American right these guys pose a twofold problem: (a) a moral problem–they say things that have to be disavowed especially because (b) given that the enemy will use its media power to paint them as representative of the right, addressing the moral problem becomes a political problem.

     

     

     

    • #6
    • November 18, 2019, at 6:33 AM PST
    • 9 likes
  7. Mate De Coolidge

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    Leftism is a religion

    Conservatism is a political movement.

    In leftism, arguing is heresy.

    In conservatism, arguing is healthy. That’s how we work out better ideas and policies. We don’t all have to agree. In fact, it’s better if we don’t.

    Keep arguing, everybody!

    Yes, I would love that, but there are those who are deemed so horrible they are not allowed into the argument, anymore. Anyone who has been labeled as “white nationalists” (which seems to be as useless of a term as racist these days) What is a white nationalist exactly anyway? I would like actual definition. Someone who holds David Duke’s views, which I guess would be a white ethno-state (which wouldn’t work anyway, since what ethnicity is a white person anyway) but ok fine I’m with you, but Michelle Malkin???? The right isn’t arguing anymore and seems to have more purity tests then the left does.

    • #7
    • November 18, 2019, at 6:40 AM PST
    • 13 likes
  8. Arahant Member

    I’m not a conservative. I’m a proud liberal. (That’s classical liberal, son, not a lying Prog.) And I’m not looking to kick anybody out of the coalition. The bigger, the better.

    • #8
    • November 18, 2019, at 7:11 AM PST
    • 18 likes
  9. Arahant Member

    Mate De (View Comment):
    Anyone who has been labeled as “white nationalists” (which seems to be as useless of a term as racist these days) What is a white nationalist exactly anyway?

    You know, people like Kanye West and Michelle Malkin. 😁

    • #9
    • November 18, 2019, at 7:14 AM PST
    • 20 likes
  10. The Reticulator Member

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    For the broader American right these guys pose a twofold problem: (a) a moral problem–they say things that have to be disavowed especially because (b) given that the enemy will use its media power to paint them as representative of the right, addressing the moral problem becomes a political problem.

    Problem is, if you disavow them your disavowal will be used as proof that you are among them and therefore need to be opposed, shunned, reviled, and shut down. Certain types of disavowal may work, but if that needs to be explained to a person, that person probably shouldn’t be in politics.

    • #10
    • November 18, 2019, at 7:46 AM PST
    • 8 likes
  11. Franco Member

    While it appears that you are sympathetic to the victims of those who denounce other conservatives ( thinking Ben Shapiro?) as being unfit humans and unworthy of being associated with the conservative ‘movement’, these are precisely the people who aren’t listening and will never listen to such appeals. Certainly they will be last to be eaten by the alligators… but in a world where advancing leftism into totalitarianism is inevitable ( which they are facilitating) being last is the best position to be in. These people have zero incentive to align themselves with the unified cause.
    So asking them to do anything is futile.
    Here’s a case where you are asking everyone to do something that supposedly is in the general interest of advancing conservatism. One faction adamantly will not go along, the other faction has abandoned the losing strategies of the first faction. In effect, you are asking people like me to go along with people I see as being detrimental to conservatism, just when the battle is about to be won, and/or on the verge of losing catastrophically.

    So they must be rejected. There is no “purge”. There is only denunciation.

    They do not want to fight the left on a battleground that has any relevance. It’s intellectual sniping with crossbows versus the artillery that’s politics, sophisticated spies, and a marching infantry of bureaucrats and lawyers.

    We have a very large disagreement about strategy and tactics. We also disagree on the threat-level.

    We might be able to agree on certain candidates, but I’m increasingly of the mind that these factions constitute completely different political parties.
    There no reconciliation.

    Luckily, the left is undergoing a similar rift.

    The Progressives versus the “moderates”.

    The moderate Democrats and the Never Trump neocons have much in common. Who’s using whom? Mutually exploitive and commonly beneficial, regardless.

    This is actually how the whole fraud was exposed. Once Trump was elected and implemented certain policies, the Nevers were all-the-more- pitted against him and their own base ( or their former base).

    The only thing Trump supporters and Progressives have in common is growing contempt for these embedded rulers.

