Want to save the Republican Party? Become a Democrat.
Effective political action demands a realistic assessment of existing reality. This is why I registered to vote in the Democrat primary in 2008. When John McCain secured the Republican Party nomination, there wasn't anything left for me to do but try to influence the yet-to-be-decided Democrat Party nominating process.
It's also why I haven't switched back to the Republican Party following the election. Power today has shifted to the Democrats. They own the Presidency, both Houses of Congress, the Federal Judiciary, and the news media. This is where the game is played in 2009, and if you want to participate, this is where you need to be.
Now some people might characterize this approach as political prostitution, but I beg to differ. This strategy has already produced results for me, as I wrote about a few months ago. For the first time in my adult life, I was contacted by one of the major political polling organizations precisely because I was a "Democrat."
I'm not shallow enough to sell my soul to be one of 1,500 respondents in a nationwide survey, so there's more to this calculation than that. But it does set the stage for what I'm about to propose, which on the surface stands a certain logic on its head. If you want to work for real change in the political system today, forget about the Republicans or any third parties. Join the Democrats, and make your voice known there. It's a matter of simple, rational self-interest.
Third parties are a complete waste of time. I've touched on this before but let me summarize it all again by pointing out two relevant points.
First, unless you want to wait another 10-20 years to develop the local, state and national infrastructure to run a successful third-party campaign, you're just spinning your wheels. Institutionally, this is a two-party system of government, and pretending it isn't to feed your need to protest, or delusions of self-aggrandizement, isn't going to change these facts on the ground.
Second, and even more important, consider this obvious question. Why is it more effective to form a new third party (or invigorate an existing third party) if your candidate can't win the primary fight as a Democrat or Republican? If the voters of these two parties — which constitute the majority of all voters — wouldn't even nominate your guy/gal to run for office, what makes you think that the combined voting public will now elect them to office?
The only effective political strategy is to work within the existing two-party structure. Normally, my counsel would be to take over the Republican Party, and make it into an effective counterpoint to the Democrats. But this again is premised on real-world assumptions. The fact of the matter is, Republicans who gain power (as they did in 1994) have no stomach for exercising that power. They bluster and swagger about reducing the size of government and promoting a conservative agenda, but at the end of the day distinguish themselves simply by being less obnoxious than the Democrats. Instead of $50 million to ACORN, the Republicans will support, say, $35 million. Instead of blanket amnesty to illegal immigrants, the Republicans will attach a couple of conditions.
It isn't a matter of time that separates Republican from Democrat agendas — that is, Republicans deliberately and systematically build to a crescendo where all their programs will be implemented, while Democrats rush in foolishly the first chance they get. It's actually something much more basic than that.
Democrats use their power to advance their agenda. Give them 51 votes, and they'll ram their pet project through. Require 60 votes to break a filibuster, and if they can't steal an election or two to get the requisite number, they'll just change or circumvent the rules. Republicans, by contrast, always act tentatively even when they have sufficient numbers to prevail. Their legislative hearings are inclusive of all parties and political philosophies, they willingly compromise their basic principles if objections are too loud or demanding, and they are loathe to arbitrarily change the rules to overcome minority party opposition. If such a strategy is even suggested, we can count on enough McCains, Grahams, and Snowes to form a "Gang of Something" to put the kibosh on any effort.
When Democrats stray from the fold, the powers-behind-the-throne strip them of their committee assignments, or mount primary challenges against them. And when someone who bucks the party like Joe Lieberman manages to win election as an independent (with Republican help, naturally), he immediately allies himself with the Democrat party. Like a battered wife, Democrats never stray from the fold. It's only the Republicans who agonize over doing the things they were elected to do.
Or, to put it more directly, while the Republican Party preaches ideology, it routinely pursues compromise. And while the Democrat Party professes bi-partisanship and egalitarianism, it routinely engages in the raw, naked exercise of political power.
"So I axe you," as Vinny Gambini likes to say, "just why would anyone in their right mind want to be a Republican?" The party chairman is busy telling people how much Rush Limbaugh needs to be ignored, and how much Colin Powell (who voted for Obama, Carter, Johnson and Kennedy) should be embraced as a loyal Republican. Can things get any more screwed up than that?
The sad fact is, the only show in town today — and for the foreseeable future — is the Democrat Party. This is where the power lies, and this is where decisions will be made. Just take one example to see the difference between the two parties. Republicans will busy themselves debating whether they need to support an incompetent, race-obsessed Supreme Court nominee because opposing her might tick off Hispanic voters who have no intention of supporting the GOP anyway when the Democrats will give them so much more to buy their votes, while the Democrats will not blink an eye at nationalizing health care, taking over GM and Chrysler and then giving it to the unions, bankrupting the economy to finance their pet projects in the name of economic stimulus; and that's just the first 100 days of the Obama Administration.
So, we can all rally around a dying Republican Party that has no real spine to articulate, and then actually implement once in power, a different socio-political agenda. Or, we can do what any sane person would do; work within the Democrat power structure to muck things up or slow things down as best we can. If the only choice Republicans present is "Democrat-lite," the hell with them. I'd rather spend my time with people who have power and aren't afraid to use it, and see if I can affect things there.
