Republican Cynicism and Dereliction of Duty: Lee Atwater in Extreme

 

Many commentators, including Rush Limbaugh, attribute the Republican leadership’s timidity to fear of the mainstream media. Republicans, they say, are terrified of being called racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. I don’t buy that. Yes, the Republicans may feel snake-bitten, but these are grown men who have been politicians all their lives. As politicians, they have one concern that trumps all others—getting re-elected, being in power. These Republicans are behaving so timidly because they believe that’s the best strategy to win the White House.

Simply put, it is Lee Atwater’s old strategy (if the other candidate is imploding, get out of the way) taken to its extreme, in that we are not talking candidates but the office-holder, with tremendous power to do damage to the nation. The strategy: the President is messing up, the country is upset, the country will blame the Democrats, so, let’s get out of the way. Most important, let’s not make waves, let’s not make a scene by opposing Obama. That’s too risky. We can make tepid noises, but let Obama have his way eventually. The country will be disgusted with Obama’s mistakes and we get the White House.

And the strategy seems to have worked for them. They have won back the House and the Senate, treading timidly. Besides, they reason, where can the base go? The base hates Obama and the Democrats anyway. Let’s save our fiercest attacks for the Tea Party and conservatives.

O.K., what’s the evidence? Look at what the leadership’s done. From experience, the Republicans know that the President is intransigent, does not like to compromise; heck, he doesn’t even like, it seems, to talk to Republicans. So with the House and now the Senate in Republican hands, what mantras did we immediately hear from Boehner and McConnell? No government shutdown! No government shutdown! The Republicans chose repeatedly to tie their own hands to avoid showdowns. On top of that, they also let the word out. No impeachment! Impeachment is out! Not the first black President.

Strategically, there goes the power of the purse. And that’s how we got one continuing resolution after another. That’s how we got nothing on dismantling Obamacare. That’s how we got executive amnesty. That’s how they surrendered on the executive amnesty, while pretending they would really, really fight amnesty during the Homeland funding. By which time, we got, oh no, we can’t overcome the filibuster. Oh no, our hands are tied. We’re so sorry, we really tried but we don’t have the votes. That’s how we make a mockery of immigration laws and the rule of law. That’s how we make a mockery of the 2014 electoral victory. That’s how we incentivize an increasingly imperial Presidency.

And now, the latest incarnation of this cynical strategy–the Corker Bill! So, we can actually have a straight vote on the Iran Treaty (however the President chooses to frame it). But that could be too confrontational–too messy, too risky. Let’s tie our hands ahead of time so we’ll need 67 votes to override a presidential veto. Then we can say we tried but we don’t have the votes. Yes, the country loses its constitutional prerogative to de-legitimize a bad Iran deal but it’ll get really upset and reward us—because again, where can the base go? Thus, the Corker Bill!

Costs and Consequences—the Republican Party and its leadership seem to be too clever by half; they think they have a winning strategy; they think they are getting away with it. What they should be thinking is how utterly cynical and unprincipled they look as the nation suffers while the opposition party deserts its responsibility to provide a voice for its voters–a dereliction of duty at a consequential moment in the nation’s history. Indeed, they should be thinking about the costs their cynical strategy inflicts upon the nation:

1)      A Constitution that’s being humiliated daily, undefended;

2)      The separation of powers, weakened as Congress cedes more and more power to the Executive to avoid messy showdowns;

3)      The treaty clause, another inconvenience, better to be circumvented through Parliamentary tricks;

4)      No government shutdowns, no impeachment incentivizing an increasingly imperial Presidency free from Congressional checks and balances;

5)      A nation’s security at risk if a bad Iran deal should be reached;

6)      A sense of lawlessness about, the rule of law as an institution fraying—heightened illegal immigration, illegal minors flooding the borders; an IRS that targets with impunity the political opponents of the sitting Administration–during an election year, no less; a police force under siege, seemingly profiled as inherently racist;

7)      A people without a voice, when the opposition party chooses to go AWOL;

8)      An ineffectual midterm electoral victory;

9)      Deepening public distrust of Congress and politicians, the nation’s capital spinning daily, immersed in bald-faced lies;

10)   A nation seemingly in quiet turmoil–anguished, frustrated,  adrift, uneasy.

