We’re going to lose in November not because the other side has a better vision for America. We’re going to lose because the other side had a better grip on reality.
Okay, let me start by making everyone mad.
We’re going to lose the election in November. We’re not going to be defeated by Liberalism and their Democrat enablers. We’re going to cut our own throats and revel in the bloody mess as either a woman with the highest negatives of any candidate in U.S. electoral history, or the most vacuous, platitudinous-driven man to ever run for national office, is swept into power. And once in power, unlike the “it will get so bad the country will revolt” fantasy that drives this Conservative/Republican suicidal impulse, these guys will remain in power for another generation implementing all the programs that we, allegedly, so despise that we opted out of the electoral process in 2008 to allow them to come into existence.
In short, we’re going to lose in November not because the other side has a better vision for America. We’re going to lose because the other side had a better grip on reality. Elections are about ideas, but they are also about winning. With winning comes power, and the ability to implement your ideas. Maybe not all your ideas all at once, but some of them anyway. And over time, the small steps can add up if those advancing them hold on to the power to implement them. As a hungry man will tell you, it’s better to have the bowl of soup today than starve to death waiting for the filet mignon you’d rather be eating.
The Liberals/Democrats will win because they understand something that Conservatives/Republicans seem to have forgotten. Ideology, unaccompanied by real-world pragmatism, is irrelevant. The best ideas in the world are irrelevant unless they have the ability to be translated into policy. Boycotting an election because the “wrong candidate” used the same rules as your guy to secure your party’s nomination, or relegating your vote to practical irrelevancy by voting for a third party candidate for president, gets you the admiration of your fellow pissed-off comrades in arms. Unfortunately, in creating the U.S. Constitution, the Founders didn’t assign any electoral points to “pissed off” protest actions, so as an election strategy this tends to be a non-productive way to gain power.
And so we come to the core of this matter. For the past several years I’ve been watching Conservatives eat their young in the guise of promoting an alternative vision to Liberal policies. Just looking at what passes for political debate in The Intellectual Conservative and related websites, the discussion isn’t how to take core values of smaller government, better security, less waste and fraud, etc., and translate these into national policy. It’s been on who is or isn’t a “True Conservative” according to the reading lists each arguing individual holds dear.
Thus, we wallow in such pressing contemporary topics as “Was Lincoln a tyrant?”, “Should we return to the Articles of Confederation?”, and my personal favorite, “Did your ancestors come from the correct European countries?” Meanwhile, the Liberals and Democrats are trying to figure out a way to return to power. If it takes running some “conservative” members in strategic House races to bump off enough Republicans to put Nancy Pelosi in command of government, or rigging an election or two (remember New Jersey?) to achieve a majority in the Senate, they’ll do it. It doesn’t make it right, and it doesn’t mean we should cheat to win. But what it does mean is that unlike us, the Liberals/Democrats understand that Nancy and Harry and/or Hillary or Barak can’t do diddly to implement their programs unless they win at the polls.
On the other hand, we’d much rather lose an election than settle for anything less than the full implementation of our conservative ideals. This is a potentially good strategy if (a) Conservatives are in fact unified as to what these values are, and (b) we vote as a unified block, and (c) understand that even a successful election will not allow all (and at times, many) of these goals to be implemented without a long transformative period after we actually gain power to both continue educating the public, and overcome any bureaucratic intransigence that exists.
Unfortunately, there is no monolithic “Conservatism,” regardless of what some people say. Different people will place different emphasis, and even interpret the meaning differently, of different aspects of the presumed core values. Moreover, as the current primary system shows, everyone from Ron Paul to Rudy claims to be a “conservative,” and can point to support from other self-identified conservatives who support them. There is no single Conservative candidate or philosophy. Ronald Reagan himself couldn’t pass some of the litmus tests evoked today to judge a candidate’s past actions — and therefore his “future intentions” — to allow them to wear the conservative mantle to everyone’s agreement. And finally, as the blogosphere more than amply demonstrates, winning elections is just not that important to many who lay claim to conservative beliefs if the “right philosophy” is not fully represented, or the guy espousing aspects of that philosophy is perceived to be a nasty SOB.
Despite all this, we can still be contenders in November if we have the ability to recognize the difference between hyperbolic rhetoric and actual intentions. I listened to Hillary on Super Tuesday recount all the new entitlements she would enact, the confiscatory tax policies she would promote, the babies she would help abort through her judicial nominations, the nanny-state oversight she would mandate, and the remaining litany of hyper-liberal policies she would enact once taking office. Then I thought back to comments that there is 0% difference between someone like McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, and Hillary. Is McCain Reagan? No. But that doesn’t make him Hillary. Recognizing this is the difference between venting and fantasizing. Despite the legion of McCain’s shortcomings, anyone who actually, literally, believes that he and Hillary have identical policy goals and intentions is an idiot, pardon my French.
This wouldn’t be an issue if all I thought what was happening was the expenditure of a lot of hot air denouncing any Republican candidate who wasn’t a “True Conservative” (or, a “True Conservative” as defined by the individual making that judgment based on his personal appreciation of non-Liberal values). But I’m convinced that many holding these views will in fact act on this fantasy, and in so doing secure the election to power of a truly reprehensible political philosophy. And once in power, to further fantasize that we should all endure four years of this injurious philosophy so the country will collapse enough to sweep “our philosophy” back in power makes even less sense. Not only is “our philosophy” fragmented as I discussed above, there is absolutely no guarantee this will happen. People who hold this view aren’t thinking strategically. They’re wishing. And wishing doesn’t win elections.
All of this leads to my final point. For those of you dismissing what I’ve said out of hand because I’ve injected pragmatism into a discussion of ideology, I want you to think about the following. Just looking at the “True Conservative” debates here in the pages of The Intellectual Conservative, we’ve been treated to hundreds of thousands of words defining this philosophy. Forget about the fact for the moment that after all this verbiage, there is still disagreement about what (if anything) constitutes a 100% pure, certified “True Conservative.” Focus instead on this fact instead.
For all this hot air, where are the policy prescriptions that will actually advance this “True Conservatism?” “Get out of Iraq” now is a slogan. As a policy we need to discuss things like “when?” Tomorrow? In six months? In six years? In 60+ years like the occupation of Germany? What does “get out” mean? Every American soldier and civilian tomorrow, in 6 months, six years, etc.? Do some people stay behind? Who, and how many? What about the Iraqis who supported us? Do we leave them to die? Believe they won’t die and leave them anyway? Take some/all of them with us and give them asylum? And when we leave, do we run, walk, or sneak away to send a signal to our enemies that we’re sorry, determined, or contrite for being there in the first place? And will any or all of this convince our enemies — whether they are pre- or post-Iraq invasion bad guys — not kill any more U.S. citizens, or do we need to do other things in conjunction with “get out?” What are the actual implications of any of these choices?
The same for immigration. “Secure the borders” and return to a kith and kin-based “natural hierarchical social order” is a slogan. What does this mean? End all immigration, period. Build a fence and continue to allow legal immigration from all countries? Limit immigration to only Western European countries? Make the “wrong people” who legally emigrated to the U.S. return to their native countries? And do any/all of this over what timeline, and with what implications (positive or negative) for our economy?
Pick any “Conservative” principle and ask similar questions. In the past, when I’ve asked for practical guidance from those espousing the “True Conservative” ideology, I’ve been given things like this: “If you do not accept the baseline liberal assumptions, as traditional/paleo/classical conservative don’t, then you are not faced with that dilemma. Those prohibitions reflect the ‘natural order.’” I’ve asked if fries come with my burger, and I’m told that China is debasing the dollar and we need to return to the gold standard. All that may be true, but I still want to know if fries come with my burger. If the pimply-faced kid behind the counter can’t answer “yes” or “no,” then it’s time to patronize a different establishment.
The point is, simply mouthing ideology without considering the practical aspects of implementation is meaningless. The practical will tell you what can be accomplished when, and in what timeframe, within the present political structure. And it will tell you what about that structure needs to be changed to implement the rest. But implementation and change can’t come without acquiring the power to do so, and in the United States we do this through elections. Sloganeering, fantasizing, and wishing your goals to come true won’t make anything happen. At least not for you. However, it will pave the way for those willing to pursue their goals in concert with reality to achieve some success.
Those of you who feel soiled by focusing on what the world is today, and operating within it to reach an objective, will eschew this advice. To these people, it’s more important to get the ideology down pat in all its permutations and modifications, then find a candidate who embodies the totality of that philosophy, and then achieve power. Meanwhile, the counter-philosophy will be doing everything it can to solidify grip on the power you seek, so that when the ideology is correct and your white knight arrives, the exercise will be pointless.
Believing that people may “want conservatism” deep in their hearts, and thus the right candidate can give them that expression, is pure fantasy. Like any ideology that doesn’t involve a naked appeal to one’s personal self-interests, but rather appeals to a higher purpose in life, it must be taught. But it isn’t taught by osmosis, and it isn’t taught by ignoring the pragmatic to focus only on the ideological.
Your philosophy will not be seen as a credible alternative to the status quo when its advocates withdraw from the political process, and allow the opposing philosophy free access to power.
Jackson-ic@hotmail.com
http://www.scifi-jackson.com/
Read more articles by Phillip Ellis Jackson
Dear Phil,
I fear that I may again be encroaching on another personal feud, but I would like to address a number of your assertions.
I find it hard to understand how any “practical policy solutions” of any worth can be formulated unless they are based on some underlying principles [and when I refer to principles, I do not mean principles in the sense of values, but instead absolute postulates – like the Ten Principles of Freedom – forgive me!].
Advances in civilization have not been made by those who ‘work within the system’ to achieve some limited goal, but by those who turn the system upside down, and inside out. Working within the system is like a ping-pong game – it simply goes back and forth, and nothing is ever accomplished of any significance (except on the score board). Of course, if we are happy to play this game where the only ‘winners’ are the politicians, and their followers hoping to catch a few crumbs falling from the table, so be it. But when the inevitable happens, we will deserve what we get.
I know from our previous encounters that you have a disdain for ‘philosophy’, but had it not been for those who question the way things are, and seek to offer better alternatives, we would still be swinging from the trees – although, no doubt, with perhaps a more ‘policy practical’ agility.
