Musings Of An Indie Writer| « | Drift. |
»
|
|
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mandatory Rebellion: Motivations And Inhibitors
Your Curmudgeon has received quite a bit of incredulous e-mail about the previous essay on this topic. Persons who appreciate the deterioration of the Republican Party just as deeply as your Curmudgeon have expressed complete bafflement at the suggestion that any decent man might desire a shattering Republican defeat this coming November. After all, they ask, isn't there enough of a difference between the parties to prefer one to the other? Shouldn't we act to preserve as much freedom as we possibly can, even if it means voting for Republicans who've collaborated in the expansion of the Omnipotent State?
In a word, no. The tipping point is upon us; further support of the GOP in its present configuration will produce net damage to what remains of our traditional rights. The idea that supporting the lesser of two evils is somehow morally obligatory has never enjoyed less logical or historical support.
Where was the tipping point, you ask? It arrived when John McCain, the all but certain Republican nominee for the presidency, endorsed the notion that the United States must accept anthropogenic global warming as a proven crisis, one that demands the restraint of American commerce and consumption as federal policy.
Many persons feel the foreign-policy differences between McCain and the two possible Democratic candidates are an adequate reason to support the Arizona senator. Yet the pacification of Iraq is a subject about which honest Americans can sincerely disagree, and not all Republican-leaning voters are in accord with McCain's position on the matter. But the notion that a scientific fraud, the product of erratic computer models and a multimillion-dollar scare campaign, whose conclusions are contradicted by all the available evidence, should determine who may produce, buy, sell, or exhale is a complete traduction of rationality, to say nothing of basic principles of American governance. By boarding the global-warming train, Senator McCain has made it clear that he cannot be deemed trustworthy enough to occupy the highest executive office in the land.
Granted, none of the plausible presidential candidates is worthy of the office. Indeed, were the Founding Fathers able to see the sort of pygmies that currently contend for the Oval Office, they would vomit up their very souls in their graves. But men of good will must accept that we'll have to endure now-unavoidable hardship in the near term, and orient their thinking toward the years beyond.
The structure of the American political system inevitably leads to two major parties. At any given instant, one party will be more or less "in power" and the other will be "in opposition." Of course, the aim of the former is to remain where it is, while the aim of the latter is to change places with the former. Given that the Republican Party is the more freedom-oriented of the two major American parties, the usual line of reasoning for supporting Republican candidates is that the alternative would be worse. Indeed, it is, has been, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. But to award our support to the GOP on this basis is to reinforce the worst of the tendencies it has recently exhibited: the tendency to slide its positions leftward, toward those of the Democrats,
One must remember that a political party is an inherently amoral collective entity. It exists to acquire power. It puts candidates forward in the belief that those persons will contribute to that undertaking. Platforms and policy positions are important solely in that pursuit. The profile of a slate of candidates and their espoused positions expresses what its party's strategists believe will maximize the party's chances of attaining ascendancy. When specific candidates deviate from the party line, the party responds by reducing the support it provides them. Nothing is more important than maximizing the party's numbers in the halls of power.
A party's public positions are seldom dictated by deeply felt principle. Far more often than not, its behavior is dictated by party strategists' convictions about what will conduce to gaining or keeping power. It chooses candidates -- don't kid yourself; primaries are carefully engineered to nominate the party's preferred candidate -- for their value in promoting the party's fortunes, not for their support of any abstract principle. This is no less true in closely fought elections than in more widely separated ones.
If conservatives want to compel the GOP and its candidates to conform to conservative principle, they must defeat the party's strategy. That means defeating the party overall, not merely any one candidate. Nothing else will get the party's kingpins to question their strategic decisions.
That means accepting an overwhelmingly Democrat-controlled pyramid of governments -- federal, state, and local -- with all that implies, for the next four years.
The prospect of pain from increased taxation and regulation is enough to daunt many persons who would otherwise agree with the necessity of disciplining the GOP. The prospect of a weakened American foreign policy, including a retreat from our involvements in the Middle East, will daunt others. But unless the Republican Party can be swayed back toward Constitutional government, national sovereignty, and the stalwart defense of Americans, our property, and our interests worldwide, the party's departure from wholesome conservatism will continue and accelerate...as will the American federal republic's departure from any semblance of individual freedom.
More anon,
Comments
“But unless the Republican Party can be swayed back toward Constitutional government, national sovereignty, and the stalwart defense of Americans, our property, and our interests worldwide, the party’s departure from wholesome conservatism will continue and accelerate…as will the American federal republic’s departure from any semblance of individual freedom.”