True, the mainstream media is complicit in the above but that makes the role of the opposition party doubly crucial—not least, to give a voice to the people, rather than desertion and parliamentary tricks to deceive. If the Republican Party and leadership thinks its cynicism and moral bankruptcy gives it a winning hand–because consequences (1)-(10) will lead voters to hand it the White House–it may be underestimating the electorate. Sure, voters have nowhere to go, but how does the nation benefit in the long run to hand power to a party led by men of such low character?

Rush is not quite right on this issue. The Republicans are not passive because they fear the media; they are passive, they are timid, they tie their own hands voluntarily to avoid political fights because they are executing what they think is a winning political strategy. Predictably, again, they are pushing for a milquetoast establishment candidate who will not make waves on Constitutional/rule of law issues beyond lip service. If that happens, do not be surprised if the Republicans again bite the dust in 2016.

Ultimately, conservatives need a strong political voice. That cannot come from talk radio, important as the medium is. Talk radio alone doesn’t quite cut it (necessary but insufficient). It needs a political party to organize, spearhead and craft a consistent message. To have a voice, conservatives need a political party.

I have heard that third parties do not work in a two-party country. But what about a third party that starts small, contests only in Congressional races (where there are run-offs) and caucuses with the Republicans in Washington? There are conservatives in Congress but they seem straightjacketed and subdued within the Republican thickets. I was wondering if they would have more of a voice if they belonged formally to a separate party that chose conditionally to caucus with the Republicans. (Similarly, the Tea Party in its present set-up is not providing the voice needed. They are constantly being demeaned by the Democrats, Republicans, and the media but do not have a national platform to make their case).

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 42 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Good summary. Not sure about the third party.  As it is, the GOPe spends valuable resources trying to purge the tea party types, e.g. when they tried to defeat my Congressman, Justin Amash, in the primaries.  If he did go third party, he’d have to run against GOPe in the fall elections.

    • #1
  2. Koolee Inactive
    Koolee
    @Koolie

    Reticulator: Query: Is your district a run-off district–meaning, if there are 3 candidates, the best two have a run-off to decide the victor?

    (I am thinking of the Thad Cochran case. I couldn’t help wondering if the Tea Party candidate could have beaten Cochran in a head-to-head contest state-wide, crafting perhaps a wider Tea Party platform. For one thing, he would have had a longer period to respond to the ambush launched by the Republicans).

    The biggest constraint conservatives faced the last 4 years has been the lack of a national political voice. That’s what the frequent complaint–lack of leadership– means. As I said, talk radio can’t quite do it, without a political party behind it).

    • #2
  3. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Koolie:Reticulator: Query: Is your district a run-off district–meaning, if there are 3 candidates, the best two have a run-off to decide the victor?

    Not that I know of.   There were three candidates in the fall election, including a Green party candidate in addition to Amash and the Dem. Amash won with 57.4 percent of the vote.

    Do you know about the Freedom Caucus, of which Amash is a member?

    • #3
  4. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @

    USIP, USIP, USIP!!!  The strategy should be pretty simple.  If you have a representative/Senator who is a fighter and a Conservative in the GOP, then keep voting for him/her to keep the seat.  If not, then find, encourage, and vote for a third party candidate who is Conservative and who will fight the Left once in DC.  It’s kind of like the strategy used in NY way back when James Buckley won the US Senate seat.  He ran on the Conservative Party ticket and WON.  It’s time to destroy the Republican Party and clear out these old, pasty, spineless pieces of slime.  Our country is being destroyed by a bunch of Alinsky-ite fascists and they are wetting themselves in the corner at the prospect of losing their precious chairmanships.

    • #4
  5. Leigh Inactive
    Leigh
    @Leigh

    Apart from the merits of it (if you can’t win primaries, I don’t think a third party will get you much farther), isn’t this premature?

    Jeb Bush is third in national polls and doing still worse in Iowa and New Hampshire.

    That said, I think you’re on to something with regards to the caution, at least as it involved Romney.  I’ve never bought the idea that he pulled his punches because he was timid.  He pulled his punches because he believed his own polling, thought he was winning, and didn’t want to rock the boat.

    • #5
  6. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @

    I largely agree and this is an excellent summary of the situation.

    Rush is not quite right on this issue. The Republicans are not passive because they fear the media; they are passive, they are timid, they tie their own hands voluntarily to avoid political fights because they are executing what they think is a winning political strategy. 