I'm under no illusion that this strategy will produce genuine "conservative" results. It won't. Right now the effort is to keep the Dems from completely screwing up our economy, society, and national security. That fight will be more effective within the Democrat Party than through an aimless, self-emasculated Republican Party.
If the Republicans can get their act together by 2010 and run some candidates with real conservative values, and if these candidates once in office show some actual spine in pushing that conservative agenda, then I'll re-evaluate my position in time for the 2012 election. But until then there is nothing more worthless than thinking that someone with an (R) or (I) after their name has any chance of making a real difference.
I'm prepared to eat my words if the Republicans use every tactic they can to sink the Sotomayor nomination in committee, or failing that filibuster it on the floor, or failing that mount a unified, take-no-prisoners attack on her nomination ala the Democrats and Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork.
But, I'm not holding my breath that any of this will happen. Instead, I expect to hear the party chairman distance himself from Dick Cheney, and talk about how Republicans are nice people too if only the voters would give them a chance to maybe not raise taxes as much as Obama.
In the meantime, I wear the label "Democrat" proudly and publicly, since they are the only party in Washington that knows how to get results.
I am one of those who held their nose and voted McCain. Colin Powell however couldn't stomach it. If the Republican Party thinks they didn't go "mainstream" enough, and lauds Colin Powell as an example for the republican party to follow, then I say go ahead and I'll just follow his example and vote democrat like he did.
Dear Phillip,
After reading your essay, I thought long and hard about your premise.
While I agree with your assessments of third party candidates and of the current state of republicans in general; I don't believe I have either the guile or the stomach to follow your example.
For me, conservatism is defined as a political philosophy stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, and the constitutional limitation of government.
On the other hand, today's liberals may be defined as (forgive me as I attempt to define something I little understand) secularists that believe that science and secular philosophy have discredited most traditional beliefs to the point where they no longer hold any inherent value. Thus, all current interpersonal social constructs, such as marriage, the family, monogamy, gender roles and gender identity, must be challenged whenever such a change is deemed to be for the greater good of society or is desired by those who wish to engage a social arrangement not sanctioned by current policy. They are averse to any perception of 'inequality', and seek to institute egalitarian norms. The overall guiding principle is 'sameness'. Multiculturalism, nonjudgmentalism, secularism, and the elevation of groups over individuals, all point to the liberal goal of 'sameness'. To the liberal being; having the largest possible group all exhibit the exact amount of 'sameness' IS equality.
Unlike you; I'm not so pragmatic as to deliberately subsume my core beliefs in a futile attempt to influence policy. In order to influence debate; debate must first be possible. I believe that even you will have to admit to the impossibility of debating dogma. Liberalism ceased to be a political philosophy long ago. Liberalism is a Religion.
At one time, liberalism was just a political perspective. It had its ardent supporters, but held its place with several other competing perspectives on government. Political discourse in this country has developed to the point where all political systems other than Liberalism and Conservatism had been discredited. To be sure, actual examples of competing political systems enjoy some support in the United States. But such support is almost exclusively within the realm of academia.
We may speculate as to why this is so. Some will argue that it is because of the insular nature of the campus environment, while others will state that tenure plays a major role. The reason matters not. It is enough to establish that there was a time when the Liberalism widely practiced today was exclusive to college administrations and teaching staff.
This new liberalism comes pre-packaged with the remedies that society MUST practice to alleviate a myriad of perceived shortcomings. It must be noted that such ideas as universal health care, living wages, adequate housing and diet; the elevation of victim groups, and the absolute belief in evolution are not new. The roots of these are firmly planted in the historical record. As always; the most fundamental position is that such a system MUST be successful. The central belief is always if there is more money spent, or if the purges could be made more 'inclusive', or the people more willing to sacrifice much larger portions of their individual identity; that utopia is achievable. One need only keep one's eye on the prize through a 'short', but of undefined length, period of shared misery. Under such a premise, even misery itself could eventually be redefined as success.
As I've observed before; Reagan's 1984 landslide, set Liberalism on its ear. They had gone head to head with conservatism believing that no one in their right mind could possibly see any choice other than liberalism and Reagan handed them their heads. After much introspection, they had to admit they had gotten the word out. They had drawn as clear a set of differences between the values of liberalism vs. conservatism as possible and the American people had undeniably chosen conservatism.
Since the 1984 election, Liberals have developed several clear incentives:
• First, the American public must be 'forced' to discover the superiority of liberalism.
• Second, the campaign never ends. You push the party line exclusively; "Government always good; individualism always bad!" is the battle cry of the liberal.
• Third, political discourse is war. Nothing is more important than the triumph of liberalism. The complete obliteration of conservative philosophy and the absolute annihilation of any conservative being are defined as one in the same. This is of primary importance, as conservative thought has no place in the new lexicon:
• Fourth; all policy must be couched within euphemism. Strict adherence to this precept is required in order to placate the average American. The idea is to make unpalatable policy seem innocuous; to get the average person to accept the change as so minor as to not constitute anything to be concerned over. After all; what's in a word, how can one word possibly alter debate over core principles?