I shall not address here the reasons why the likes on McCain will be equally disastrous for the US, and the world, as Obama or Hillary – I expect others have and will address those issues – but I will say this: the United States of America was not built on the ‘solutions’ you advocate. It was not built on offering what could be accomplished by working within the powers accorded to the colonies by King George III – it was accomplished by throwing the whole thing out of the window – with a great deal of pain – and starting afresh.
I am sure I don’t have to remind you, but I shall for the benefit of those readers not familiar with the Declaration of Independence, that the United States was built on this: “That whenever ANY Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [meaning the FREEDOM of its citizens] it is the Right [I would say FREEDOM] of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such PRINCIPLES and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
I emphasize PRINCIPLES because without those there is nothing – and that is what is on offer from the Republican pack (especially McCain) to contend with Obama’s and Clinton’s policy prescriptions. If we are not to be governed by PRINCIPLES then let’s at least have ‘free’ health care and the rest – here in Europe, on the whole, taxes are mostly on a par, or less, than the US, but at least the Europeans have ‘free’ health care etc as compensation for sacrificing all and any PRINCIPLES.
Policy, Phil, is not all it’s cracked up to be. Policy without PRINCIPLES is just that – policy. We have it in abundance over here in Europe. It really isn’t that wonderful – but at least it’s ‘free’!
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | February 6, 2008
Joseph. I'm not sure what article you were reading. I wasn't arguing for policy without principles. I was arguing for ideology that has a practical component to it. "Ideology, unaccompanied by real-world pragmatism, is irrelevant. The best ideas in the world are irrelevant unless they have the ability to be translated into policy."
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 6, 2008
Phil, I take your point. This is what struck me: “Those of you who feel soiled by focusing on what the world is today, and operating within it to reach an objective, will eschew this advice.”
If I misunderstood that statement, please forgive me. But it still sounds like the thing I was responding to.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | February 6, 2008
Joseph, no problem. The paragraph preceding it was supposed to set the stage:
"The point is, simply mouthing ideology without considering the practical aspects of implementation is meaningless. The practical will tell you what can be accomplished when, and in what timeframe, within the present political structure. And it will tell you what about that structure needs to be changed to implement the rest. But implementation and change can’t come without acquiring the power to do so, and in the United States we do this through elections. Sloganeering, fantasizing, and wishing your goals to come true won’t make anything happen. At least not for you. However, it will pave the way for those willing to pursue their goals in concert with reality to achieve some success."
If Conservatives won't settle for anything less than the ideological pure because to do so somehow debases them, and feel no need to address pragmatically how to implement all/part of their philosophy, then the opposing philosophy will have a clear path to successfully implementing their goals.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 6, 2008
Phil,
Once again you have given food for thought.
I think it is worthwhile to point out a few things. First, Conservatism is the only philosophy where real debate happens. Leftists do not debate who is the best leftist. They do not debate their ideas with conservatives. They do not relish free and vigorous exchange.
But we do. Conservatism, whatever flavor, is rooted in intellectual discourse. It can be philosophy, pragmatic implementation, or who really is a "true conservative." You will rarely, if ever, find leftists talking about themselves this way. Leftists will never say what they really stand for.
Admittedly we do get into some pretty obtuse things, but I think this is good. All the world can see what we talk about, we don't hide, we aren't ashamed, and we don't try to obscure what we really believe, like leftists do.
As far as the Republican candidates, each leaves much to be desired. But again, we as conservatives will debate their merits and deficiencies, where leftists will not do this with their candidates. Of course, they will with ours.
The debate will persist until the election, and conservatives will vote for their choice, though a few will sit out. After the election, we will continue to present our case for conservatism.
I am convinced that our ideas and solutions for society will prevail, as long as we continue to push, continue to talk, continue to hold fast to principle. Liberty, self-determination, limited government, respect for the individual, all these are winning ideas.
Comment by Mountain Man | February 6, 2008
It is write in vote year with McCain in the lead. Treat it as you will he is not a Republican. Just like Mayor Bloomberg McCain calls himself Republican because it is convenient. Simply put McCain would not be a contender as a Democrat.
So where does that leave us? Voting for two flavors of Democrat or at least expressing displeasure in a way that can actually be counted? McCain will have no coattails in this election even if he does well. The Republican party is dead…face it and move on to something else.
Voting for the least evil of a set of evil alternatives is unreasonable.
My vote will be a write in!
Comment by Mickey G | February 6, 2008
MM: You are absolutely correct about Conservatism being the only philosophy where real debate happens. Our problem is that we can’t seem to get beyond the debate.
There comes a time (such as election time) when the world gives us less-than-ideal choices. If our reaction is to walk away and continue the debate among ourselves, instead of working within the parameters we are given to move the dial forward, we’re going to become a hot air club instead of a real political force.
I’m hoping that a lot of what’s going on now is a venting of frustrations, rather than a real statement of intentions. At some point though the venting has to stop, or we’ll talk ourselves into political irrelevancy.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 6, 2008
Phil, thank you for the clarification. I am still a little puzzled, however. You say this: “The practical will tell you what can be accomplished when, and in what timeframe, within the present political structure.”
Why should it be within the “present political structure” if that structure is “destructive of … ends” it was supposed to serve?
And why this: “implementation and change can’t come without acquiring the power to do so, and in the United States we do this through elections.” The Declaration of Independence specifically advocates changes of government by means other than elections. Is it a good argument to say that we should subject ourselves [or should I say that Americans should subject themselves] to this limitation simply because that is how things are now done? Or at least how those who hold power (conveniently) tell us how things are done now?
You may throw your hands up in horror to think that I am advocating armed overthrow of the government. But that is not a novel idea – its how America came into being. And anyway, there are easier ways to accomplish that today – simply cripple government financially, as I argue in article 7 of my Ten Principles of Freedom articles.
Why not?? We could certainly use a bit of that over here in Europe – and ironically, it may actually be over here that it starts. Wouldn’t that be a turn-up for the books?
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | February 6, 2008
Mickey: Your vote will not elect anyone, other than Hillary or Obama. But you'll feel good about the gesture.
If enough people follow this prescription, I'm going to start every response in the next 4 years to a complaint about Supreme Court nominations, higher taxes, further limitations on free speech (the "Fairness Doctrine"), more abortions, and any other policy we object to with "Well, at least we don't have the wrong Republican as president!"
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 6, 2008
"Why should it be within the “present political structure” if that structure is “destructive of … ends” it was supposed to serve?"
*** Because this is where all change starts. You can't change a system by wishing it operated differently. You have to gain the political power to implement the changes you want. If you want a different political structure, gain power and implement your changes.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 6, 2008
By the way Joseph, you're not really advocating an armed insurrection against the U.S. government, are you? "The Declaration of Independence specifically advocates changes of government by means other than elections."
There are a lot of hypothetical options that aren't "real" (most notably, voting for a third party), in that they aren't really successful strategies. Revolutions involve killing people. I don’t think anyone is prepared to take up arms against the U.S. government (well, maybe some people I’ve run across these last couple of years. But my advice to them has always been to open up the bunker windows and let a little more oxygen in before translating your words into actions).
We need to separate the hyperbolic options from the real ones.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 6, 2008
Phil, precisely my argument! The question is - are there any limits to the way you gain power? The Declaration seems to say no! where government has breached its mandate from the People. Why bother with elections?
Here’s a good one from Justice Scalia: “The Bill of Rights is devised to protect you and me against, who do you think? The majority. My most important function on the Supreme Court is to TELL THE MAJORITY TO TAKE A WALK.”
So, when the Bill of Rights fails to achieve that objective, are we simply to roll over and take a shafting?
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | February 6, 2008
Phil, it seems we are crossing Comments here (your Comment 11). I said in a previous post that I advocated, as I do in my book, crippling government financially. But, just as most of the Presidential contenders do not rule out military action against other Peoples of the world, why should the People of the United States rule it out against their own government when it subjects them to tyranny (if that is what it is doing)?
Are the American People worth less than the People of other countries the US government is so intent on liberating??
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | February 6, 2008
Joseph: We rebelled against an English system of government that denied us representation. That situation does not exist today. Losing an election does not equal tyranny, except in the most hyperbolic sense. There is nothing in the U.S. system of elections that prohibits another Ronald Reagan from gaining office.
Revolutions involve violence. I'm not ready to kill people to promote my philosophy. This is what is required to make this a real, not hyperbolic option.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 6, 2008
Joseph: See if all my answers have caught up by now. If not, restate the question again for me. Thanks.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 6, 2008
Phil, where on earth is that restriction to be found (Comment 14)?? As I argue in my Ten Principles series, if your neighbors get together in sufficient numbers to compel you to hand over your income and property, is that ‘justice’ simply because they have massed against you in sufficient numbers?
That is called mob-rule. And for the Dems it is called "mob-rule of the misfits"!
Are you really asserting that ‘majority rule’ without any fundamental PRINCIPLES to back it is a sound system? That is precisely what the Founding Fathers were seeking to avoid, especially with the Bill of Rights – and see my Justice Scalia reference above.
Regrettably, it is only those who have been prepared to fight for their freedom who have bestowed it on us today. It is not a pleasant business, but a necessary business – just ask those you don’t have it, and don’t have those with the courage to fight for it when they are not prepared to do it for themselves.
Many in the past have deluded themselves that they already posses it – it is only when they are subjected to its tyranny themselves that they realize what idiots they have been.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | February 6, 2008
Phil, pardon me one more observation on your ‘insurrection’ Comments – Why else is there a Second Amendment? If it is simply to allow the People to protect themselves against ‘intruders’ then that in itself is surely an indication that government is not doing the job the People have tasked it to do.
My reading of that amendment is precisely to do what seems quite offensive to you. To me, fighting for freedom is an honorable business, not something to shy away from in the face of the mob. But, as I have said, government could be brought to its senses financially, before the people get really ‘pissed-off’. Let’s just hope they have the sense to sense when that time has arrived.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | February 6, 2008
Phil,
Joseph is right about the Declaration. It suggests that one of the unalienable rights of people is to throw off oppression, to disassemble an oppressive government and install a new one.
For the Founders, taxation without representation was (and is) tyranny, because it made slaves of the people. That was sufficient cause to overturn British rule. It was the response of the Crown that caused the bloodshed, not the revolution itself.
I don't think anyone is advocating violent revolution. Especially since there are so many other options, as you noted. However, should all else fail, the right of the people to uninstall a government that no longer acts in accordance with the "consent of the governed" must be retained.