    But there’s more to this. Most of these people are self-important elites who have achieved their standing by being friends and subjects of other established elites, i.e. lobbyists, corporate donors etc.

    I think it’s a bit of a stretch when we attribute too much fear on their part of losing elections. They all usually end up with pretty cushy situations after elected office. Still they want to hold onto office to further advance their aftermarket careers.

    These guys are pretty cynical as a bunch when it comes to voters, and they aren’t there to ‘represent’ the voters. They also easily rationalize votes on the basis of thier interests (for the public good) + the minority of Dem voters in their district or State + the calculation that they have the Repub voters hostage. As long as they tack to the wind enough, they can retatian their seat.

    Further, these guys now have a battle-plan and a war chest in fighting insurgents. The Thad Cockran win will embolden them.

    So the downside is minimal and well protected.

    • #6
  7. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @

    As to third party. It may be wishfull thinking, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the following scenario happens:

    Jeb Bush gets the GOP nomination making it a Bush?Clinton battle for 2016. Rand Paul bolts and runs as an independent on a slightly modified version of his current platform. Ted Cruz could also bolt.

    People say third parties don’t win. But there has never been a time more ripe for a third party win, and there’s always a first for everything.

    Ross Perot, an irascible older man with zero political experience got 20% of the popular vote vs. Bush and Clinton and that was the first Bush and the first Clinton, not the second and third respectively.

    Today’s climate in both parties is about double the disaffection – especially on the Republican side.

    The threats from GOPers “but Paul will just enable Hillary” will fall flat, especially if the alternative is Jeb Bush.

    • #7
  8. user_75648 Thatcher
    user_75648
    @JohnHendrix

    Excellent piece.  I had supposed that GOP behavior (i.e., pulling into the fetal position whenever noticed by the MSM) was learned from years of being brutalized by the MSM. Your theory is less insulting to the GOP than mine.

    Regarding the poor standing of the Tea Party with the GOP elites: the Tea Party can fix that as soon as they begin winning enough elections.

    NB: some of the same GOP players who hate the Tea Party now will continue to hate the Tea Party after they win lots of elections; but they will have much less influence.

    • #8
  9. Ricochet Inactive
    Ricochet
    @KermitHoffpauir

    Koolie:Reticulator: Query: Is your district a run-off district–meaning, if there are 3 candidates, the best two have a run-off to decide the victor?

    (I am thinking of the Thad Cochran case. I couldn’t help wondering if the Tea Party candidate could have beaten Cochran in a head-to-head contest state-wide, crafting perhaps a wider Tea Party platform. For one thing, he would have had a longer period to respond to the ambush launched by the Republicans).

    The biggest constraint conservatives faced the last 4 years has been the lack of a national political voice. That’s what the frequent complaint–lack of leadership– means. As I said, talk radio can’t quite do it, without a political party behind it).

    The “Tea Party candidate” was his opponent.  One thing not being discussed is that there were a fair number of “The South Shall Rise Again” secessionist supporters of McDaniels and thus the backlash from the in state “establishment”  Yes there was an anti-Cochran informed segment who was mum about this even though they knew.

    Please don’t think of the “Tea Party” as some viable party.  Most of the initial leaders and activists at the grassroots level have morphed into GOP activists working within state and local GOP.  The remnants are mostly nutters who cannot think themselves out of a paper bag.  They are full yeehaw and little more.

    • #9
  10. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Sometimes I think the problem between the “Establishment” and the Tea Party types boil down to a simple case of professionalism. And I don’t mean that in a good way.

    I think that Tea types believe in the concept of the citizen legislator. Run, do your duty and then come back to the private sector and be productive.

    On the other side are people who look at politics like it’s professional baseball. Look, kid, you just can’t walk on to a major league team. You need to come through the ranks. If you want our support then you have to do it the right way.

    To them, the right way means working on other people’s campaigns, then running for low level local spots, not where you want to but where the party needs you. Then prove yourself as a fund raiser. Show me the money.

    Biggest complaint by freshmen House members? No influence and the constant demand from party leaders to hustle funds.

    To the Tea folks they say, “You want to come in here and start at the top? You haven’t proven yourself. Where’s the money? Where were you when we needed someone to run for Butthurt County Auditor?”