    Added: So I am expecting the center to be subsumed by both ‘extremes’ and then we can fight the left unencumbered. I’m at the point where I won’t defend any of these people even from unfair attacks from the left. Let them suffer from what they tacitly support. And by the way, they started it. They constantly support ( even pre-Trump) unfair attacks on anyone even slightly to their right, or just people who are on the right but disagree with them on some policy matter like immigration or trade.

    So maybe the alligators on the right will eat these traitors first. If they realized that might be happening, these timid grifters would once again change sides.

    • #11
    • November 18, 2019, at 7:55 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  12. Columbo Member

    Franco (View Comment):

    “Obviously, there have to be rules (there is no conservative case for a Communist dictatorship or an Islamic theocracy, I don’t care how many think pieces you write) but we have to keep somewhat of a broad tent in order to get our ideas turned into policy.”

    Oh, no? We are almost there already.

    How about there not being a conservative case to allow partisan leftist Democrats and their media overlords to use the impeachment mechanism as a massive smear tactic?

    What about turning a blind eye to embedded intel operatives seeking to overthrow the will of the voters, on top of rapidly rescinding all of our constitutional freedoms? Every damned one!?

    There is no conservative movement.
    There are conservatives, but there is no ‘movement’.

    The people who are advocating for a unified conservative movement are, for the most part, working for its continued paralysis in the political arena, leaving the left to make continuing and unprecedented gains. This is clear since the election of Trump.

    This faction has several interesting things in common. They are all protected. They are themselves not threatened in the least by higher taxes, foreign war adventures, unrestricted immigration or dubious trade agreements and promises to unilaterally inhibit our economy to the hectoring voices like Saint Greta.

    They seem to all be funded by think tanks or write for publications that are, they are well educated ( over-educated) and very dependent on the acceptance of other elites traveling in Democrat Party circles. They will not be deplatformed as long as they pay tribute to certain conventions.

    It’s not a movement because these guys and gals are advocating stasis with every act, vote and article.

    Our conservative brain-trust would be useful if they had a sense of the political pulse coursing through right-leaning voters, and/or an understanding of what goals, strategies and tactics the opposition ( the left) had and were using.

    As strategists and tacticians they are complete failures. Advocating for conservative causes from the pages of the Dispatch or lectures held on cruise ships does nothing.

    Going on Chris Wallace’s show to tell the Fox audience that there is indeed some merit to this transparent and obvious sham is not helping ‘conservatism’.

    Finally ( oh I could go on, believe me) there is the matter of primacy. 63 million Americans, almost all of whom are either conservative or lean conservative, about 95% are anti-leftists (which is the # 1 threat to all of conservatism) are having their chosen leader undermined by forces on the left, and these so-called conservatives are helping them!

    This is not playing on our team. This is going rogue. Not even. Going rogue would imply there was some level of popular support from the right. There isn’t. There is much more support from the left. So it’s more a betrayal than anything else.

    • #12
    • November 18, 2019, at 8:28 AM PST
    • 7 likes
  13. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member

    I don’t think that I want to purge anyone from the conservative movement. I do wish to identify those who are not, or are no longer, in the conservative movement. 

    I also wish to point out departures from conservatism by people identifying themselves as conservatives, but generally not to purge them from conservatism, but rather to avoid confusion. If someone takes the conservative position 80-90% of the time, they are a pretty good conservative, and welcome in the conservative movement, at least as far as I am concerned. Even a person with lower levels of agreement, say 60-70%, is still a political ally. My goal is to then use conservative principles, with which they have some sympathy and agreement, to persuade them to my position on the issues about which we disagree, or at least persuade them to defer on a particular issue, as a practical matter, for the sake of the overall coalition.

    I’m also open to persuasion myself. I think that I’m right about everything, of course, because if I thought that I was wrong about something, I would hope that I would change my mind. I imagine that this is the case for everyone.

    I’m currently processing some challenging arguments raised in Peter Hitchens’s new book, The Phoney Victory, which addressed WWII mythology. I’m pretty close to being persuaded that Hitchens is correct in his moral condemnation of the Allied bombing campaigns. On other issues, I find him to be unfairly critical.