Comment by Mountain Man | February 6, 2008
Joseph and MM: The option to rebel against the government theoretically exists. The Second Amendment makes sure that option has the ability to be exercised.
What I’m saying is that if you want to make this a realistic option to address the “problem” that McCain, Romney, or Huckabee will be the 2008 Republican nominee for president, then you are advocating killing people to overthrow the present U.S. government by violent (i.e. “non-election”) means to instill your philosophy.
I can’t imagine anyone thinking this is anything more than a hyperbolic, rhetorical, reaction to the present circumstances. If not, then the options we have in 2008 are: (1) vote for the Republican nominee, (2) vote for the Democrat nominee, (3) vote third party, (4) don’t vote, and (5) kill people to overthrow the government.
I may think that #3 and #4 are poor electoral strategies, and won’t succeed in elevating Conservative philosophy. But even the most die-hard anti McCaniacs aren’t talking about #5 (getting their guns out and imposing a Conservative government on the US.)
Rhetorically equating an election loss to “tyranny” doesn’t change the facts on the ground. Option 5 isn’t even on the table at this time, though it obviously remains a theoretical possibility for some distant point in time when circumstances are very different than they are today.
My essay was about the situation as it exists today. If you want to change the political system today, the most effective way remains gaining political power via elections, and then beginning to make these changes.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 6, 2008
Mickey G:
So, you're going to play the suicide bomber and "blow yourself up" just to make a point?
Comment by sedonaman | February 6, 2008
Mountain Man, I’m pleased that we can sort of agree. I do use the extreme to make a point, but regrettably the extreme often becomes the norm.
But taxation should be by consent, not representation (although, as you point out, even that has been ignored). As a man of the Word, let me refer to Exodus 25:2 – even God only required an offering “of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart.” So why should we be brought under a tyranny of mob-rule to ‘give’ unwillingly – especially when we know it is simply being squandered?
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | February 6, 2008
Joseph and MM"
To continue: This is one of the things we need to do to acquire and exercise political power, so as to implement our philosophy: we've got to stop lumping the theoretical and hypothetical in with the practical.
No one is denying that people living under a true tyranny have the right to rebel by whatever means. But introducing this into a discussion of practical options for 2008 adds nothing to helping identify and debate those options. I know this wasn’t your intention, but it just makes us look like a bunch of nuts who are actually raising the issue of revolution because we don’t like McCain! Revolution is not on the table as a practical choice in 2008. Neither is amending the constitution to raise the voting age to 50 (a theoretical option); or making Guam the 51st state (another theoretical possibility), etc. So why spend a moment debating or discussing it, or even raising it?
We can be our own worst enemies by confusing the question “What do we do about situation X”, with “What can/should we do if we looked at every hypothetical option available to us, no matter how distant or remote its application is to the present ‘problem’?”
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 6, 2008
Phil, point taken. But as Bush has said, you can never take the ‘military option’ off the table – and it is best that those half-wits in Washington know it is a real, not empty, threat. Is there anything wrong with that?
If only the Germans had had the guts to take their stand a lot of lives would have been saved in the long run – and no! I’m not comparing Nazi Germany to the United States. But then again – anything is possible in this world – and we had better remember that when we start casting votes – as we will here in Spain next month (where there is a real possibility of the People taking charge if things go ‘wrong’).
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | February 6, 2008
Joseph: In foreign affairs, I agree with the sentiments you expressed about the military option. But domestically, that kind of stuff — unless circumstances makes the option "real" — loses you domestic political support when you're trying to gain allies, and relegates you to living in a bunker somewhere in Montana! Take care, Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 6, 2008
Phil, one further observation. The English obviously thought the ‘colonists’ were a little off-the-wall when they decided to revolt – as did an awful lot of Americans – perhaps we could call it vision!!
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | February 6, 2008
I live in Montana, Phil, but not a bunker. Yet…
Ok, here's the relevance of thrust of my appeal to the Declaration: The People have installed a government as a delegation of personal authority. This nation is governed only by our consent, which can be withdrawn (at election time, via recalls/impeachment, and yes, revolution). This is not kook talk, it is not theoretical. It is clearly spelled out in the Declaration. It only seems radical to those who have not read it or who prefer to treat government as god.
If those who govern have a proper respect for the People, a proper understanding of the nature of their authority, and truly comprehend the Constitution (including the 2nd Amendment) and the Declaration, they will endeavor to walk through their day with an awe and respect for the situation they find themselves in. Theirs is a tenuous position. It must be.
The problem is that elected officials have become infatuated with their power. They feel entitled to do whatever they want because they are smarter, they have entourages that kow-tow to them, and they think that they have the permission (or duty, or obligation) to form and shape society as they choose.
They have created a smoke screen that the average Joe cannot penetrate. In fact, a lot of those average Joes like having the handouts, they like the class warfare rhetoric, they want government to tell other people what to do. It's a cryin' shame. As a practical matter, it is now the People who serve government, not the other way around.
So, talking about the true nature our founding documents is something that must be done, first of all to educate the People, second of all, to return the "fear of God" to our elected representatives.
Then maybe they wouldn't be so quick to treat our tax money as a limitless source of financing for their social engineering experiments.
Comment by Mountain Man | February 6, 2008
Joseph: I'm half English and half Italian, born in the USA. So when things don't work out the way I want, I rebell against myself, then immediately surrender. :)
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 6, 2008
MM:
Oops. No disrespect intended re: my “Montana” quip.
Here’s the bottom line as I see it.
While we were busy extolling the superiority of True Conservatism — and threatening to not vote or vote third party if the wrong guy wins the Republican primary — the Left took over the Democrat Party through activists and their financial backers.
The result is that we Conservatives sit on the outside of our party apparatus and complain about the candidates that come through this process, while the Liberals have gotten involved hands-on and taken over key state and national positions and/or use their financial clout and united activist base to influence elected Democrat officials. So in 2008 they end up with two ultra-liberal candidates vying for the presidential nomination, and we get someone who doesn’t pass the True Conservative litmus test.
We have only ourselves to blame. We debate among ourselves, focusing on the proper ideology without any regard to the pragmatic exercise of this ideology. We moan and complain instead of actually working within the Republican Party structure to nominate “our” candidates, offer realistic primary challenges to those Republican officials who stray from the reservation, and continually pressure elected officials where it matters — threatening their “jobs” — rather than just complaining that they aren’t acting ideologically.
Until we match our rhetoric with pragmatic actions to make that rhetoric a reality, we’ll always be complaining about things instead of controlling them.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 6, 2008
Phil,
I'm not sure if our discussions about philosophy are the problem. I think that conservatives (whether self-declared, or simply those who live their lives according to conservative principles) are just too busy making a living, going to their kids' wrestling matches and choir concerts, and simply living life.
Leftists, to whom government is god, fully immerse themselves in the political process. They frequently seek out jobs in the public sector, they place a high priority on attending peace marches, being escorts at abortion clinics, and showing up at every city council meeting. This is their service to their religion.
To them, it's all about the cause (social justice, reproductive choice, and redistribution of wealth). That's their reason for living. Taxes are their tithe, abortion is their sacrament, and equality of outcome is their creed.
Conservatives cannot match this zealotry. Conservatives have little desire to be employed as bureaucrats and congressional staff volunteers. We are out there making a living at real jobs.
We cannot compete, because government (a realm we hold in contempt) has become the power instrument of ideological change. Government, having exceeded its constitutional constraints, is no longer manageable by average people. It is only for the ideologues, now.
But ultimately, the solution is what you have proposed, really. We have to get beyond matters of philosophical talk and into the place where we can implement our superior philosophy.
I don't think that the presidency is that place. It is local and state government, and the US congress.
Comment by Mountain Man | February 6, 2008
Phil,
This observation you made
"This is a potentially good strategy if (a) Conservatives are in fact unified as to what these values are, and (b) we vote as a unified block"
Is the root of this issue. Democrats are, for the most part, and I mean this with no hyperbole or rhetoric intended, either lazy, stupid, ignorant, or all three. Consequently, they are extremely easy to unify and lead. Thinking people are a lot more difficult to unify, because they all think differently - as a consequence of them all actually thinking. That's why it is much more difficult for Republicans to settle on a candidate and elect him. We do not hear "A chicken in every pot", and go "Oh boy! I want a chicken in my pot! I'm going to vote for that guy!". We think, "Who's going to pay for this chicken? Are they going to steal my chickens and put them in other people's pots? Where are these pots going to come from?". It's the difference between children who think everyone should have free ice cream, and the adults who manufacture and market the ice cream. Children do not know where ice cream comes from or how it gets there - they just want free ice cream. Adults deal with the issues of how to manufacture the ice cream, get it to the people who want it, and keep the lights on at the factory so they can do it all over again. The discussions that the children have about the price of ice cream are a lot simpler than the discussions that the ice cream company managers have about the price of ice cream. So as a politician, being the candidate for the children is easy: all you have to do is tell them we're all going to get free ice cream. Being the candidate for the adults is a little tougher. Lately, the candidates who used to try to market themselves to the adults have decided that it is a lot easier to just find more children to market to. And the adults are getting disenfranchised.
It is extremely frustrating having to pick between raising taxes 5%, legalizing 12-20 million illegal aliens, and getting Sandra Day O'Connor and raising taxes 15%, legalizing 12-20 million illegal aliens, and getting Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Simplified to a business decision, it is pragmatic to pick the former, but it is prisoner's dilemma to be sure.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 6, 2008
Phil,
Sorry for yanking your chain in the comments section of the To Vote Or Not To Vote; That Is The Question article. I felt you were repeating the same thoughts in your response to the posts criticizing your arguments. The antagonistic tone I took was my attempt to hit you on the side of the head with an inflated cow bladder and say something different. Well, glory be, you certainly responded big time by writing a second article five days later.
In short, we’re going to lose in November not because the other side has a better vision for America. We’re going to lose because the other side had a better grip on reality.
No. We’re going to lose because McCain, our presumptive nominee, can’t win. Forget “visions” and, instead, grip the reality of electoral college math.