This is an interesting political season to me. The more seats the Republicans lose, the more they slide toward Liberal positions. Confusing…
This year, I’ll vote, but I cannot vote for a man who has kicked me in the teeth for years in the Senate, has crossed the “aisle” one too many times and has assured us he favors illegal aliens and their “rights” above those of American citizens.
We may have to step back and let it - the Republican Party - go. It has worked mightily to rid itself of us. So, who do we write-in for President in November? Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Mitt Romney? You see, as we have been shown by the national media, black Americans support black candidataes generally - no suprise there, not called racism either, only non-Hispanic whites can be “racists”, right? So, the Democrat Party takes the black vote for granted totally. The Republican Party takes the conservative vote for granted as well - we are the “God and guns” folks who believe in the US Constitution, mercy - and as the Republican leaders say: “Who else do the idiots have to vote for? They’ll bend over, hold their ankles, vote Republican, and like it. Well, not this year.
I’ll probably vote for my Congressman but there will be strong opposition to that seat from the Soros crowd. Maybe, as Rush Limbaugh also suggested, let’s let it go. We simply don’t have to purchase as much, cut back, and try to save money.
Perhaps this won’t be such a difficult election year after all.
Posted by Beach Girl on 05/21/2008 at 04:20 PMI don’t worship the letter ‘R’. When Republicans talk and act like liberals I don’t vote for them. Sure, McCain is good on a couple of positions. That means that instead of heading toward the cliff at 100 mph - like the Democrats, he’s only heading toward the cliff at 70 mph. Sorry, if you’re heading toward the cliff I’m not supporting you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/21/2008 at 06:50 PMWell, dammit, I’ve pissed off a round half dozen people this month so far, why not take a swipe at the person in the blogosphere I respect most.
I don’t think the issues with the current crop are due to the lack of respectable candidates; I think we ended up with McCain because of a priomary process that is flawed at it’s core. The primary process is begun in areas where liberals hold sway, or where they can crossover and vote to ruin our party. Handing the reins of power to John McCain can surely not be in the best interests of our country; however, handing them to barack Obama means abandoning the reins of power forever. It’s always better to negotiate from a position of some strength- Mc Cain will surely do no worse at the job than Obama will, and Obama will surely appoint activist judges that will haunt us for years, destroying our constitution in the process.
Just my .02.
Posted by og on 05/21/2008 at 09:44 PMNot that I disagree with any of the above, including the comments, but what then is the alternative? Not voting, or voting for someone who has absolutely no chance whatsoever of being elected, seems to me to have the same effect as voting for “the other one”. Is it possible that the assuredly ruinous policies promised by the Democrat candidates can somehow be undone after the Republicans have been given their well-earned lesson? How about if more SCOTUS judges of the listing-to-port persuasion are appointed during said reign of idiocy?
I hope our Esteemed Host will address such matters anon. From my perspective it seems that the proverbial cart is headed toward a cliff, and although neither party seems to want to stop that at least you can buy more time by holding your nose and voting for the 70mph lot—because the only alternative is to guarantee the 100mph lot.
So I said “buy more time” above. The question is, for what? Clearly, an alternative to 70mph and 100mph parties. But whether that means strong-arming one party to change its policies, or finding some other party that has more acceptable policies (and that will be elected), or some third alternative, I do not know.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/21/2008 at 11:51 PMNegotiating from a position of strength is obviously desirable, but:
1. You have to be negotiating with the right people;
2. Your strength must be relevant to them—preferably greater than theirs.My contention is that the GOP in its current configuration has essentially sided with the enemies of the Constitution. If we continue to support it, we will reinforce its captains’ conviction that they merely have to stay a millimeter to the right of the Democrats to retain our allegiance. We’re not going to displace that attitude without defeating it—which means defeating the GOP en masse.
Politicians and political strategists respond to the consequences of their actions the same way any of us do:
Victory: “I must have done something right! What was it? Can I do it again? Can I do it more and harder?”
Defeat: “What did I do wrong? What can I change? Is victory worth the price?”I’m not saying my suggestion, if acted upon, would cost us nothing. I’m not saying it has no risks. A massive defection from the GOP might be enough to reform and revitalize the party, and wrest back control of American government in four, six, or eight years. Continuing to support ever-more-liberal Republicans, ever more ready to betray our interests and abridge our rights, is suicide on the installment plan: No matter who wins the election, We the People will lose.
An old joke is to the point:
At the urging of his wife and daughters, Smith went to a horse breeder to buy a horse for his family. He told the breeder that the horse he would buy must be easy to direct, for the ladies of his household were neither large nor strong.