    • #13
    • November 18, 2019, at 9:01 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  14. Old Bathos Member

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    For the broader American right these guys pose a twofold problem: (a) a moral problem–they say things that have to be disavowed especially because (b) given that the enemy will use its media power to paint them as representative of the right, addressing the moral problem becomes a political problem.

    Problem is, if you disavow them your disavowal will be used as proof that you are among them and therefore need to be opposed, shunned, reviled, and shut down. Certain types of disavowal may work, but if that needs to be explained to a person, that person probably shouldn’t be in politics.

    Gotta admit I don’t get your point.

    Disavowal can be a political opportunity. “Unlike my Democrat friends, I reject express or implied anti-Semitism. Unlike them, I unequivocally support Israel’s right to exist. I reject the sneering, creeping anti-Jewish bigotry now in favor on the left. The very fact that you ask me about whether I endorse the antisemitic remarks of some politically marginal clown but you don’t have the guts or professionalism to call out Democrats for not standing up to open anti-Semitism at the highest level in their party says a lot more about your values than it does about mine.”

    If instead, the ‘disavowal’ is a RINO whipped dog apology for non-existent sins, then yes, it does not work.

    • #14
    • November 18, 2019, at 9:38 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  15. TBA Coolidge
    TBA

    Vectorman (View Comment):

    OmegaPaladin: Almost as bad as being a moderator, and thus be only worthy of being stuffed into a nuclear reactor.

    LOL!

    And we know some Ricochet Moderators that need to go… ;-)

    Death to extremists! And Moderatators! 

    • #15
    • November 18, 2019, at 9:49 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  16. Vance Richards Member

    Mate De (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    Leftism is a religion

    Conservatism is a political movement.

    In leftism, arguing is heresy.

    In conservatism, arguing is healthy. That’s how we work out better ideas and policies. We don’t all have to agree. In fact, it’s better if we don’t.

    Keep arguing, everybody!

    Yes, I would love that, but there are those who are deemed so horrible they are not allowed into the argument, anymore. Anyone who has been labeled as “white nationalists” (which seems to be as useless of a term as racist these days) What is a white nationalist exactly anyway? I would like actual definition. Someone who holds David Duke’s views, which I guess would be a white ethno-state (which wouldn’t work anyway, since what ethnicity is a white person anyway) but ok fine I’m with you, but Michelle Malkin???? The right isn’t arguing anymore and seems to have more purity tests then the left does.

    If you want to see enforcement of the existing immigration laws, that would be enough for some to call you a white nationalist (even if you’re not white). 

    • #16
    • November 18, 2019, at 9:50 AM PST
    • 11 likes
  17. TBA Coolidge
    TBA

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    Some distinctions are in order. The genuinely diverse political spectrum that includes libertarianism as well as cultural conservatism is alive and well and mutually tolerant. But the motivation is increasingly driven by external forces. The Republican Party is increasingly comprised of those who realize their lives, values and property have been targeted for destruction by radical left nutballs for reasons of religion, class, ideology or even race.

    The limit to tolerance even within what is, in essence, a survival coalition is reached when there are expressions of racism or antisemitism.

    Gavin McGinnis and the Proud Boy shtick and the alt-right crowd are all about being naughty and defiant by expressly violating taboos. They do not really want to be included or tolerated. If their antics were limited to tweaking PC nonsense it would be fun and harmless–to our side. But oppositional adolescents of all ages are largely incapable of operating within limits.

    For the broader American right these guys pose a twofold problem: (a) a moral problem–they say things that have to be disavowed especially because (b) given that the enemy will use its media power to paint them as representative of the right, addressing the moral problem becomes a political problem.

    Best course is to privately shush [them] and publicly not talk about them.

    Edit: clarity.

    • #17
    • November 18, 2019, at 10:00 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  18. TBA Coolidge
    TBA

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    For the broader American right these guys pose a twofold problem: (a) a moral problem–they say things that have to be disavowed especially because (b) given that the enemy will use its media power to paint them as representative of the right, addressing the moral problem becomes a political problem.

    Problem is, if you disavow them your disavowal will be used as proof that you are among them and therefore need to be opposed, shunned, reviled, and shut down. Certain types of disavowal may work, but if that needs to be explained to a person, that person probably shouldn’t be in politics.