    • #10
  11. raycon and lindacon Inactive
    raycon and lindacon
    @rayconandlindacon

    We too easily fail to look at what brought America in to being.  It was a time when men of towering intellect humbled themselves before their Creator, and acknowledged that He alone could guide us into national greatness.  They acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence that we, as a nation, were, in fact, dependent upon the Creator, and independent of the political forces that controlled political governments.

    We see a nation that has turned against that Creator, believing that we, in our own intellect, can create again what God created for us.  We practice a powerless religion that acknowledges the Creator, but disregards Him in our daily lives.  How many of us pray for the government?  Pray that we, ourselves, can again be a people worthy of greatness?

    Is the banality of the GOP a reflection of the banality of a people no longer worthy?

    And the progressives?  Are they not the diametric opposite of the people God once called?

    Are we left with a choice between a godless evil and a tepid banality?

    • #11
  12. user_75648 Thatcher
    user_75648
    @JohnHendrix

    I essentially agree with EJ Hill in #10.

    Obama triggered a massive release of pro-American anti-bodies into America’s political bloodstream.  These anti-bodies are collectively known as the Tea Party/912 movement.  Put another way, the Tea Party movement is a reaction to bad governance.

    The elites of the two major political parties are akin to corporations who’s “product” is winning elections.  They don’t seem too particular about the governance that ensues.  This is why they have friction with the Tea Party Movement.

    Kermit Hoffpauir stated in #9:

    Please don’t think of the “Tea Party” as some viable party.  Most of the initial leaders and activists at the grassroots level have morphed into GOP activists working within state and local GOP.

    I agree.  There is no such thing as a viable third party in our system.  What you’re observing is the beginning of the Tea Party’s Long March through the GOP’s institutions.

    Jonah Goldberg, in one of the podcasts, made the following points:

    1. there is no evidence that the GOP can win more elections by running more conservative candidates; and
    2. Conservative candidates would win much more often if they were 100% more persuasive instead of 10% more conservative.

    I think Jonah is correct. The Tea Party’s challenge is that the Left has an outsized influence in setting cultural norms.  The Left has been so successful in this effort that traditional Americans–and the Tea Party is nothing except traditional Americans–are now cast as outliers and fringe.  Andrew Breitbart was correct that political flows from culture and the right must seize the culture back from the Left.

    Finally, the Tea Party’s problems will not truly begin until they win enough elections so that they have to govern.  Then the battle-royal with the Left begins.

    • #12
  13. Koolee Inactive
    Koolee
    @Koolie

    The Reticulator:

    Koolie:Reticulator: Query: Is your district a run-off district–meaning, if there are 3 candidates, the best two have a run-off to decide the victor?

    Not that I know of. There were three candidates in the fall election, including a Green party candidate in addition to Amash and the Dem. Amash won with 57.4 percent of the vote.

    Do you know about the Freedom Caucus, of which Amash is a member?

    Reticulator: Thanks. Will check out the Freedom Caucus. Koolie

    • #13
  14. Koolee Inactive
    Koolee
    @Koolie

    Leigh in #5: “I never believed he [Romney] pulled his punches because he was timid.”

    You are right on Romney. Politicians are politicians. They run to win. Nobody in politics is “timid” except as calculated strategy. You may wish the media is nicer to our side but these Republicans choose to run knowing the same things about the media that we do! So, we have to stop blaming the bankrupt media for the Republicans’ cynical strategic choices and see the Republicans for whom they are–the costs they are willing to inflict upon the nation. Saying they fear the media is making excuses for these shallow cynical tricksters. Lynch seems to be the latest abdication for them.

    Hendrix in #12: “…the right must seize the culture back from the Left”

    This is true but a much tougher longer term project because we have ceded education to the left, and the demographics (our youths now properly educated) have moved against us. Over time, education by and large is the culture. For the time being, you cannot “seize” back the culture with the type of Opposition Party we have–i.e., the Republican Party run by men of such low character.

    • #14
  15. Jim Kearney Member
    Jim Kearney
    @JimKearney

    You don’t see Democrats keep telegenic talent bottled up in the farm system, waiting for Rule 5 draft eligibility. Obama was fast-tracked. Bill Clinton’s pre-Presidency scandals were ignored. A chance at winning trumps inexperience, and gets you past the personal morality guard dogs over there. Welcome to The Show. The results: White House control for 16 of 24 years, and 5 of 6 popular votes for President.