I had a lot of fun manipulating polls and election results in both the 2000 and 2004 elections. Lots of Excel S/S’s. In fact, some of my S/S’s were more detailed and accurate than those published by RealClearPolitics. I even published my analysis of the 2004 election on my Web site. Said analysis is no longer there, but I can republish it, Phil, if you think it necessary to confirm my expertise here. To give you some idea, I spent somewhere between 500 to 1,000 hours doing the analysis of the 2004 election, and writing and publishing the supporting Web pages.
In 2004, Bush won 286 electoral votes, & Kerry 251, a difference of 35.
Now, ogle the omnipresent 2004 red state-blue state map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege2004-Large.PNG
Scope the blue states. Which ones could either Hillary or Obama lose? Forget rosy scenarios or wishful thinking. Which ones could McCain win? Maybe New Hampshire & maybe Wisconsin, but even these seem like a stretch.
Now, which red states could Obama or Hillary win? It’s a long list:
· Florida: 27
· Ohio: 20
· Virginia: 13
· Missouri: 11
· Colorado: 9
· Iowa: 7
· Arkansas: 6
· Nevada: 5
Of course, it’s still way too early, and the probabilities that each individual state will go blue differs, but it’s a scary list, nonetheless.
What could be more of a “grip on reality” than electoral college math? Ergo, I posit that your arguments, Phil, are all made moot by this most immanent of realities: Mcain can’t win. If he can’t win, then our voting or not voting is irrelevant.
Now, to respond to your post in the other article.
Why will this system now respond to people who don’t vote, or move to a 3rd party, rather than focus in 2012 on the people who still participate as I suggested in my essay?
If the 15 or 20 million of us abandon a Republican Party who has betrayed us, they will respond. Else, they’re OK with being a permanent minority party. If they are, why should we support a party who doesn’t want to win the big prize.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | February 6, 2008
Patrick, that is probably one of the best things I have ever read – and, to my utter shame, I have read an awful lot – mostly crap.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | February 6, 2008
“We have to get beyond matters of philosophical talk and into the place where we can implement our superior philosophy. I don’t think that the presidency is that place. It is local and state government, and the US congress.”
*** My sentiments exactly. Develop this fertile ground, and the presidency will follow. [In fact, these offices will give us our nominee for President].
Patrick: I agree with a lot of what you say too. Liberals tend to “want things”; thus their primary fight is over which candidate can promise them the most tangible goods and services. Ideally, the things Conservatives want are not so much goods and services as a strong defense, limited government, respect for innocent unborn life, etc.
However, in addition to the above Conservatives want tangible things too, like a new bridge for their congressional district and other pork. As I said in an earlier piece, one might argue that conservatives tend to want less pork than Democrats, though I’m not sure this is true. It may just be a difference in kind. I think the real difference is that conservatives still want their district pork, but conservatives also look ideologically at ALL pork, and reach a point where they get disgusted and turn on their Party. (Dem’s, by contrast, never reach this threshold). So having gorged ourselves locally, we vomit nationally, and then allow the Dems back in power — who say the right words to get elected, but then push pork to even greater heights!
If Republican voters kept their ideology, but understood better how things actually work in government, they could pursue a more pragmatic course that achieves some of what they want each year. Instead, we wallow in self-righteous self-loathing about government waste and corruption, which the Dems and media use throw Republicans out of office to put even more wasteful and corrupt Democrat politicians into power.
Conservatives aren't monolithic, and will never vote as a block. But having said this, it's still possible to identify enough shared conservative values to settle on a common candidate if we don't insist on an ideological purity test, but instead look at some of the trees in that forest to find this common ground.
Good discussion.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 6, 2008
Phil,
I have a comment pending in the "I Am A RINO" article posted here: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/02/06/i-am-a-rino/ that is an extension of the discussion we've been having about pragmatic voting in the presidential elections. It's more relevant to the discussion that took place after your last article, but I'll repost it here since that discussion has migrated to this one:
"This is an interesting contrast with Philip Jackson's recent pieces on pragmatism when selecting which candidate to support. Phil is right to say that we have to be pragmatic by understanding that not voting for the Republican is, practically speaking, handing the election to the Democrat. It is important to decide which is worse. Compromising tax cuts for conservative SCOTUS justices, as opposed to left wing activist justices, may make sense. It's a matter of balancing what specific things you are willing to compromise. Giving amnesty to 12-20 million illegal aliens is going to be one of the most impactful decisions in recent history, with incalculable repercussions for generations to come. If our candidate supports it, and their candidate supports it, is it worth tacitly endorsing it when it comes from our guy because we might get lower taxes or more conservative judges? Phil would say absolutely. And from a purely pragmatic standpoint, he's right. If you have a list of 10 demands, the Democrat is going to give you 0. You might get 1 or 2 at least with the Republican. Pragmatically speaking, 1 is better than 0. But I think ideology has to trump pragmatism at some point. A more thorough analysis would weight each of your 10 demands. If the Republican can fulfill only one demand, but it is of almost no weight, is it worth lending him your support? An example I used in a discussion of Phil's article was a Joe Lieberman Republican candidacy (which, given that he is a likely contender for the Republican vice presidency this election, isn't an outlandish idea). We all know Joe Lieberman is going to appoint the exact same judges as a Democrat. He's pro amnesty. He's pro abortion. The only thing you'll get out of a Joe Lieberman Republican president that you wouldn't get out of a Hilary Clinton Democratic president is assurance of further execution of the Iraq war. Is it worth it? To me, no. I couldn't bring myself to vote for Lieberman just because he had an "R" by his name. As I said in the same discussion, parties exist to reflect ideology. I vote for a party because it, to one extent or another, represents my ideology. If it ceases to, then that party has no utility for me. Why should I support it?"
The question for me isn't whether your analysis is correct or not, but to what extent we should compromise ideology for pragmatic purposes.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 6, 2008
Live Free:
Here’s my preliminary take on the actual November election from an electoral vote standpoint.
McCain vs. Hillary: McCain loses. The Hill-Bill death machine, with the willing participation of the MSM, coupled with Republican base problems, doom his candidacy. That is, unless Obama’s people feel that Hillary stole the nomination from him. [Obama wins a plurality of delegates, but Hill-Bill use their FBI files to cajole enough super delegate votes to “rob” Obama of the nomination. Obama isn’t offered (or rejects) the VP spot. The blacks and young people energized by Obama get pissed off and sit home on election day.] In this case, McCain could still win.
McCain vs. Obama. McCain loses. The MSM props up the “new JFK”, and pummels the washed up old white guy. The Republican base problems remain. McCain invites Huck to be his VP hoping to capture the evangelicals. This works well enough to hold the South, but McCain still loses Florida or Ohio. That is, unless there is a significant terrorist attack on US soil, or something internationally that scares the voters into focusing on security matters.
So, while I grant you in both scenarios the Dems will probably win, it’s not an absolute certainty yet. If our base sits it out, though, then not even Hillary dissing Obama or a terrorist attack will make any difference.
As for what Conservatives should have done/can do next time to give us better choices than we had in 2008, as I said above, here’s the bottom line as I see it.
While we were busy extolling the superiority of True Conservatism — and threatening to not vote or vote third party if the wrong guy wins the Republican primary — the Left took over the Democrat Party through activists and their financial backers.
The result is that we Conservatives sit on the outside of our party apparatus and complain about the candidates that come through this process, while the Liberals have gotten involved hands-on and taken over key state and national positions and/or use their financial clout and united activist base to influence elected Democrat officials. So in 2008 they end up with two ultra-liberal candidates vying for the presidential nomination, and we get someone who doesn’t pass the True Conservative litmus test.
We have only ourselves to blame. We debate among ourselves, focusing on the proper ideology without any regard to the pragmatic exercise of this ideology. We moan and complain instead of actually working within the Republican Party structure to nominate “our” candidates, offer realistic primary challenges to those Republican officials who stray from the reservation, and continually pressure elected officials where it matters — threatening their “jobs” — rather than just complaining that they aren’t acting ideologically.
Until we match our rhetoric with pragmatic actions to make that rhetoric a reality, we’ll always be complaining about things instead of controlling them.
To MM’s point: If the Conservative movement is as credible as it thinks it is, there should be enough people willing to work in the trenches and enough financial backing to make that work productive to gain control of the Republican party. The difference is that Romney spent $30 million trying to be president, while Soros spent $30 million to take over the Democrat party. It would have been a more interesting year if our side had made the same investments in infrastructure and public education that the Dems did, instead of massaging the egos of the 10 candidates (one of whom took 5 months to decide to get in after deciding to get in!)
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 6, 2008
Ideological purity test? Is that what I've been doing all these years in upholding my honor by not compromising over issues of life and death, national survival or national disintegration, sanity or post-modernism, morality or political correctness? Is that what I've been doing? And just think, if I only understood better how government works, then I wouldn't be such an ideology-tard, and I could enter the world of enlighten pragmatism.
I empty my bowels on such compromise and condescension.
I don't know which I hold in greater contempt, the inattentive, uncaring, self-interested morons out there who vote for people like McCain, or the knowing individuals who suggest I betray everything that makes me, me, in order to play the political game of the lesser of two evils. I will NOT betray myself and vote for a p.o.s. like McCain so as to satisfy a morally sterile calculus of pragmatism based largely on a false premise that no McCain equals dynastic rule by Democrats for decades to come.
Anyone remember the 1970s? What was the overwhelming reason Reagan won by a landslide in 1980 and even managed to garner significant numbers of Democratic voters? Three names are the answer - Nixon, Ford, and Carter. The first a liar, cheat, and criminal, the second a McCain-esque ineffectual Liberal and the last the worst President the United States has ever had, and that's saying a lot considering LBJ, FDR, and Wilson. They are the reason people turned to Reagan. By extension, it is just as likely that after four years of the the new worst President the United States has ever had, 2012 might see the return of another Reagan. (Run Newt, run!)
Now, my calculations of the future are just as good as yours. Its as likely that my hopeful scenario for 2012 will play out as your nightmare scenario of Democrats for decades. So where does that put your calculus of pragmatism?
Here's one Conservative who will not vote for McCain in November and you can condescend all you like about my ideologically-driven stance and my ignorance of how the game is played.
Regards.
Comment by Julian Cate | February 6, 2008
“The question for me isn’t whether your analysis is correct or not, but to what extent we should compromise ideology for pragmatic purposes.”
*** Excellent question. Abstractly, I’d say never compromise; after all, the purpose of ideology is to reflect, well, an ideology!