    Every disavowal is an echoing of what is being disavowed. That’s how communication works, and it’s what people eventually remember long after the fact – not that ‘Congressman X repudiated Some Guy Y’s offensive statement’, but ‘Congressman X something, something offensive statement’. 

    • #18
    • November 18, 2019, at 10:04 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  19. TBA Coolidge
    TBA

    One of my favorite Biblical stories is the one where William F. Buckley drove the John Birchers out of the movement with a whip of cords. 

    I presume those guys still help elect Republicans tho. 

    • #19
    • November 18, 2019, at 10:12 AM PST
    • 6 likes
  20. TBA Coolidge
    TBA

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    I don’t think that I want to purge anyone from the conservative movement. I do wish to identify those who are not, or are no longer, in the conservative movement.

    I also wish to point out departures from conservatism by people identifying themselves as conservatives, but generally not to purge them from conservatism, but rather to avoid confusion. If someone takes the conservative position 80-90% of the time, they are a pretty good conservative, and welcome in the conservative movement, at least as far as I am concerned. Even a person with lower levels of agreement, say 60-70%, is still a political ally. My goal is to then use conservative principles, with which they have some sympathy and agreement, to persuade them to my position on the issues about which we disagree, or at least persuade them to defer on a particular issue, as a practical matter, for the sake of the overall coalition.

    I’m also open to persuasion myself. I think that I’m right about everything, of course, because if I thought that I was wrong about something, I would hope that I would change my mind. I imagine that this is the case for everyone.

    I’m currently processing some challenging arguments raised in Peter Hitchens’s new book, The Phoney Victory, which addressed WWII mythology. I’m pretty close to being persuaded that Hitchens is correct in his moral condemnation of the Allied bombing campaigns. On other issues, I find him to be unfairly critical.

    I’m probably one of those 80% – 90% guys. Is it weird that I kind of prefer other, but differently distributed, 80% – 90% guys over 100% guys? 

    • #20
    • November 18, 2019, at 10:15 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  21. Clifford A. Brown Contributor

    TBA (View Comment):

    Vectorman (View Comment):

    OmegaPaladin: Almost as bad as being a moderator, and thus be only worthy of being stuffed into a nuclear reactor.

    LOL!

    And we know some Ricochet Moderators that need to go… ;-)

    Death to extremists! And Moderatators!

    • #21
    • November 18, 2019, at 10:16 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  22. TBA Coolidge
    TBA

    WRT the original post, excellent ultimate para that really stuck the landing! 

    • #22
    • November 18, 2019, at 10:18 AM PST
    • 1 like
  23. Old Bathos Member

    TBA (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    For the broader American right these guys pose a twofold problem: (a) a moral problem–they say things that have to be disavowed especially because (b) given that the enemy will use its media power to paint them as representative of the right, addressing the moral problem becomes a political problem.

    Problem is, if you disavow them your disavowal will be used as proof that you are among them and therefore need to be opposed, shunned, reviled, and shut down. Certain types of disavowal may work, but if that needs to be explained to a person, that person probably shouldn’t be in politics.

    Every disavowal is an echoing of what is being disavowed. That’s how communication works, and it’s what people eventually remember long after the fact – not that ‘Congressman X repudiated Some Guy Y’s offensive statement’, but ‘Congressman X something, something offensive statement’.

    If you can avoid the need for some needless disavowal, OK. But when asked on camera by a DNC operative in major media, the refusal to answer is almost a successful gotcha because the non-denial could be a story. 

    Whether it is a Reaganesque good-humored dismissal or a Trumpian back-in-your-face retort, a bogus accusation of insensitivity, racism etc made in association in conjunction with whatever bubbles up in the news swamp (e.g., the mutants trying to shut down Shapiro) should be (a) expected and (b) slammed with a prepared response that puts the speaker on offense and that changes the issue. 

    Only RINOs think they can win by avoiding such confrontations.

    • #23
    • November 18, 2019, at 10:30 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  24. The Reticulator Member

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    For the broader American right these guys pose a twofold problem: (a) a moral problem–they say things that have to be disavowed especially because (b) given that the enemy will use its media power to paint them as representative of the right, addressing the moral problem becomes a political problem.