Abortion becomes 'choice'; tax increases become 'investments', and under achievers become the blameless 'losers of life's lottery'. The definition of 'bipartisanship' is conservatives moving to accept progressive tenets, never the opposite.
Over the years, Liberals have become zealots. How else may one explain these simultaneously held beliefs?
• George Bush is so 'retarded' as to be sub-human, yet at the same time so gifted as to blind everyone to his crafty, cunning manipulative nature. How could any person possibly believe someone to be concurrently stupid and intelligent?
• Liberals believe they can sit down and talk with the Iranians, the Taliban, the North Koreans, Al qada, and the Palestinians. Yet they routinely refuse reasoned debate with conservatives on ANY issue; claiming "republicans cannot be reasoned with!" Are we really supposed to believe that liberals have more in common with Mid-Eastern Muslims than they do with Mid-Western residents of the United States? Somehow; they believe they have the capacity to converse with the most radicalized people on the planet, but simply cannot even begin to speak with fellow Americans that live across the street.
• Every liberal ever nominated for any administrative job or government posting never cites the government program that led them to this successful point in their career? They don't cite WIC, AFDC, SCHIP, affirmative action, or school lunch programs. They speak of parental sacrifice, personal conviction, long hours, and hard work. These are all conservative traits. This is doubly confusing since, once they are in office, they forget all these traits of success; or at least seem to function under the impression that no one else is capable of accomplishing what they have by enlisting in the same values.
We've now come to apogee of this deranged thought process; the rapture that was the election of 2008. In Barack Obama we have a person so skilled in the art of euphemism and generality that crowds of people literally hear exactly what they want to hear; ignoring and discarding the rest. A child of the bureaucracy that has purposely spent so little time in any one political office as to leave no record worth analysis. A person of such ephemeral background that one cannot even ascertain, with any certainty, his constitutional qualifications for the office he currently holds. The MSM sings praise to each of his declarations with the fervor of monks reciting psalms. Disagreement with any Presidential proclamation or policy is met with a passion that, one could readily imagine, fueled the Inquisition. Barack Obama is truly the Messiah of the Religion of Liberalism!
In your posting you proclaimed; "Effective political action demands a realistic assessment of existing reality. This is why I registered to vote in the Democrat primary in 2008. When John McCain secured the Republican nomination, there wasn’t anything left for me to do but try to influence the yet-to-be-decided Democrat Party nominating process."
So Phillip, how did that work out for you? I myself have always wondered exactly whom those pollsters were calling to get the results they flaunt. Moving from a party that still favors debate to one that purposefully excludes it seems a large price to pay for the popularity of an occasional phone call. One can only wonder what the subject of the survey was. Did you influence policy on the TARP or the stimulus package? Maybe they considered your advice on executive compensation, energy policy, or the takeover of large manufacturing institutions. I would be interested to know exactly which administration policy you feel you had personal hand in formulating.
Believe me; I can well understand the appeal of action over inaction. The undeniable urge to belong to a group that "Does something, dammit. Anything! Even if it is the wrong thing!" But you yourself admit in your essay "When Democrats stray from the fold, the powers-behind-the-throne strip them of their committee assignments, or mount primary challenges against them." Under those conditions how do you expect to have any impact on policy? Any attempt to sway policy in any direction other than further left will be met with cries of "Anarchy! Heresy! And Banishment!"
I can identify with your frustration. Whenever some bobble-headed, inarticulate, supposed representative of conservatism (your example of Olympia Snowe comes immediately to mind) steps up to the microphone and completely embarrasses us; I stare balefully at the television and wonder aloud "Where on God's Green Earth did we find the capacity to elect this imbecile?"
You say "The sad fact is, the only show in town today – and for the foreseeable future – is the Democrat Party." While I agree with the assessment that they have majorities now. I personally believe they've already over-reached. I strongly suspect that the American people are already internally harboring the seeds of 'buyer's remorse'.
I refuse to participate in the program of 'temporary capitulation' you seem to have embraced as it feels dishonest somehow. Likewise; I refuse to engage in the 'navel gazing', self destructive, introspection of a Michael Steele. I will continue to refuse to participate in this current recession. I will continue to cheerfully espouse the political philosophy of individual freedom, free markets, and limited government. I will meet, head on, any challenge to these principles. I will support, with my pocketbook and my vote the candidates for both local and national offices that I believe ascribe to my political principles. While I realize we are taking different routes; I'm certain that we have the same destination. Good luck with your tactic, I think you'll need it
Phil, we have argued this point several times. I am now convinced and changing my voter registration from I to D. Color me as an undercover Blue Dog.
Taking your lead we should all first understand the concept of using political power in this brave new world. In military jargon this could be summarized as take no prisoners.
Secondly there is a little element of deception involved because you will need to nod your head to some really foolish ideas and then figure out who in the meetings is nodding their head very slowly and, if they are a possible candidate in a democrat primary support them…or better yet be the slow nodding member and get them to support you.