But elections are not abstract issues. They involve the acquisition and use of power. And the “rules” by which this power is gained or lost is defined by the system within which the election takes place. In the US, unlike parliamentary models, third parties have no institutional opportunities to gain the presidency, and non-voting takes you out of the game.
So, given the fact that the US system in 2008 is “X”, you need to pursue power within the current parameters of that system. The system is not ideological; it’s pragmatic. Elections are about both pragmatic needs and wants (a new bridge for District X; government subsidized health care, etc.), and ideology (smaller government, secure borders, etc.). And the method of gaining power is acquiring votes, not winning a debate. So any gameplan to acquire power must recognize and operate within these practical rules/guidelines.
Therefore any plan to win power must reflect that pragmatism. Therefore, you cannot simply state your ideological position and make it an all or nothing proposition. If you do, you’ll lose to the other major party that will compromise to accommodate different goals (some pragmatic, some ideological).
The question is, at what point do you lose your soul by compromising away your core values to win? The Left is willing to take very small steps and gain power over time. Once they’ve solidified their power the gloves come off, and they go full bore to install their wacky, anti-conservative, highly ideological agenda. They’re perfectly happy to be for war in 2002 when public opinion is strong, and anti-war in 2006 when it’s not. They’re happy to run “conservative” candidates in 2006 to regain control of the House and Senate, so they can solidify that hold in 2008, and THEN implement their ideologically-driven programs.
The Right is adverse to playing ideological games at all, and is unwilling to take small steps with a goal 15-20 years out of achieving that critical mass of power necessary to implement their programs. They don’t trust government to begin with, appreciate that power corrupts, and have been lied to in the past, so this seems like a scam rather than a reflection of how things actually work.
Complicating this is the disappointment conservative voters always feel when their representatives get to power and don’t fulfill all of their campaign promises and/or start increasing federal spending, etc., like all politicians do. Saying that Republicans do it less, or differently, that Dems makes no different. The base throws the bums out and replaces them with Democrats who … spend more, in areas we like even less! But at least we feel good about sticking to our principles!
So where is the point when compromise becomes a sell out? There isn’t a fixed point. Conservatives aren’t monolithic; different voters and/or groups of voters have different trigger points, so it’s an individual decision. Because of this, my best pragmatic advice is understand the system as it presently is, and in doing so understand how change becomes possible (including the time it takes to achieve certain degrees of fundamental change), and understand what the other side can/will do with that power if you don’t have it, and then act in the best pragmatic way to preserve and advance your ideological agenda. If we don't do this we'll always lose. What's the purpose of having the best ideology in the world if you don't have the practical ability to implement any or all of it?
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 6, 2008
Julian: Hillary and Obama thank you for your principled stand. For the next 4 years, and possibly many years to come after that, whenever the Democrats in power completely eviscerate the things you hold dear (vs. the probability that McCain will do so the some of the values you cherish) you can look at us with pride and say “Well, at least we don’t have the wrong Republican as president!”
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 6, 2008
"I empty my bowels on such compromise and condescension."
*** And to quote Monty Python, "I fart in your general direction."
Sorry, I couldn't pass that one up!
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 6, 2008
Phil,
You keep speaking of retaining and using power. But are we retaining and using power for the sake of our party, or our ideology? The answer, I think, is: one, for the sake of the other. I know that my using this hypothetical example irritates you because it isn't what is actually happening, but for the sake of examining your argument, if we elect Joe Lieberman, are we really retaining power? And what are we retaining it for? How does having power help you if the only way you can get it is to abandon the ideology that is the reason you want to have it? Unlike the sneaky, manipulative Democrats you refer to, Republicans aren't pretending to be liberal just to elected and attain power, at which point they will pull off the mask and reveal that they are actually staunch, free market conservatives. They aren't lying to everybody else just to get elected so they can further a conservative ideological agenda. So if we elect them, how much power are "we" really going to have? What will we be able to accomplish with "our" president in office?
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 6, 2008
Patrick: If looking at the acquisition of power to accomplish things doesn’t work for you, then look at the acquisition of power as a way to prevent things from happening to you (and your ideology).
If Liberals control government, they will promote programs that reflect their ideology. If you don’t think your nominee will advance your agenda, then consider the fact that he will inhibit the Left from achieving their agenda.
The only way this doesn’t make sense is to have the nominees of the two parties share identical philosophies. This has to be a real evaluation though, not a rhetorical statement.
In 2008, the person who will control judicial nominees for the next 4 years, can veto government spending, maintain a strong national defense, etc, will most likely be McCain or Hillary/Obama. These people, not abstract entities, will control the power of the presidency, so the debate isn’t about hypotheticals; it’s about real-world choices. McCain will not protect every value I hold dear; but I know with certainty that Hillary and/or Obama will protect none of them.
Personally, I fear what a consolidated government in the hands of the far Left will do to my country and to the values conservatives espouse. So my motivation will be to vote to block an agenda, not necessarily to advance one.
Not voting, or voting 3rd party, will not block a radical liberal ideology from gaining power.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 6, 2008
Phil;
The last time a guy that I voted for in the primaries made it to the general election was 1980. Ever since then, I have gone to the polls and voted, while holding my nose in some cases, for the party nominee. And what do I have to show for helping Republicans retain power? What is the good of holding power, if the people wielding it are doing as much to erode the manifestation of conservative principles as their Lefty opposites? Remember David Souter and Anthony Kennedy? They were appointed by Republicans. Remember prescription drug benefits and no child left behind? Again a Republican did it. So, please explain to me how I'm helping to preserve my Conservative principles again? As far as I can tell, you're suggesting that if we concede these compromises in the short term, some sort of momentum for conservative change will build over the long term as long as we make incremental changes within the current paradigm. I challenge you to show a precedent in any society of modern times where that has worked. Liberalism certainly did not come to replace the dominant culture of old by slow erosion.
But, I digress. The real question I have for is… what good is power if it never accomplishes the purposes for which one wields it? I do not accept your theories that we are somehow protecting or preserving our values, if 9 out of 10, or 8 out of 10 of them are discarded and outlawed. Further, I do not accept that a Democrat in '08 means Democrats from now on. In answering me, you conveniently avoided my example of Reagan in 1980 as a consequence of Carter and his immediate predecessors. It took just 2 years of the Clintons for people to sweep in the Republican "revolution" of '94. Further, I do not accept, based on the history of my lifetime, that by sitting this one out, means the death of all I hold dear. Only by standing by our principles, even if it costs us, can our principles be preserved. That seems so self-evident that its hard for me to fathom that I have to explain it to someone who is so clearly above me intellectually (no flattery or sarcasm there).
Regards.
Comment by Julian Cate | February 6, 2008
Julian: have a look at my answer to Patrick (comment 41), which you may not have seen before you posted your last remarks, as well as my comment 28.
If you can't advance your principles by voting for some one, protect your principles from an even greater abuse by voting against someone. Unfortunately, as I've laid out in this essay ond my earlier one on "To vote or not to vote", a 3rd party vote in the US does nothing to block a bad ideology from gaining power. Nor does sitting the election out. "Standing up for your principles" has to be more than a symbolic act when those principles are tied to the exercise of political power via an election.
Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 6, 2008
Phil,
You exhorted us to get real. Following are the broad outlines of my plan for our new movement.
First, we conservatives must resign ourselves to being in the wilderness for a while. 2008 is the year of the Progressive. We must accept that raw, painful reality as soon as possible.
Second, we conservatives must remain true to our core ideals. At this early stage, we must not accept compromise. Until pragmatics intercede, we must remain pure.
Third, we must believe that we will return from the wilderness. We must have faith that our philosophy better accommodates the ethos of America.
Foremost, we must make it a centerpiece of our new movement that we are proud to not be willing to cast our vote for McCain. We need some cutesy slogans that we can put on bumper stickers, campaign buttons, coffee cups, and Web sites. We must identify ourselves exclusively as proud non-voters for McCain. The genesis of our movement and our decision to join it should be our vow to not vote for McCain.
We should be proud to tell the Republican Party that we abandoned them because they abandoned us, and make no bones about it.
We need to convert our rebellion against the Republican Party establishment into action. We need a framework, or a peg to hand our hat on. The most apt vehicle is, of course, the Internet. We should set up a Web site whose sole purpose is to spread the word.
We need to galvanize & organize disenchanted conservative voters, & do it the good, old-fashioned way: By talking to all conservatives we know and asking them to join us; by spreading the word over the conservative blogosphere; & by standing in front of a Wal*Mart asking people to sign our petition vowing to not vote for McCain.
Examine a list of the Top 130 Web sites. http://www.hendersonvillepost.com/?p=4284 Many fine sites, but most if not all of them are talk- and not action-oriented. We need to engage them, certainly, but we need to be a prime mover in the future conservative renaissance. Peruse these sites. There’s much anger and frustration, particularly with McCain, but no call to arms. We need to admit that the conservative movement is in disarray as evidenced by the fallowness of the conservative blogosphere.
We should model ourselves after CPAC http://www.cpac.org/, but not be affiliated with them. Political action is what they do and what we should do, but they’re mainstream and encumbered by their centrality within the establishment. Unlike them, we need to be raw and unfettered by politeness. Maybe our logo should be a picture of McCain with a big finger superimposed, and earthy attendant prose proudly telling the world what we think about McCain, something like “Fuck you, McCain.”
Our long-term goal should be to endorse & assist conservative Republican candidates for national office, candidates who are as proud of their conservatism as we are of ours.
In this vein, we should deluge Republicans in Congress who are traitors to conservatism with Emails. Never having done it, my guess is that it would be relatively easy to determine what the legislative agenda of both houses of Congress is, publish the specifics of upcoming bills on our Web site, and determine amongst ourselves what we should do.
We need to make ourselves pains in the ass to Republicans in Congress. As our visibility rises, we should be able to attract like-minded conservatives who are just as irate with the Republican establishment as we are.
None of this will come cheap. We need to attract funding from some rich conservative who is intrigued by our ideas.
In our stable, we have legions of fine writers. This site is an exemplar here. We need to write small essays explaining the merits of conservatism and the concomitant demerits of liberalism. Our target audience should be the average person. There are millions of books, articles, and posts on conservatism, but they preach to the choir. We need to explain conservatism to the uninformed & apathetic, or to those whose crushing daily schedule leaves them little time to do anything but survive.