    Meanwhile our side is finally getting better at scouting, nominating, and electing new talent: Tom Cotton, Cory Gardner, Shelley Capito, Joni Ernst.

    Now we have a couple of Tea Party first wave U.S. Senators vying for the White House, and a true political “bonus baby” who has never held political office, Carly Fiorina, topping many Ricochet lists for VP.

    I hope 2016 will be a year when Republicans unite, and Democrats find their establishment fighting off the true believers.

    The place for “third party” conversations is in solidly Democrat blue districts. Here in California, where jungle primaries rule, your choice can be a liberal Democrat and a further left “progressive” (i.e. socialist) one. In those areas, Republican and independent donors and PACs are beginning to get behind political moderates with a chance of winning, including registered Democrats. One way to win some of those frustrating Congressional stand-offs will be when the Democrat ranks include many more “unwhippables”: blue seats occupied by DINOs.

    • #15
  16. Ricochet Contributor
    Ricochet
    @TitusTechera

    1.So far as I remember, Atwater was behind some of the tough negative ads, the only occasion maybe when a GOP candidate told the ugly truths about his opponent, or at any rate, had someone tell them. Mr. Dukakis did not simply implode.

    2.GOP politicians are indeed careerists, but what happened to the Congress of ’94? They were the first winners in two generations & they seem to have thought winning was good, but they never pushed their luck. The only big political effect on the public was the strange, watchable run of Mr. Gingrich. These careerists are not really winners & they are not moved by getting something done that will consolidate their wins. I’m not sure they would know what that might be.

    3.The Tea Party sounds good, but they’re not good at politics. Politicians, professionals or otherwise, are not just normal people. Contra the more pious Americans, the Founders were incredibly daring, not to say impious men: Your constitution requires no oaths, because nobody really believes God cares if you lie in court… When it came, however, to rejecting authority, then moving to killing & getting killed, & getting people killed, they seem to think they were just the men for the job. One does not hear much about their tortured regrets over what had to be done… Conservatism needs real politicians & while people are learning to reject the jobbers, they cannot find the real article. That is the indictment of the Tea Party.

    • #16
  17. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Koolie:Hendrix in #12: “…the right must seize the culture back from the Left”

    This is true but a much tougher longer term project because we have ceded education to the left, and the demographics (our youths now properly educated) have moved against us. Over time, education by and large is the culture. For the time being, you cannot “seize” back the culture with the type of Opposition Party we have–i.e., the Republican Party run by men of such low character.

    The best way to seize the culture back is to have more fun than they are having.

    • #17
  18. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Titus Techera:

    2.GOP politicians are indeed careerists, but what happened to the Congress of ’94? They were the first winners in two generations & they seem to have thought winning was good, but they never pushed their luck. The only big political effect on the public was the strange, watchable run of Mr. Gingrich. These careerists are not really winners & they are not moved by getting something done that will consolidate their wins. I’m not sure they would know what that might be.

    Republicans and corporate welfarists did them in.

    1. Ag subsidy porkers wouldn’t give up ab subsidies, so the fleeting sense of everybody sacrificing government handouts for the sake of the national interest was quickly lost.

    2. Matronly Republican woman thought it more important that the govt could keep running so their vacations to Europe and elsewhere wouldn’t be jeopardized due to  passport difficulties.

    3. Republicans are always looking for excuses to throw their own under the bus in order to suck up to the Dems, so Newt accommodated their desires.

    Republicans stink.

    • #18
  19. Ricochet Contributor
    Ricochet
    @TitusTechera

    The Reticulator:

    Koolie:Hendrix in #12: “…the right must seize the culture back from the Left”

    This is true but a much tougher longer term project because we have ceded education to the left, and the demographics (our youths now properly educated) have moved against us. Over time, education by and large is the culture. For the time being, you cannot “seize” back the culture with the type of Opposition Party we have–i.e., the Republican Party run by men of such low character.

    The best say to seize the culture back is to have more fun than they are having.

    This ain’t summer camp. What got the 60’s movements to become important, influential, even having some power; what got the New Left to get control over the rewriting of the ruler for the Dem nomination process after ’68’ what united the various liberals, lefties, the New Left, & the traitors or would-be traitor communists–it was not fun. Unless you mean the hatred of Nixon.