Beyond all of this there is the idea of intelligence gathering. Where better to find out than the meetings of the enemy, because do not ever believe they are your friends.
And in summary remember that any plan is only good until the enemy arrives, then things change. We are that change!
milbrat — I appreciate the thoughtful reply to my essay.
There are two, related issues at play here: (1) promoting conservatism, and (2) exercising power.
While commentators, businesspeople, even average citizens can certainly influence the exercise of power, actual power lies in the hands of elected officials (or the Judiciary these officials appoint).
To a certain extent political philosophy and party ID go hand in hand. In the last 40-50 years or so, the Dems have tended to be more liberal, the Republicans more conservative. Liberalism, as you pointed out, isn’t so much a political philosophy as it is a shorthand for promoting personal self-interest (no rules to limit personal behavior; abortion on demand; government handouts, etc.). Conservatism, as practiced, has some of these elements too, but tries at times to actually stand on principles. This is why Republican/Conservative politicians get slammed for their indiscretions (because they profess to have principles), while Libs/Dems get a pass (since they are not being “hypocritical — no real principles, no hypocrisy).
Normally, I’d advocate using the Republican Party to counter-balance the liberal/Democrat Party in the pursuit and exercise of this power. Unfortunately, the Republicans in power today seem to have little stomach for articulating and advancing real principles.
So, in light of the fact that neither major party stands for principles, and third parties (which have more defined principles) have no real ability to gain power and thus exercise those principles, all we’re really left with is a calculation of power.
Since power today lies with the Democrats, that’s the arena I have to play in if I want to be effective. My objective here is purely defensive — to slow down or muck up their process. I can do this more effectively as an “insider” than an outsider, which is why I’m keeping the Democrat party label.
None of this will advance conservatism. It’s a purely pragmatic behind-enemy-lines defensive action to protect as much as I can of what I have. Should the Republicans actually engage in this exercise in a meaningful way with a real alternative philosophy, I’ll give them a second look. Until then, conservatism as a philosophy is politically powerless.
But liberalism, as practiced by the Dems in office, isn’t powerless. That’s where policies will be made, halted or reversed. That’s the battlefield until our team actually gets in the game. And if they don’t, we’ll end up with an effectively institutionalized one party system with a liberal wing and a small less-liberal wing. That’s where’re you’ll find me … fighting the only real fight there is regarding the actual exercise of political power which has actual, immediate consequences for my life.
Mickey: We are of a common mind!
A major issue we need to consider is that conservaatives/libertarians are generally not interested in exercising power over others, while leftists aspire to office chiefly to force people to do things.
The problem isn't what might be wrong with the Democratic or Republican party, or whether a third party is viable. The problem is that government has usurped so much power that it is more and more an attractive place for leftists. Leftists, working incrementally in government and its bureaucracies for decades, have transformed constitutional government into a power broker that cannot be competed with or reigned in. This is tyranny.
The only solution I can see is to get conservatives involved in the local and state levels so that our principles are restored from the bottom up. But the task is daunting.
So much of the media, education, and politics is under the leftist stranglehold. What isn't controlled by leftists is being attacked even as we debate (Fairness doctrine, policing the internet, speech codes, etc). We have to find a way to counter the caricatures of conservatism promulgated by leftists, to communicate conservative principles in a way people understand, and recapture the institutions of society.
Then it might mean something to deal with what party to support.
MM: Here's the dilemma. In order to assure that government will not needlessly exercise power over others, Republicans/Conservatives need to first gain political power to control it so it can't be abused.
But just gaining power is not enough. Republicans/conservatives in power need to use that power to thwart the Lib/Dems.
Our side has a decent history of gaining power in the last 20 years, but will not use that power to push their agenda of limited government. Instead, they accommodate, compromise and pander to the Left and media, weaking their power. By contrast, the Lib/Dems will not give us a second thought in pushing their agenda, no matter what it takes.
As John Nance Garner said, Politics ain't beanbag.
I agree, Phil, conservative must obtain and use power. The issue is that leftists love to use power, while conservatives disdain it. Even using power to re-install conservative principles goes against our grain.
I heard it somewhere (paraphrasing) that a person seeking elective office must be of a temperament that disqualifies them from holding elective office.
Conservatives are not ruthless enough to do what it takes (that's actually a compliment). Moderates even less so. There is only one kind of person who aspires to public office, loves to have power, and will do whatever it takes, regardless of morality or even legality to use it/misuse it/abuse it, and that is a leftist.
It is indeed a dilemma.
Mountain Man, conservatives are normally not interested in using power but they do understand war since they have formed the core of our armed forces over the years (if you doubt me go to the nearest American Legion or VFW hall and jsut listen). What we probably need to do is quietly make sure that conservatives understand that we are in a war and being trampled therefore it is time to fight back.
Woo them with the concept of being an undercover agent/spy as they change their voter registration. Point out that they have to appear just like the population they are spying on.
Sound good for the new conspiracy. Think of this change is our new conspiracy. Can't wait for the liberals to discuss this conspiracy theory.