I’ve had this germ of an idea for a while. Even though I’ve spent tens of thousands of hours searching the Web, I haven’t found anything like it out there. Of course, there may be, but right now this post is solipsistic, even onanistic. You people tell me if there is such a site.
We could easily attract hundreds or thousands of wannabe authors. The synergy that would create would propel our movement.
We need to start now. Wouldn’t it be neat if we had a million voters vow not to vote for McCain before the election?
Remember, this movement is anti-establishment in its nascence. If we do good, maybe we can keep it that way.
OK, Phil, that’s my offering.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | February 6, 2008
Phillip:
Your points are well taken.
To me ideologues of all stripes, and I am a centrist myself, try to hone reality to a philosophy rather than letting reality, guide them and mature their belief systems.
The internecine fighting going on in the GOP reminds me of 1912 with Taft and TR, except that it was Taft, the mainstream GOP, that fought off the progressive TR, only to get trounced in the general and let Wilson get eight years in office.
Now, TR is one of my heroes, and embodies my thought that often conservatives make the best liberal policies, and liberals the best conservative policies. TR left us with our national parks, and Clinton helped pass Welfare Reform.
We are going to move towards national helath care and greater environmentalism because that is the will of the people.
That it be done in a way that is considerate of the business community and the taxpayers is more likely with Senator McCain who carries a 100% and 88% rating with the US Chamber of Commerce and National Tax Payers Assn respectively, than Senator Obama with a 55% and 16% with the aforementioned.
Comment by yonkel | February 6, 2008
One more point Phil:
I think McCain can beat Clinton. With Obama it is hard to pick, because he is such an unknown quantity, and has yet to go through the sheep dip.
I have scoured Rasmussen and USA election polls but the head to head nationals are all gone and I am too cheap to pay the premium, but…
By my best recollection McCain was last up about 2% on either Dem with Romney more 5-10% behind.
The votes McCain will lose from the disgruntled right will be more than offset by what he gets from the middle.
How the war turns might be critical.
George Will noted when he was down here in NC,
“If the Democrats can’t win the presidency (in 2008), they have to go into another line of work.”
But I see the scenario on how the Dems will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. If they remain rigidly anti war and anti military, which was why they lost 2004.
Now that was when the war was popular and the fifes still playing, similar to LBJ in 1964. What is telling to me, however, is that in recent primaries McCain even wins amongst those opposed to the war and that is because people trust that he will be smarter than GWB.
Now, if the war goes South, McCain will lose.
But, to return to the thread more at hand. I would not tear your hair at losing the Dobsons and Limbaughs.
Americans are smart, pragmatic people and most travel in the center, and McCain is the strongest candidate in a year where there is currently a 5.6% national preference of Dem to GOP.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/party_affiliation/partisan_trends
Besides if the right wing of the GOP splits off who will they follow. Buchanan is both anti-war and anti-Israel. Huckabee will work to hold the evangelicals and could concievably go VP and there are no other evangelical politicos plying the trade now.
If somebody as strong as Thompson ran third candidate, yes he could hand it to the Dems, just as Nader deep sixed Gore, but it won't happen.
And if Clinton or Obama won, no need to move to Malagasy or join the monastary.
The country is smarter than either of the political wings and 100 years from now this election will seem more similar to that of Rutherford Hayes than the apocalypse.
Comment by yonkel | February 7, 2008
yonkel,
To assume that those issues are "the will of the people" based on a presidential election is ignorant. A lot of people (a majority, by population, in most presidential elections) do not vote, and many who do vote do so, as we've been discussing here, pragmatically - supporting a candidate (like John McCain, for instance) based on compromising those issues for others, or voting simply to spite the other guy.
Phil,
Voting out of spite is ultimately pragmatic, but as I said in your other discussion, it's a prisoner's dilemma. Another implication of voting pragmatically now is that we are stuck with our pragmatically chosen candidate in the next election as well. So we aren't just electing a president for the next four years, we're electing our next candidate too. That's an important consideration when casting a vote of spiteful pragmatism. In the case of John McCain, I don't think he's got a prayer of being a two-term president (I have my doubts about his being a one-term president based on the reactions he's getting among the base of his party). So in the best case scenario, we are stuck with a mediocre candidate for 8 years, otherwise we are just putting off a Democratic victory in the short run. What do we do when we are faced with this decision again in 4 years, but the Democrats have had 4 years to spend grooming a candidate, and we have to run the same mediocre, now-76 year old guy after the public has had the benefit of judging his on-the-job performance. We're screwed. Game, set and match: Democrats. There's really no good decision to be made here. Without exaggeration, and completely abandoning the hypotheticals, that's the real-world scenario. The only real decision we're making, whether we tow the party line in the name of pragmatism, or shove it out to sea without a paddle in the name of idealism, is whether a Democrat gets elected in 2008 or 2012.
Even assuming that holding our noses and electing John McCain was successful, it's a grim "best case" scenario. Based on John McCain's past behavior, I have no reason to believe that he will nominate conservative justices to the supreme court (he opposed Alito on the grounds that he was "too conservative"). Perhaps less liberal ones, ala O'Connor and Souter (that those two are considered "less liberal" is much more a testament to the justices on our highest court than it is to their conservative credentials), but not conservative by any means. He will pass an amnesty bill immediately after it hits his desk. He has expressed a desire to close down Guantanamo and bring the enemy non-combatants that are held there to the US to be tried in civil - not military - courts. He authored an "anti-torture" bill that would prohibit intelligence officers from drizzling water down terrorist's and war prisoner's noses for half a minute. He opposed the Bush tax cuts because they "favored the rich" (Or, in 2008, because they "didn't include spending cuts"). He authored a campaign finance reform act that stifles free speech and individual liberty. He voted for a "lobby reform" bill that would have effectively silenced grassroots lobbying, while leaving Washington power brokers intact - effectively making it impossible for grassroots groups to petition the government. He has proposed a cap-and-trade carbon dioxide emissions regulation system to "fight global warming". He opposes drilling in ANWR. He was in favor of embryonic stem cell research. He was found to have exercised "questionable conduct" in the Keating savings and loan scandal. He said of John Kerry in 2004, when he was being considered as his potential running mate, "No, I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense.". He threated, in a hissy fit, to switch parties in order to tip the balance of Senate seats after his lost presidential bid in 2000. And most of all, the "straight-talker" hasn't quit lying (or, at the very mildest, bending the truth) about his record and positions since he started campaigning for president in 2000, all while accusing his opponents of "flip flopping". The only Republican party issue that McCain can probably be relied upon to uphold is the execution of the war in Iraq. And he is unlikely to increase taxes as much as a Democratic president (note that I did not predict he will decrease taxes, or even leave them at their present levels). Pragmatically speaking, 2 and a half things are better than none. But John McCain is so far from even "moderate" Republican ideals that, for me personally, he's right at the threshold of where pragmatism no longer serves ideology and becomes meaningless.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 7, 2008
Mountain Man - A minor point. If 'leftists' didn't "debate who is the best leftist," then Ralph Nader wouldn't have pulled votes from Al Gore, no? You should actually be glad that there's debate among 'leftists', or there might well not have been a Bush presidency.
In other news, not everyone agrees that third parties are entirely irrelevant: http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2008/02/01/declaring-independance-why-campaign-consultant-douglas-schoen-says-its-time-for-a-third-party.html
"As we've repeatedly seen in American history, even when a third-party candidate loses, sometimes his ideas win. Political scientist Daniel Mazmanian points out that 'usually after a strong showing by a minor party, at least one of the major parties shifts its position, adopting the third party's rhetoric if not the core of its programs.' This may be the least obvious, but possibly most important, element of a third-party run for the White House in 2008. We tend to think of elections as zero-sum games—and usually for good reason. But when it comes to a third-party candidate, a genuine opportunity exists for an independent to dictate the issues that come to the fore, not only on the campaign trail but also after the election is over and governing begins."
I don't agree with everything in the article (a rather speculative 2008 campaign for Michael Bloomberg is laid out, for example) but he does make some interesting points.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | February 7, 2008
McCain is not even a good candidate when considering the war on terror. The first step in effective control of terror agents is control of domestic areas. McCain's amnesty guarantees that this control will never be established! Further, his positions on the border guarantee the borders will never be secured either.
So tell me again why he is good on the war on terror? Are you mistaking support for Iraq and Afghanistan with true support to reduce the possibility of domestic terror attacks?
Comment by Mickey G | February 7, 2008
“We conservatives must resign ourselves to being in the wilderness for a while. 2008 is the year of the Progressive. We must accept that raw, painful reality as soon as possible.”
*** Agree
“Second, we conservatives must remain true to our core ideals.”
*** Agree — though once we move beyond broad expressions of these ideals, we get into problems. Ron Paul and Fred Thompson both support a “strong national defense”. But Paul’s policy prescription for this is radically different than Thompson’s. It isn’t the core ideals themselves that have been giving the conservative movement problems. It’s the differing “conservative” policy actions that flow from these ideals. We must recognize that there is no single “True Conservative” ideology once you get beyond high level concepts. Both Paul and Thompson are conservatives with radically different policy solutions to achieve the same general goals. I'm not prepared to say only one person is a "real conservative". I can accept that Person X is a philosophical conservative, yet still radically disagree with his policy prescription. And in the world of politics, it's the application of ideology that matters, not the purity of the ideology itself.
“At this early stage, we must not accept compromise. Until pragmatics intercede, we must remain pure.”
*** Again, the challenge isn’t to list broad conservative ideals. Its to turn these ideals into policy. We should not accept Liberal dilutions of our ideals (such as turning to world case law to decide US constitutional issues). But among ourselves, we must be willing to concede that both Paul and Thompson can lay equal claim to the conservative mantle. And further, that a candidate for office can be conservative on some issues, and not on others. This doesn’t make that candidate a “liberal”. It makes him conservative on some issues, and not others. This analysis needs to be done without hyperbole and rhetoric.
“Third, we must believe that we will return from the wilderness. We must have faith that our philosophy better accommodates the ethos of America.”
*** Agree — but faith in a political philosophy is not the same kind of faith as a belief in God. Knowledge of God can be intuitive. Conservatism must be taught. The default position of human nature is to want special things for yourself. Conservatism asks you to look beyond yourself. [When Liberals “look beyond themselves”, it’s to take my tax money to help their favorite cause. When Conservatives do this, it’s to make personal sacrifices to help the country or a cause]. We can’t effectively educate the public, though, unless and until we stop eating our young. We can’t insist on only one definition of “True Conservatism”, and label everyone who doesn’t fit that definition a liberal, traitor, sell-out, etc.