    • #19
  20. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Titus Techera:

    The Reticulator:

    Koolie:Hendrix in #12: “…the right must seize the culture back from the Left”

    This is true but a much tougher longer term project because we have ceded education to the left, and the demographics (our youths now properly educated) have moved against us. Over time, education by and large is the culture. For the time being, you cannot “seize” back the culture with the type of Opposition Party we have–i.e., the Republican Party run by men of such low character.

    The best say to seize the culture back is to have more fun than they are having.

    This ain’t summer camp. What got the 60′s movements to become important, influential, even having some power; what got the New Left to get control over the rewriting of the ruler for the Dem nomination process after ’68′ what united the various liberals, lefties, the New Left, & the traitors or would-be traitor communists–it was not fun. Unless you mean the hatred of Nixon.

    They were often angry, but they were having fun. Or maybe excitement is a better term for it.

    • #20
  21. Leigh Inactive
    Leigh
    @Leigh

    Jim Kearney:The place for “third party” conversations is in solidly Democrat blue districts. Here in California, where jungle primaries rule, your choice can be a liberal Democrat and a further left “progressive” (i.e. socialist) one. In those areas, Republican and independent donors and PACs are beginning to get behind political moderates with a chance of winning, including registered Democrats. One way to win some of those frustrating Congressional stand-offs will be when the Democrat ranks include many more “unwhippables”: blue seats occupied by DINOs.

    I’ve always been solidly against 3rd parties in the American system.  (Basically I figure if a conservative candidate can’t sell his conservatism to a Republican primary electorate he’s not going to be able to sell it without them.)  But I’ve been thinking a little about third parties in some of these blue districts too.

    For example: African-American communities aren’t about to start voting Republican — but there are issues where they are not at all in step with the Hillary Clinton direction of the party.  Not enough for any kind of a major split, of course, but maybe enough to provide an opening in certain districts for a certain kind of politician — and not one with an “R” after his name.

    • #21
  22. Ricochet Contributor
    Ricochet
    @TitusTechera

    The Reticulator:Or maybe excitement is a better term for it.

    You’re getting close. Enthusiasm & hysteria, I’d say, are the terms of the political art, I have a weakness for them. People getting what they think they want, what they think is good are of course pleased. But what’s specific to them–to politics, really–is the anger, even hatred. They need not have been hateful; they need not have thought that people with opinions like ours have to disappear…

    • #22
  23. Freesmith Member
    Freesmith
    @

    Politics is downstream from culture. You all know it, but when an article like this one is posted everyone forgets.

    America is in decline because American citizens lack the will to defend its honor and legitimacy, two bedrock conservative concepts. When America stopped being explicitly conservative it became subject to O’Sullivan’s Law. The last 55 years are the result.

    Today American conservatives and traditionalists cower in small groups and whine, and poke holes in the air with their fingers. In despair they look to politicians and Supreme Court justices to deliver them from those to whom they have abdicated the commanding heights of their own culture. They are afraid to do even the smallest act of defiance, self-hobbled by the rationalizations of cowardice.

    Liberate yourself. Next time you see a car with a “Ready for Hillary” bumper sticker, think, just think, about keying it.

    And support those who do.

    • #23
  24. Leigh Inactive
    Leigh
    @Leigh

    Freesmith:Liberate yourself. Next time you see a car with a “Ready for Hillary” bumper sticker, think, just think, about keying it.

    And support those who do.

    I was largely with you until this point.  That is an assertion of cultural conservatism? That’s just telling my neighbors I’m a jerk.

    If you recognize the declining role of Christianity in American life as part of the problem, that’s the place to start — at church.

    But to be constructive, there’s volunteering for organizations where you can help people move into the workforce (which is a start on the path to conservatism)?

    • #24
  25. TKC1101 Member
    TKC1101
    @

    The establishment is of course doing what it sees as the way to maximize it’s wealth over the long term. Lee Atwater , as I recall , was more interested in winning than he was in maximizing his personal wealth over time.  Using his name to cover the game of the current establishment is a bit off. The current GOP consulting class would never rock the boat like Lee.

    If we truly want to cut back on the reach and power of the federal government, we need to get aggressive, power hungry state and local politicians to take the money and power back. To expect any professional politician at the federal level to relinquish power and wealth is a fools plan.

    A collection of Governors who through courts, party pressure and unilateral state action would begin to remove authority from Washington. If conservatives want action and influence, the states in the collective are a better platform than trying to influence Washington.