I sympathize with all of you, but please remember that BHO was not elected in a landside against a strong candidate and history shows how fickle the people and events can be. To name a few who entered office to high acclaim only to leave under less than optimal circumstances, recall Gaius Julius Caesar 49-44 BC, Maximilien Robespierre July 27, 1793 – July 28, 1794, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov 1917-1924, Lyndon Johnson 1963-1969 and I’ll not mention the most obvious that ended his reign on April 30, 1945. I’m sure you guys can come up with some additions to this list.
Ivan: the problem is, as the Republican Party operates today, there's no reason to believe that McCain isn't the prototype for 2012 as well. Until the Reps become a real party with a real philosophy driving it, they're irrelevant to the acquisition and exercise of power. The only way to shape actual policy is to join the Dems.
Thanks for the interaction on "the New Conspiracy." I find y'alls stuff stimuilating for the actions of the day.
This is good stuff to discuss on the internet and in the seclusion of a protected environment and the distance of cyberspace.
When "the rubber hits the road" it takes some guts to engage the mind of those who have a liberal bent. The walk into the others camp is an okay choice of action, it you can keep the priorities straight and the philosophical commmitments clean.
During the Reagan and Bush years there were appointments to significant positions. The environments of Media greats, Power Brokers, Socially Elite gradually eroded the commitments to Conservative Values. They were seduced into a more conciliatory position and then drifted into the left of center.
Walking into the teeth of the lion takes guts and is not for the faint of heart and the weak of thought. The battle for retaining a true conservative viewpoint will be lost – sorry about this but I have to say it – without a clear world view emanating from more than a healthy enjoyment of conservative values.
A god who is out there and like all other gods is really a commitment to pantheism. The tolerance of all gods as in recent administration verbal babble will lead to the destruction of conservative values.
Living in a Liberal environment and lobbying for conservative values will never prevail without a clear undestanding of where the corruption come from (bad english, good ideas).
The founders of our country believed – most of them – in "agod" – not "the God." As such they were committed to Universals. Their undestanding of Truth as in "we hold …" emanated from the influence of a majority thought in "the God." This belief is a commitment on their part to support the majority thought of the people, deeply and pervasively held by both sides of the political spectrum.
Debate with those on the Left needs to be waged on two fronts if "right" is to prevail. Before debate is engaged the "spy – ::grins::" or the debator needs to get straight the inner core of their belief system. Other wise the process of interaction and walking into the "other side" is nothing more than a sacrificing of Integrity and Honor into a pragmatic utilitarian approach to win for "my side."
You gotta walk into the arena of the left and engage face to face. Something very few will do.
1. Engage the Left in their public forums and subtly move the debate to deeper levels than the surface babble about events and who is right.
2. Express a genuine interest in the Left and interact in informal places / Student Centers, political cafeterias,vacation resorts, building lobbies, sport environments, Univ. classrooms, Academic Societies, Professional Societies. And it is here where the changes take place.
This number two item is taking place all over the world but is unspoken in the public forum. Absolute mindblowing, thought staggering ideas are being exchanged in the realm of destructive ideology by those who hold conservatice (not politically conservative ideology) thoughts stemming from the presupposition of "The God" being personally involved in the affairs of MAN.
None of the debators in public or as I have just mentioned have found a need to compromise their Integrity or Honor. Being a "spy" most of the time for them is unnecessary and of course it may be necessary and politically expedient.
These small time "sheep herders" are in the arena with the Goliaths of our day. They have found Truth and have been heavily influenced by Francis Schaeffer. They walk the truth into the darkness and the results are simply staggering (I do not have liberty to tell of these quiet heros in the realm of ideas)
So here is the challenge to us who love the USofA and all it has stood for: Walk into the teeth of the lion on a campus or where ever and engage. Drive truth into the heart, go for the jugular and prevail for the "truths we hold self evident.."
Totalitarian ideologies and destructive thought – those who have held these evils – have conquered the minds of the student 12 – 25 year olds – and have overthrown whole cultures, societies and nations.
Give it some thought – have a great day – I am on my way to engage the enemy in a debate over ideas and Truth.
Shalom
As a Democrat, I’m on Obama’s mailing list. I just got a survey asking me to suggest a bumper sticker slogan for his new health care initiative. So, I sent them the following:
“Barack Obama is Making Me Sick!”
You can participate too at http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/hcsurvey
This has to be one of the silliest arguments that I have ever read. Mr. Jackson I do not believe you were ever a Republican. I know you were never a conservative. You were the one arguing that everyone should vote for Barack Obama because he was more conservative then John McCain. Still believe that one?
There is a two party system. Somehow in your tortured world you believe that being inside the dimocrat party is the best way for change? Do I have that right? You believe that you are playing a game of spy vs. spy? Mad magazine would not carry anything this silly.
Mr. Jackson sometime try to be honest and have courage and stand for something. Actually say what you believe and stop the obfuscation and silliness. If you are conservative you stand on your two feet and you oppose Obama and the dims face to face. That is how Reagan did it. That is how Newt Gingrich did it. That is how every successful Republican has done it.