The breeder produced a horse, a fine-looking animal, and said, “Dobbin here is what you’re looking for. This horse will obey your slightest whim.”
Smith, pleased at this assessment, asked for some tack and mounted Dobbin for a “test ride.” But the horse failed to live up to its billing; indeed, Smith was unable to get it to move at all. He hailed the breeder back from his stables and demanded an explanation.
The breeder cocked an eyebrow, turned to Dobbin, and hit the horse with his balled fist, a tremendous blow right between the eyes. The horse staggered, shook his head, and recovered, eyes much more alert than before. The breeder gestured Smith back onto the horse, which now proved perfectly responsive and compliant.
Smith frowned down at the breeder. “I thought you said this horse would obey my slightest whim?”
The breeder nodded. “He will. But you have to get his attention first.”
Verbum sat sapienti.
Posted by Francis W. Porretto on 05/22/2008 at 07:08 AM“A massive defection from the GOP might be enough to reform and revitalize the party, and wrest back control of American government in four, six, or eight years.”
If it were massive enough, which it will almost certainly not be, there is an incredibly slight chance it might make something of a differecne. But then the reins of power will be in the haqnds of the enemy, so to speak, and the enemy will have the power of the press, the SCOTUS, the house, and senate. From where will our strength come then?
I think your idea is a noble one. I also think it’s nearly impossible. This is one case where a persistent steady pressure from within is better than a short, innefective brute force from without. beginning, I think, with the primary process. Reagan was an anomaly, because he was liked in liberal areas; unless we can do that again, we get what the illegals in california want us to have for leadership. When Indiana gets to have their primary on the same day as every other state, then maybe we have a chance to elect a leader.
No, I’m pretty sure the dangers here are too great to try this. We are already ON the slippery slope. We have already slipped some distance down it. Letting go just doesn’t seem an option to me.
Posted by og on 05/22/2008 at 10:20 AMTo those who say the only option is to vote for one of the two major parties I ask: for the upcoming election are you going to vote Tory or Whig?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/22/2008 at 06:36 PMThese are hard posts indeed. I see the logic of your arguments, FWP, but the rest of my mind is fighting tooth and nail against it. Thanks for making me think more - it’s good to have a mental conflict once in a while.
The trouble is, why didn’t the GOP reformation happen when Democrats took control of Congress?
Posted by HannahJ on 05/23/2008 at 08:31 PMI could be wrong. I hope I never say otherwise, especially on a subject as important as this one. But I’m trying to work from first principles. A person crowned with success will assume that he’s been doing the right thing, and is likely to repeat it or amplify it. A person forced to confront massive failure will look for what he did wrong, unless he’s utterly unable to admit to error. I can’t help but think the same is true of an organization.
Hannah, I think a narrow defeat, such as that in 2006, is unlikely to cause a massive, inertia-laden organization such as the GOP to rethink its strategy. Rather, the Republican strategists’ wishful-thinking centers kicked in: they seem to have told themselves that their problem was that they didn’t emulate the Democrats adequately well. The GOP’s strategy and candidates have become more like those of the Democrats since then. How are we to persuade them that they’re wrong, except by defeating them even more resoundingly in 2008—but with a very low vote total, so the Dems won’t be able to claim a massive mandate for their own policies and principles?
I tell you in all sincerity: I want to be wrong. I want there to be another way that doesn’t involve ceding control of Washington to our domestic social-fascists. But I can’t find one.
Posted by Francis W. Porretto on 05/23/2008 at 09:18 PMFWP, I started writing a comment here, but it just became too long - and, I haven’t been writing in my own blog enough of late - so I turned it into a blog post of my own:
Posted by Ed Minchau on 05/28/2008 at 04:36 AMWhat a nightmare! Where is the prozac? We got McCain and who knows who the other guys will get. And don’t any one go pinning your hopes on McCain nominating “conservative” justices to the Supreme Court. Look at all the McCain- bills he was co-sponsor on, one of which was and is unconstitutional - Campaign Finance Reform.
I say we all write in Glenn Beck…
It is making me so dizzy I’m even writing about Hillary running as an Independent just to add some fun to it all - if all “h__l” is gonna break loose with the Dhimmicats in control of House and Senate and Maxine Waters (OMG) nationalizing the gas companies - we might as well have fun while we “eat cake”...
Aside from Jimmy Carter, have ya ever seen such a mess? And people act like they take him seriously…
Posted by Beach Girl on 05/28/2008 at 08:23 PM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