    • #25
  26. Freesmith Member
    Freesmith
    @

    Leigh

    If your neighbors have a “Ready for Hillary” bumper sticker on their car they already think you’re a jerk – unless you’ve hidden your conservative views from them.

    Thinking about keying a liberal’s car isn’t an assertion of cultural conservatism any more than proposing to dump tea into a harbor was, or planning to cold-cock a bully with a lead pipe. What it is is the first step – visualizing a counter-attack – in shaking the psychological fetters off your will.

    And who said anything about Christianity?

    • #26
  27. Leigh Inactive
    Leigh
    @Leigh

    Freesmith:Leigh

    If your neighbors have a “Ready for Hillary” bumper sticker on their car they already think you’re a jerk – unless you’ve hidden your conservative views from them.

    Thinking about keying a liberal’s car isn’t an assertion of cultural conservatism any more than proposing to dump tea into a harbor was, or planning to cold-cock a bully with a lead pipe. What it is is the first step – visualizing a counter-attack – in shaking the psychological fetters off your will.

    And who said anything about Christianity?

    Well, you implied there was a deeper cultural problem.  Starting with the root of that makes sense.

    My will isn’t psychologically fettered.  I can just think of lots of much more worthwhile ways of getting people mad at you, if that’s what you want to accomplish.

    • #27
  28. Freesmith Member
    Freesmith
    @

    From the current “Commentary Magazine:” What Does It Mean to Be Pro-Israel?

    (The) turn against Israel, moreover, benefited from a new style of pro-Israel advocacy…Under this model…pro-Israel organizations must highlight every sign of the tolerance of the Jewish state: Look at this gay-pride parade in Jerusalem! Behold this Arab Muslim serving in the IDF!

    But the trouble with such feel-good hasbara is that it betrays an inner insecurity or defensiveness about Israel rather than confidence. (And) it does little to persuade…the more you uphold Israel as exceptionally moral, the more every moral failing will count against the Jewish state.

    Sound familiar, conservative Republicans who are weary of non-stop accusations that they don’t “care about black people”? Remember how quickly JC Watts rose in the House GOP leadership? Michael Steele? Recall how every conservative fawns as he or she disavows to the braying press the slightest deviation by an ally from today’s Leftist definition of racism?

    It’s called “accepting the premise of your enemy.” It’s a symptom of decline.

    • #28
  29. Freesmith Member
    Freesmith
    @

    Leigh,

    I don’t want people to be mad at me.

    I just want them to think long and hard about what I might do if they try to spit in my face.

    Conservatives have lost that gut resolve.

    Don’t point to yourself. Instead, if you doubt me, take a little test.

    Turn on your favorite conservative commentary TV show, talk-radio program or podcast (including Ricochet and Need to Know), one that opines on current events and politics.

    See how long it takes before the host, a guest or a caller pronounces some form of this formulation:

    “If a Republican/conservative/Christian ever did/said/wrote that, he’d be fired/run out of town/hounded to apologize/dead meat.”

    That formulation is not an argument; it is the mantra of conservative impotence.

    Impotence is a feature of decline.

    • #29
  30. Leigh Inactive
    Leigh
    @Leigh

    Freesmith:Leigh,

    I don’t want people to be mad at me.

    I just want them to think long and hard about what I might do if they try to spit in my face.

    Conservatives have lost that gut resolve.

    Don’t point to yourself. Instead, if you doubt me, take a little test.

    Turn on your favorite conservative commentary TV show, talk-radio program or podcast (including Ricochet and Need to Know), one that opines on current events and politics.

    See how long it takes before the host, a guest or a caller pronounces some form of this formulation:

    “If a Republican/conservative/Christian ever did/say/wrote that, he’d be fired/run out of town/hounded to apologize/dead meat.”

    That formulation is not an argument; it is the mantra of conservative impotence.

    Impotence is a feature of decline.

    When I hear that it’s usually (not always) in reference to something that shouldn’t have been done or said or written.  The problem is the lack of accountability — and yes, conservatives could do a better job providing it — not that we don’t do the same thing.

    If you think bumper stickers are an effective form of political discourse, the answer to your neighbor’s sticker is to get a Walker/Rubio/Bush sticker and put it on your own car.  The answer to speech you don’t like is more speech.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.