“Foremost, we must make it a centerpiece of our new movement that we are proud to not be willing to cast our vote for McCain.”
*** Wrong. You will do nothing to advance the issues you want by giving power to the Left (particularly the far Left) to implement their programs. This battle takes place in the political arena, not on the pages of this website. If you can’t vote to support McCain, then vote to block Hillary or Obama. Then support members of Congress who are better representative of your views to hold any non-conservative policies of McCain in check. This is what happened with Bush on immigration. It’s an understanding of how the system works; how power is acquired and used. If your ideology sits the election out, or pursues an irrelevant 3rd party course, you will have no influence on policy, and your ideology will remain a bunch of empty, powerless slogans.
“We need to convert our rebellion against the Republican Party establishment into action. We need a framework, or a peg to hand our hat on. The most apt vehicle is, of course, the Internet. We should set up a Web site whose sole purpose is to spread the word.”
*** Talking among ourselves is an important step. But it’s step one in a 100 step process, and your prescription above just eliminated the other 99 steps. The Left figured this out. As cathartic as it was to build the daily Kos and Huffington Post websites, the practical impact of this on the political system was near-zero. That’s why Soros and others pumped a lot of money into turning Moveon.org into a political force that both rewarded and punished politicians. That’s why they put up actual candidates to run for office. We conservatives are so sure that our ideas are right (which they are) that we think that all we really need to do is articulate them better. Politics (and the acquisition and use of power) is a dirty business. If you’re not willing to get in the trenches and accept less than all you want with each step, you’ll lose. Which is why the Dems hold power today, and we’re floundering.
“We need to galvanize & organize disenchanted conservative voters, & do it the good, old-fashioned way … by standing in front of a Wal*Mart asking people to sign our petition vowing to not vote for McCain.”
*** And when the politicians cross check the signatures with the voting roster and find out these people don’t vote, they’ll ignore them. And when these people pursue their activism as members of a third party, they’ll ignore them (unless that party has some actual substance — ie. membership — like the Liberal party in NY State). But Conservatives who are pissed off in 2008 are unlikely to wait 20 years to build that party to have a real political influence. If they were, they’d do something more practical, such as take over the Republican party like the Liberals did with the Dems.
“Political action is what they [CPAC] do and what we should do, but they’re mainstream and encumbered by their centrality within the establishment. Unlike them, we need to be raw and unfettered by politeness.”
*** And how many candidates has CPAC elected president in the last 15 years? Bush 41? Clinton? Bush 42? McCain/Hillary/Obama? Being “unencumbered” in politics means being a marginal actor at best in the only practical arena that counts: winning elections.
“Our long-term goal should be to endorse & assist conservative Republican candidates for national office, candidates who are as proud of their conservatism as we are of ours. In this vein, we should deluge Republicans in Congress who are traitors to conservatism with Emails. Never having done it, my guess is that it would be relatively easy to determine what the legislative agenda of both houses of Congress is, publish the specifics of upcoming bills on our Web site, and determine amongst ourselves what we should do.”
*** And just how long will Conservatives be willing to work outside the two party structure as “unencumbered” advisors/activists before they see any success? And if they’re willing to wait a significant time, why not work within the party and take it over instead of prodding it from the outside? And which definition of “Conservatism” will all conservatives agree to to provide this unified front: Ron Paul? Fred Thompson? Ronald Reagan?
“We need to make ourselves pains in the ass to Republicans in Congress. As our visibility rises, we should be able to attract like-minded conservatives who are just as irate with the Republican establishment as we are.”
*** It will never happen this way because your assumptions are flawed. Instead, you’ll be marginalized and reduced to political irrelevance. And by effectively withdrawing from the Republican party until it meets your demands (assuming there can ever be unanimity on the practical policies arising from your ideals), you’ll make the remaining pool of active voters more liberal. Politicians seeking election/re-election will need to respond to these people, and thus you’ll end up with even more liberal candidates. This is the lesson of the 2006 election, when the Republican base began its rebellion. It’s now resulted in McCain as the frontrunner in 2008.
“OK, Phil, that’s my offering.”
*** Again, don’t take any of this personally. I agree with your sentiments. But based on my experience and understanding of the political process (in both academic and practical terms), you’re wishing and venting, not offering a real-world option that will produce the tangible benefits you seek.
Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 7, 2008
yonkel:
“The will of the people” is not a given. It changes as politicians, the press, opinion leaders and even individuals talking around the water cooler discuss life.
Without ideology to guide it, the expression of this will becomes nothing more than simple wants and needs. So, where you and I differ is that I think that ideology is critical. The Left and Right should both make equally strong cases so the issues can be fully vetted and the country can decide which way to go at the ballot box.
But I also recognize that in making these cases, both sides can overstate/understate problems, mis-lead and mis-direct people, which is why discussions like these of what conservatism is philosophically and practically is so important. It not only helps define who we are, it helps define the other side to showcase these distortions. Moreover, it marginalizes the extremists in our own ranks who think their view, and their view only, constitutes “True Conservatism”.
However, while this discussion is an important step, this entire exercise must then be played out in the political arena whose rules are 100% pragmatic (not ideological) so power can be acquired and used to promote policies that flow from this ideology.
Again, please don’t take any of this personally, since you had some thoughtful comments. But I’ve always found that people who gravitate toward the middle are usually those wishing to avoid conflict, rather than pursue a particular policy goal. In a system where both sides act in a crazy irrational way, the center may be the only safe ground. But that’s a fallback position. If we conservatives get our collective acts together, and advocate ideologically-based programs that reflect the reality of acquiring power, then we can move public opinion our way, and help shape the “will of the people”.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 7, 2008
Patrick: In addition to what I've just posted above, remember that the President's powers are not absolute. There are certain things he can do such as nominate supreme court judges, act as Commander in Chief, etc. But he can't pass his own legislation.
I'd rather have McCain in the White House making decisions for Congress to approve than Hillary or Obama. It's not even a close issue in my mind. If McCain goes off the deep end on immigration like Bush, we can use our access to our individual representatives to block him like we did with Bush. It's not 100% fool proof, but as a practical matter I'd rather try to block some of what McCain might do that ALL of what Hillary/Obama WILL do.
To paraphrase the Apollo 13 mission, "Withdrawal is not an option". I will not simply surrender the White House to the far left because my candidate is not 100% conservative.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 7, 2008
Raymond: The problem with relying on the belief that “usually after a strong showing by a minor party, at least one of the major parties shifts its position, adopting the third party’s rhetoric if not the core of its programs,” is this:
In presidential politics, “strong showings” are rare. Perot is the best recent example. The hallmark of his campaign was anti-NAFTA. So what was the result of his strong showing? Clinton and the Republicans passed NAFTA.
Yes, Perot also spoke about waste and reform. But this is boilerplate unless a specific program is attached to it. Every politician, every year, runs against waste and is for reform.
This “shift” you noted is, at best, gradual and occurs over a long time. The immediate practical effects of a 3rd party presidential run is Nader giving the Florida vote to Bush 43; Perot helping Clinton defeat Bush 41, etc,
Third parties are built around personalities, not ideologies, and do not last. Where is the John Anderson party today? Where is the Reform Party today? Where is the La Follette party today? Where are the Dixicrats today? These were flash-in-the-pan rhetorical rebellions that quickly faded, and their supporters gravitated to one of the two major parties — the only place where true political power resides.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 7, 2008
Mickey G: I don't like McCain either. But in November 2008, my choice is between the Democrat or Republican nominees. If McCain win the nomination then my choice is between McCain or Hillary/Obama.
These are the cards we're dealt. These are the cards we must play, or fold. Deliberately losing to win is not a viable political strategy. We won't always be so lucky as to have a Jimmy Carter to run against. Put the Dems in the White House in 2008, and they could be there for a generation.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 7, 2008
Note to everyone:
This has been a great exchange of ideas, one of the best I've participated in. I appreciate your willingness to engage in a thoughtful and thought-provoking dialogue. We're all trying to get to the same place, even though we may disagree about the best ways to do it. Reacting to each other's thoughts is the best way to clarify the issues involved.
Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 7, 2008
yonkel,
You mentioned head-to-head match-ups (ie, McCain vs Hillary or Obama), but couldn’t find the poll numbers. Well, RealClearPolitics http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/ is poll central. Their poll numbers are the best for 2 reasons: (1) They average the results of individual polls; and (2) They exclude outlier polls from their averages.
In 2004, for example, their averages were closer to the final numbers than any individual pollster. I know. I did an in-depth analysis of their methodology:
http://www.livefreediefree.com/2004Election_Polls.htm
The only state RealClearPolitics got wrong was Wisconsin, far better than any individual pollster did. Plus, their final poll numbers differed from the election actuals by only 1.6%, again far better than any individual pollster.
We conservatives know the MSM is biased. We suspect that some pollsters are, too. Well, my overarching intent was to try to quantify that bias, and to rate the pollsters on that bias. Along the way, I decided to also rate the pollsters on the accuracy of their predictions in 2 ways: (1) The difference between their final numbers and election actuals; and (2) The number of states they got wrong.
Based upon these 3 criteria, I created a composite ranking for the 10 major 2004 election-polling firms. You know who was the worst in all 3 categories? CNN/USA Today/Gallup. Aha! We conservatives know CNN is Progressive Central. My rock-solid, quantified analysis proves it. Alas, the Fox News/Opinion Dynamics polls were almost as bad.
Trust RealClearPolitics. Their methodology is very sound.
In any case, in their head-to-head averages, RealClearPolitics has McCain +1.8 vs Hillary, and -0.7 vs Obama.
Don’t believe those numbers, though. The Democratic base is much more energized than we are. We’re dispirited. Mort Kondracke, in an article linked by RealClearPolitics, tallied the total primary votes to date: 25 million Democrats, but only 12.5 Republicans.