This insipid scheme you have will get no one anywhere except to give power to the liberals for the next 100 years. The last time we locked horns you argued that Barack was conservative. You also falsified many foreign policy claims.
You are a liberal sir stop trying to be anything but what you are.
Jack: I haven’t been called a liberal since I told the paleocons that the color of a person’s skin doesn’t determine their intrinsic value.
Phillip Ellis Jackson, the “Liberal, Libertarian, Marxist-sympathizer, PC-con, regular Neocon, Neocon spokesman for the Chicago School of Political Thought, Leftist, genetically-inferior, white race hating, uneducated, undereducated, poorly-educated, Sicilian criminal, New Age Hippster, morally superior, politically-correct, thought-slavery promoter, Lockean, Mr. Right Think Enforcer, Official PC enforcer, lunatic exposing himself to a nubile woman grievance collector.”
Don’t be an ass, Jack.
Sorry Phil, but your good advise is too late.
"Ass, Jack." I just got it! Funny!
Jack:
Re: #14. You are new here, I take it, and should read Phil's series "The Loony Liberal Chronicles" that begins here http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/10/24/the-loony-liberal-chronicles-chapter-1/
Sedona: Appreciate the effort, but you can't reason with a True Believer for whom everyone is a liberal unless they agree with him.
I am not new here but anyone who believes Jackson is either an intellectual or a conservative is too naive to be out alone on the streets at night.
This is the same moron who wrote on this that people should vote for Barack Obama. Get it? This comes from a conservative? This comes from an intellectual? You defend this? You actually believe the conservative position is to vote and support Barack Obama?
The only ass Mr. Jackson is you. The fact that you resorted to such immature name calling so fast shows that you are as childish as you are ignorant.
I have been gone for a while was traveling in the middle east and other areas. I have always believe in seeing things for myself.
Until Jackson apologizes for advocating voting for Barack Obama anyone who believes he is conservative is bizarre.
Ok, enough. If Dr. Jackson advocated voting for Obama, I need to see the reference. I have only seen him vociferously defend voting for McCain, especially in the context of third party advocates.
You know, when Obama first came on the scene and little was known about him, I thought he might of been worthy of my vote. He's a family man, the husband of one wife, accomplished, and articulate. Superficially, he seemed viable. Compared to McCain, there was little difference, at least at the outset.
Of course, that all changed when the polished veneer was penetrated. He was able, and unfortunately, is still able, to fool the casual onlooker. That was enough for a lot of voters.
I wonder if there is some buyer's regret setting in?
Conservatives submit to a rule of Law which is found in the "inalienable rights" principle. Liberals submit to the rule of Law which is found in the thought of "consensus of the American people." This one is their view and their laws, so they are submissive to their own will and thoughts.
This is like playing tennis with someone who does not play by the rules of tennis. You play striclty by the rules and they make all the adjustments they can to win.
There are other rules which govern the courage to walk into the teeth of the Lion and win the war for the ideologies which have made America great.
For example, the laws of aerodynamics can make an airplane overcome the rules of gravity for a period of time. In such a principle are the rules which allow the Conservative to wage war with a different set of rules and thus, "drive the arrogant tennis player from the court."
One of the great travesties of the political makeup in our day is that the men in leadership on both sides of the spectrum have had an operation. In Sax's book, The Irritable Male Syndrome, he has a section with the phrase, "the castrated American male."
The men in the coffee shop who listen to fools make jokes about incestuous rape are outraged by the loss of power to deal with this stuff.
The loss of outrage at the systmetic elimination of opposition to ideas and government direction is an expression of having been mesmerized by the prevailing mood which is anything but masculine.
Yesterday, I spoke with 6 citizens who hold a fairly liberal concept of government. I treated them with respect, expressed interest in their opinions and then gently drew them into a discussion of Moral Absolutes/Universals and the impact on American Government. They became fascinated with the ideas of "we hold these truths…".
My primary goal was to bring them into an undestanding that there is an Absolute true Truth which they can sink their teeth into. They plied me with questions and the interchange was dynamic.
The interchange was with the purpose of introducing them to God who wrote the Universals into the understanding of MAN and to explain why Jesus Christ is the Truth, the Way, the Life.
Our discussion began with the political and moved to the internal motivation of the spirit in MAN. We will have this conversation again.
They left with two expressed understandings: a fascination of the self evident truths and application to our present government direction; and a deep fascination of the claims of Christ upon their lives.
In a true sense I was a sojourner into their arena, but never once did I compromise my position nor did I insult them for their convictions or deface the Image of God in them.
Again my challenge to Intellectual Conservatives, is to go engage the liberal in an informal way while graciously identifying their inconsistencies and hypocrisies before their families. The disconnect between persoanl ethics and public ethics is the most profound hypocrisy of the Left.
They have money and power to isolate their families from their public policies and the dangers inherent. They willingly create vast protective systems for themselves and expose the populace to the worst of dangers.