    Problem is, if you disavow them your disavowal will be used as proof that you are among them and therefore need to be opposed, shunned, reviled, and shut down. Certain types of disavowal may work, but if that needs to be explained to a person, that person probably shouldn’t be in politics.

    Gotta admit I don’t get your point.

    Disavowal can be a political opportunity. “Unlike my Democrat friends, I reject express or implied anti-Semitism. Unlike them, I unequivocally support Israel’s right to exist. I reject the sneering, creeping anti-Jewish bigotry now in favor on the left. The very fact that you ask me about whether I endorse the antisemitic remarks of some politically marginal clown but you don’t have the guts or professionalism to call out Democrats for not standing up to open anti-Semitism at the highest level in their party says a lot more about your values than it does about mine.”

    If instead, the ‘disavowal’ is a RINO whipped dog apology for non-existent sins, then yes, it does not work.

    That example you give is the very one I had in mind as to how disavowal can be made to work, and your statement is a much better job than I would have come up with. But when is the last time you saw a Republican go about it that way? When is the last time you saw a Republican who even understood it? This is the first time I’ve made this point among conservatives where somebody even showed that he understood how it should be done. 

    I think I’ve already told how during the administration of Bush the Younger, a leftist in a social medium forum saw what I was doing, and demanded that I criticize Bush once without including a reference to the sins of Democrats. I of course refused, explaining how it would be dishonest.

    • #24
    • November 18, 2019, at 10:39 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  25. The Reticulator Member

    By the way, one of my complaints about President Trump is that he is sometimes a lot more like Barack Obama than I would like. 

    • #25
    • November 18, 2019, at 10:40 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  26. Columbo Member

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Franco (View Comment):

    ….

    As strategists and tacticians they are complete failures. Advocating for conservative causes from the pages of the Dispatch or lectures held on cruise ships does nothing.

    Going on Chris Wallace’s show to tell the Fox audience that there is indeed some merit to this transparent and obvious sham is not helping ‘conservatism’.

    Finally ( oh I could go on, believe me) there is the matter of primacy. 63 million Americans, almost all of whom are either conservative or lean conservative, about 95% are anti-leftists (which is the # 1 threat to all of conservatism) are having their chosen leader undermined by forces on the left, and these so-called conservatives are helping them!

    This is not playing on our team. This is going rogue. Not even. Going rogue would imply there was some level of popular support from the right. There isn’t. There is much more support from the left. So it’s more a betrayal than anything else.

    President Reagan advocated for a Conservatism that was a three-legged stool … with Social, National Defense and Fiscal policies … that were not negotiable. The social leg had a worldview that God was the Creator of the universe that we inhabit and that the life that He created was good and that we are to be a pro-Life people. The national defense leg stood for a sovereign understanding that America was a world leader in the defense of freedom for all, but especially the American citizens. The fiscal leg stood for limiting federal government and its intrusion on the free exercise of an independent economic path for each citizen, including not being unduly burdened by taxes.

    President Donald Trump has pursued an agenda which fits each of these. Hillary, or any of the would-be socialists running for President, would not.

    Anyone who cavalierly permits, or encourages, the democrat socialists to win, fails Reagan’s test.

    • #26
    • November 18, 2019, at 10:42 AM PST
    • 7 likes
  27. Old Bathos Member

    TBA (View Comment):

    One of my favorite Biblical stories is the one where William F. Buckley drove the John Birchers out of the movement with a whip of cords.

    I presume those guys still help elect Republicans tho.

    The Birchers were the favorite image of the GOP by Democrats and their media and academic sympathizers. By pointing to them as the true conservatives, they could dismiss the entire American right as conspiracy-mongering low-IQ nutballs. Robert Welch was, in fact, batsh!t crazy but he had the money and influence to be a political force. The bitter divisiveness of the rift Buckley caused was a successful surgical operation because the remaining, healthy political right gave rise to Reagan.

    Kicking out some annoying alt-right incels is not quite the same high level, high-risk undertaking but it offers some similar political health benefits.

    • #27
    • November 18, 2019, at 10:45 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  28. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Thatcher

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    For the broader American right these guys pose a twofold problem: (a) a moral problem–they say things that have to be disavowed especially because (b) given that the enemy will use its media power to paint them as representative of the right, addressing the moral problem becomes a political problem.