I believe your analysis of McCain’s chances is wishful thinking. Man up to the bar. We’re going to lose in 2008. In another article linked from RealClearPolitics, a Brit, David Frum, paints an especially bleak picture:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f02a3216-d4e4-11dc-9af1-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
Read it. Absorb it. Accept it. Live with it. We’re toast.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | February 7, 2008
"The will of the people" is not automatically virtuous. A majority vote does not make something lawful, constitutional, or moral. The reason we have a representative republic and not a democracy is because democracy always degenerates into tyranny.
Our elected representatives are charged with defending the constitution, so they are supposed to be the bullwark, sometimes even in opposition to the majority. Of course, this does not happen because elective office is now a career choice, and bucking the majority can be political suicide.
Comment by Mountain Man | February 7, 2008
Phil,
Don’t take it personally, but you do repeat yourself. Your inured inflexibility is reason enough to reject your arguments.
Again, be cool when I summarize your arguments: I know; you don’t.
So, if 10 or 20 million of us withhold our votes out of protest against a party that’s abandoned us, Republicans won’t care? Is that your contention? If it is, it belies common sense.
The Republican Party is gravitating towards the left. I don’t doubt that. You might for tactical reasons.
How are we going to stop and then reverse this leftwards drift? How can we give Republicans back their spines? How can we coax those wusses either out of their bunkers, or off the Progressive bandwagon they’ve jumped on?
Your article answers none of those questions. What it does in the main is criticize the non-voting or non-involvement strategy. When you try to posit the affirmative, all you offer are vague allusions to bromides, summarized thus: “Become an activist!”
We must confront reality. McCain will lose. There is a Progressive tide sweeping the country. Demographics, a 25-year economic expansion that’s had only 2 minor hiccups, & the effects of Globalism have made the electorate forget the perils of big gov’t. Then, too, we conservatives are victims of our own success. In the past 25 years, we’ve won most of our battles.
I lived in Alaska. My wife and I visited Denali Park, and took the slow, 60-mile bus ride into the depths of the park. Near the terminus, what with the jarring of the bus and all, we all needed a pit stop. The bus thankfully stopped at such a way station. In hindsight, I should have recognized that the head was built on top of a 6-foot-high rocky promontory whose sides coincided exactly with the sides of the head, and that the pit holes themselves were on the side that faced Mount McKinley. Now, Mount McKinley is the highest mountain in the world as measured from base to top. Thus, strong winds blowing from the top to bottom accelerate for some 15 thousand feet. Well, as I was pissing, a particularly strong wind came rushing through the crack between the head and the rocky promontory, and my urine stream did a curving, upwards 180 and struck me dead center in the nose.
Voting for McCain is pissing in that wind. Voting for him would be a senseless, useless, & purely symbolic gesture.
Ah, but not voting for McCain has value. If McCain does not lose in a landslide, the Republican Party will conduct business as usual. No. Business as usual is not an option. However, if McCain is landslided as McGovern and Mondale were, then the effect of tens of millions of us not voting for McCain would be galvanizing.
Don’t take it personally, Phil, but your proscriptions emanate from tracks & grooves in your brain that are too deep. Your call to arms is so yesterday.
I’ve been a political junkie since the 1960 election. Something’s different this year. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but 2008 will be a watershed, sea changing, & veil of tears election. 2008 will have some parallels to 1964, but those parallels can be overstated. History might not be much of a guide here. What we conservatives need to do to recover from the upcoming wipeout is not clear. What is clear, though, is that your core advice appeals neither to the heart nor the head.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | February 7, 2008
Live Free:
I never take it personally. But regretably I do find it necessary to repeat things that people ignore when telling me what they wish was true, or strongly believe is true, instead of answering the specific challenges I raise to their points.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 7, 2008
This essay and the comments related thereto reminds me of a funny anecdote I read several years ago in a book by either George Marsden or Huston Smith (can’t recall which). The anecdote is set in America, the late 1800’s – probably around 1890 or earlier. Most of our major universities and colleges in those days were originally founded and managed by religious organizations, chapel attendance was mandatory and religion was in control of the students, in control of the curriculum, professors were mostly ordained clerics, etc. – the whole 9 yards as they say.
A young student goes to the university’s chancellor, an ordained Protestant minister and educator, and tells the chancellor that he has lost his religious faith and doesn’t know if he can regain it. The Chancellor thunders back at the student: “You will regain your faith by tomorrow morning or leave this institution”. I think Phil is essentially telling conservatives the same thing in a slightly different context. But, a religious person doesn’t just wake up in the morning and feel around for his faith only to find it missing. For you non-religious folks, imagine waking up one morning and finding you have grave doubts about the theory of evolution. Losing faith is a gradual process and sometimes never regained.
Losing our faith in the Republican Party is a theme all over the conservative websites like flies on garbage, not only today but for the past few months. Commentators see a trend building of apathetic conservative voters meandering without direction or enthusiasm toward the November elections. They secretly fear an election debacle with Hillary or Obama pulling off a stunning, nationwide victory. And, it seems to go deeper than just a problem with McCain’s, Romney’s or Huckabee’s personality – heck, Bush never won anyone over with his vibrant personality either.
Phil is dead right in his political pragmatism and, like the aforementioned university chancellor, has little patience with angst ridden conservatives and their silly doubts. However, we wonder if the student in this anecdote really did regain his faith or just went through the motions to please the chancellor and stay in school. And, conservatives are painfully aware that the universities gradually ditched their religious foundations and became enthusiastically secular as the country changed over the ensuing decades.
So, I guess the question is do we change with the times, take what power we can when we can get it, shrug off the sour grapes, etc. – or, like the religious universities slowly fade into insignificance until we can no longer detect any trace of their original glory? Mandatory chapel attendance – imagine proposing that idea in today’s Harvard or Yale (both founded by religious denominations) – the idea would be absurd if not completely hilarious. Is it possible that conservative ideals and principles are becoming just as irrelevant and absurd in our country today? Are there more of “them” than “us” and are our traditional ideals and principles becoming just as outdated in today’s pluralistic society?
Comment by Pat Skurka | February 7, 2008
Phil,
In your response post to my post, you repeated your arguments, framed, of course, in contrast to what I wrote, but repetitive, nonetheless.
It appears we end up agreeing to disagree. That's cool.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | February 7, 2008
Live Free —
Debate is often more about clarity than consensus. We agree to disagree. Take care, Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 7, 2008
"Patrick: In addition to what I’ve just posted above, remember that the President’s powers are not absolute. There are certain things he can do such as nominate supreme court judges, act as Commander in Chief, etc. But he can’t pass his own legislation.
I’d rather have McCain in the White House making decisions for Congress to approve than Hillary or Obama. It’s not even a close issue in my mind. If McCain goes off the deep end on immigration like Bush, we can use our access to our individual representatives to block him like we did with Bush. It’s not 100% fool proof, but as a practical matter I’d rather try to block some of what McCain might do that ALL of what Hillary/Obama WILL do.
To paraphrase the Apollo 13 mission, “Withdrawal is not an option”. I will not simply surrender the White House to the far left because my candidate is not 100% conservative."
I understand what you're saying, Phil. From a 100% pragmatic standpoint, you're right. Of course, the future is uncertain though. Democrats are projected to increase their majorities in both houses of congress, and I don't see McCain ferociously wielding the veto pen against a Democratic congress with which he is in agreement on many (most) major issues. If we lose enough seats, our power to keep McCain and the Democrats in check will be lost entirely (it is close today as it is). And like I pointed out before, even in a best-case scenario, what are our prospects for 2012 when we have to run the same guy, who we all seem to despise to one degree or another, all over again? Whether McCain wins or loses in 2008 is only going to determine if a Democrat gets into office now or later, in practical terms.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 8, 2008
Patrick: I understand the logic of your analysis, but it depends on the absolute certainty that McCain will actively promote key liberal causes and/or not use any of his power to stop liberal excesses, and that it's inevitable that the Republicans will continue to lose seats. Historically the latter is true — but not in 2002, for example. And, the political terrain will be very different post-2008 if President Hillary/Obama don't veto the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine like McCain would, or do other things to make an opposition victory more difficult in the future.
I wouldn't bet against the fact that you're right about the belief that Republicans are in for difficult times ahead even with a McCain victory. But I do know that simply allowing the Dems back into the White House without a fight will make it both (b) easier for them to make it more difficult for us, and (b) turns a possible, perhaps even probable outcome into an absolute certainty.
Your chances at winning big at the craps table in Las Vegas are small. Yet few people just hand over their money to the casino and walk away. They roll the dice — even with poor odds — because even 1% still is better than 0%.
Good conversation.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 8, 2008
Defining McCain as a liberal shows a profound misunderstanding of the word as it is used in the United States and as he votes in the Senate. Yes, the activists in the Republican Party have become more conservative as the traditional NE moderates who were a major part of the party become more rare, but McCain has never been as moderate as the NE Republicans or Richard Nixon were. Even when Democrats are running everything, the US has been much more conservative than other developed nations. That is not likely to change.
Comment by freelunch | February 8, 2008
I do not like McCain. I did not vote for McCain. When the initial lineup of Republican contenders threw their hats into the ring, McCain was at the absolute bottom of my list, somewhere next to Rudy Giuliani. The vast majority of talk radio, posters to IC, posters to TownHall.com, and virtually every other registered Republican I have talked to feels likewise. I could have gotten excited about Thompson, had he been able to show some excitement for himself. I got the impression the presidency was something to be endured rather than sought with him. What a disappointment.
But although I greatly admire James Dobson, I cannot bring myself to essentially cast a vote for Clinton or Obama by either doing a write-in or not voting in the general election.
My principles showed themselves at the primary stage…and I am not abandoning them at the general election stage. I am simply making the best choice available to me between two rather abysmal choices.
If McCain wants to win in November, he is going to have to work extremely hard to court the constiuency that he has thumbed his nose at. Otherwise, he will win the battle and lose the war. It is as simple as that. If nothing changes between now and then, he will lose. The ONLY rallying point that he inspires at this juncture is "anybody but Obama/Hillary." It feels like a football game in which the goal isn't to score, but simply to prevent the other team from scoring. It doesn't insprire much passion.
I'm reminded of the old saying "the enemy of your enemy is your friend". That is how I feel about McCain. I may not like his track record, but there is some modicum of hope that the man can be swayed by his Party or blunted by Congress. With Obama or Hillary, I know exactly what I am going to get and there is little hope that they can be swayed. They have a vision for this country, and it is largely to behave like a member of the EU. With either of them in the White House, it will be an eight-year