You go for the jugular when you begin to discuss the loss of integrity in their lives with their familes and offspring. This is the road to bringing the liberal to a conservative position. In another culture the pharse would be, "you speak with forked tongue," or in the ethnic culture in which I was raised, "you are two faced."
I have used the above paragraph concepts for 50 years to bring adult males and females to a conservative position in their religious values. This then leads them to conservative political values.
The power of bringing the Liberal into the arena where men who have had a deep hatred and have expressed the most horrendous violence toward each other, and who now live in harmony is the most powerful and deeply convincing Truth to convince them of their errors.
On the coast of B.C there is a retreat center where a hydro electric dam generatesw power from 1000' higher elevation and at a distance of 1 mile. In the darkness of the nite, one can stand on the deck and see in the distance a 6 volt dome light indicate the operation of the power system.
When the light shines in the darkness those who are looking can see the light. Shine brightly in the forums of darkness.
Go for it! (sorry, can't resist) ::grins::
The Rev.
Dale Swanson:
Have you tried working on the ACLU?
MM: Don’t hold your breath waiting for Jack to cite chapter and verse. Other than saying back in February 2008 that “It’s beginning to look like the O-Man has a real chance to win the Democrat party nomination” (which is hardly and endorsement of Obama’s candidacy) http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/02/22/obamanomics/, and saying in a comment section once that I dreaded Hillary and Bill returning to power more than I feared the unknown Obama at that time, there’s just not a lot of “there” there to support Jack’s-Off cited contention that I’m a closet died in the wool Obama supporter.
I’m going to be generous and assume that Jack’s-Off cited remarks come from one too many IED encounters while “traveling in the middle east”. Either that, or he’s just an idiot. Take your pick.
Anyway, just to help Jack’s-Off and on memory on the subject, here’s a couple of things I actually said when I counseled against throwing your vote away on a third party candidate. See if you can pick out the passages that may have triggered Jack’s ass-backward thoughts:
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/03/31/no-obama-none-of-the-time/
In a world where you can believe what you want to believe because you want to believe it — and your beliefs can be shared by others who want to believe what you want to believe too — there’s no room for genuine dialogue and debate. Obama is post-racial, and will produce “change.” Demonstrate that he’s chummy with a race-baiting bigot, or just another Chicago machine hack who cuts cozy deals with shady real estate developers, and you get at best a shrug, and at worst the non-sequitur “Bush lied about WMD in Iraq.” If Obama shot Mother Theresa while holding up the First National Bank on live TV, about 60% of all registered Democrats would still vote for him because (a) he didn’t really do it despite the overwhelming evidence against him, (b) he’s for change and the country needs change, or (c) Bush lied about WMD in Iraq. The other 40% would vote for Hillary instead, but only after she offered the VP slot to Obama because — to quote Joe Biden — he’s clean and articulate. And anyway, Bush lied about WMD in Iraq.
I wish I had the solution to re-instill some sense of reality into the political debate in this country, but I don’t. The problem isn’t limited to the political Left. Some of the people reading this essay who identify themselves as Conservatives will focus only on whether I or others are “conservative-enough” to lay claim to this designation. Others will ignore everything else I’ve said to affirm the existence of man-made global warming, since I mentioned it in passing earlier in this essay. Still others of all political persuasions will launch into a personal attack on those who disagree with some arcane point tangential to this conversation. Only a small portion of readers will actually ponder what I’ve said and refute or support it on its merits.
Things will change only when reality slaps us in the face again, and we no longer have the luxury of playing in the fantasy worlds of our own creation. The same people who supported “torture warrants” in the aftermath of 9-11 now decry the lack of due process afforded to non-uniformed military combatants captured in the Middle East. Slam another plane into a skyscraper, set off a bomb or two in a major American city, and the people today who condemn warrantless wiretaps will clamor for the political heads of those in power who “didn’t do enough to protect us from our enemies.”
Watching this spectacle unfold will be the American public who, except for the hardest of the hard-core kooks, will at least temporarily return to the real world and look for real solutions to very real problems. Their only hope is that in the intervening time we haven’t elected a bunch of kook-supported clowns to office who wouldn’t have the slightest idea how to confront a real problem other than to pander to the world community, or talk it to death with meaningless rhetoric.
But hey, if such a situation does one day arrive, as long as our new leader can make a good speech, or represents the correct race or gender, we should all take comfort in knowing that at least the wrong Conservative didn’t make it to the White House.
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/10/07/how-john-mccain-will-lose-the-2008-election/
A few weeks ago I wrote an article listing ten reasons “Why Obama Lost the 2008 Election”, ranging from the hidden racism of rank and file Democrat voters, to Bill and Hillary’s not-so-hidden desires to see Obama lose in 2008 so Hillary could run again for president in 2012.
In an almost textbook example of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, John McCain has managed to transform the political landscape in less than five weeks into one that no longer favors his candidacy, but may actually be preparing the way for an Obama presidency. …
Unless McCain has dramatically changed his losing ways in that debate, the only real hope he has now is that enough Republicans and Conservatives want Sarah Palin to remain on the national scene so they can carry him over the finish line in November. It’s a hell of a way to run a campaign.