    Problem is, if you disavow them your disavowal will be used as proof that you are among them and therefore need to be opposed, shunned, reviled, and shut down. Certain types of disavowal may work, but if that needs to be explained to a person, that person probably shouldn’t be in politics.

    Gotta admit I don’t get your point.

    Disavowal can be a political opportunity. “Unlike my Democrat friends, I reject express or implied anti-Semitism. Unlike them, I unequivocally support Israel’s right to exist. I reject the sneering, creeping anti-Jewish bigotry now in favor on the left. The very fact that you ask me about whether I endorse the antisemitic remarks of some politically marginal clown but you don’t have the guts or professionalism to call out Democrats for not standing up to open anti-Semitism at the highest level in their party says a lot more about your values than it does about mine.”

    If instead, the ‘disavowal’ is a RINO whipped dog apology for non-existent sins, then yes, it does not work.

    That example you give is the very one I had in mind as to how disavowal can be made to work, and your statement is a much better job than I would have come up with. But when is the last time you saw a Republican go about it that way? When is the last time you saw a Republican who even understood it? This is the first time I’ve made this point among conservatives where somebody even showed that he understood how it should be done.

    I think I’ve already told how during the administration of Bush the Younger, a leftist in a social medium forum saw what I was doing, and demanded that I criticize Bush once without including a reference to the sins of Democrats. I of course refused, explaining how it would be dishonest.

    I gave an example of how to do this back in 2016 in What Would Otter Do?

    • #28
    • November 18, 2019, at 10:47 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  29. The Reticulator Member

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    TBA (View Comment):

    One of my favorite Biblical stories is the one where William F. Buckley drove the John Birchers out of the movement with a whip of cords.

    I presume those guys still help elect Republicans tho.

    The Birchers were the favorite image of the GOP by Democrats and their media and academic sympathizers. By pointing to them as the true conservatives, they could dismiss the entire American right as conspiracy-mongering low-IQ nutballs. Robert Welch was, in fact, batsh!t crazy but he had the money and influence to be a political force. The bitter divisiveness of the rift Buckley caused was a successful surgical operation because the remaining, healthy political right gave rise to Reagan.

    Kicking out some annoying alt-right incels is not quite the same high level, high-risk undertaking but it offers some similar political health benefits.

    Long after the Birchers were driven out by Wm F Buckley, Democrats were still using that label against Republicans to keep them in line.

    • #29
    • November 18, 2019, at 10:47 AM PST
    • 5 likes
  30. TBA Coolidge
    TBA

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    TBA (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    For the broader American right these guys pose a twofold problem: (a) a moral problem–they say things that have to be disavowed especially because (b) given that the enemy will use its media power to paint them as representative of the right, addressing the moral problem becomes a political problem.

    Problem is, if you disavow them your disavowal will be used as proof that you are among them and therefore need to be opposed, shunned, reviled, and shut down. Certain types of disavowal may work, but if that needs to be explained to a person, that person probably shouldn’t be in politics.

    Every disavowal is an echoing of what is being disavowed. That’s how communication works, and it’s what people eventually remember long after the fact – not that ‘Congressman X repudiated Some Guy Y’s offensive statement’, but ‘Congressman X something, something offensive statement’.

    If you can avoid the need for some needless disavowal, OK. But when asked on camera by a DNC operative in major media, the refusal to answer is almost a successful gotcha because the non-denial could be a story.

    Whether it is a Reaganesque good-humored dismissal or a Trumpian back-in-your-face retort, a bogus accusation of insensitivity, racism etc made in association in conjunction with whatever bubbles up in the news swamp (e.g., the mutants trying to shut down Shapiro) should be (a) expected and (b) slammed with a prepared response that puts the speaker on offense and that changes the issue.

    Only RINOs think they can win by avoiding such confrontations.

    I agree, but as The Reticulator points out many of our people aren’t nearly so clever or agile. 

    Perhaps a gruff, “X does not work for or speak for me in any capacity. Now in response to the issue you told me we would discuss when you invited me on your show….” 

    • #30
    • November 18, 2019, at 10:52 AM PST
    • 4 likes