Just read the Looney Liberal – classic / excellant. Takeit to the streets into the studios. Drive the truth deep but do it eye to eye, toe to toe. Good stuff
Dale: Thanks. There are about a dozen chapters in all, plus two post scripts. Just follow the link under my name in the author's section.
Many hours in dynamic interaction with serious opposition and long hours with kooks – the dumb and illogical. I know of those who have debated and interacted with ACLU – they have not entered my realm and I have no occassion to enter theirs.
The 60's were intense. Running into Anarhcists, Nihilists,Marxists,Communists,Establishmentarians, Antiestablismentarians, Radicals of all sorts, Mainstreamors, Fabians, Rationalists, Existentialists was a common expereince for some of us who have an interest in speaking Truth both in Universals and in Moral Absolutes.
The impact we had and are still having is profound. Life change stories and the legacy they are leaving at the highest levels in our country and in the man in the street levels are stunning.
The opposition was more overtly intense. Rocks, tomatos, threats, beatings, intimidation, theft of personal possessions all in the guise of "you are a Christian and we are teaching you to turn the other cheek and to be humble."
The same belligerant spirit is in those opposed to truth but it is only more velvetized (if I tell you where this concept comes from, the "thought police" will fine me for being racist.
Same logic as before was presented to an advocate of abortion for medical, social and family harmony reasons. Over a period of 4 years I waited to go for the jugular. When on a trip "From Here to There" I waged war for the mind and spirit of the advocate. A profoundly moving event of profound proportions. My efforts were effective in stopping the carnage, slowly but effectively.
When you call a man into the steet make sure your 'pistola' actually is loaded and works. As Doc did during the days of true gun fights. Don't focus on the duster when the man you face down slaps leather. Focus on his eyes and aim for the center of mass.
PS – Earp was in 41 gun fights – accord'g to legend – and never suffered a wound. Many were faster but his commitment was to (almost hate to say it)shoot to kill, not demonstrate speed.
Phil,
While I will freely admit to having previously engaged in my own share of strategic political cross-dressing during primaries as well as in general elections, I believe that while you present a cogent argument on behalf of Democrat Party subscription based upon a strategy of "trajectory bending" the more ruthless of the two established parties, the practical outcome of such a strategy would be further atrophy of the Republican party. Your position therefore effectively becomes an argument in favor of at least temporary demise of the two-party system and/or one in favor of third party support which you have hitherto opposed and which you again oppose in this essay. Following your "Mugwumpesque" proposal could, moreover, ultimately further erode exercise of democratic principles by depriving current proponents from a distinct ideological philosophy a platform from which to launch organized opposition to the policies of the dominant party. Taking this view, yours becomes an argument on behalf of vacating the other side of the aisle and eventually becoming a one-party state. Considering that you have also argued in another essay on behalf of the radical reform measure of a new Constitutional Convention, how are we to imagine that any serious effort toward such a radical undertaking may be directed if not from organized political opposition? And if, in effect, the benches on the other side of the aisle were indeed to be emptied, then who, if not a new party, might stand on behalf of such a measure toward reform? Your logic is impeccable but the consequences of what you propose would be inconsistent with what I perceive as your final objectives.
michaelbp: If the Republicans get their act together, and stand for something, then I and others can come home. It depends on their actions, however, not mine. Until then, I have to go where the power is, because neither party today acts on principle. Power is all that is left.
Take care, Phil.
Phil:
What does a conservative do who is living in New York's 23rd congressional district?
http://frontpagemag.com/2009/10/19/an-acorn-friendly-big-labor-backing-tax-and-spend-radical-in-gop-clothing-by-michelle-malkin
Sedona:
As I understand it, the incumbent in NY didn’t go through a primary process. I’ve always maintained that primaries are where you take your philosophical stand, and if you lose, you close ranks in the general election.
This race in NY seems more like a case of the local party ramming something down the throats of the people. I could support either strategy here — voting for the independent who represents your actual philosophy, or trying to add to the Republican party’s numbers to create a majority. It’s a unique, one-off situation that is substantively different from routine, ordinary elections elsewhere in the country. [However, if the Republican-Democrat split was so close that the NY election was the key to regaining majority control of the House, I’d hold my nose and vote for the party, even if it meant re-electing the incumbent in that district. Then I’d use the next two years to lay the groundwork to challenge her in the 2012 primary.]
Contrast this with the governor’s race in NJ. The Republican and Independent candidates are threatening to siphon off enough votes from each other to re-elect Corzine. The independent candidate had an opportunity to make his case in the Republican primary. I don’t know the particulars, but if he ran and lost he should step aside and not allow Corzine to be re-elected. If he never ran in the Republican primary, he’s a coward who wouldn’t face the same voters he now wants to siphon away from their party’s candidate. Hoping that NJ ends up like the Buckley NY state senatorial race in 1970 is more of a wish than a strategy. Yes, the independent party conservative could theoretically win (just like I can theoretically win the lottery). But “not impossible” is not the same thing as “likely”, and this is no time to be handing the Dems an easy victory in an important state like New Jersey.