Log in
2012 May 22 |
 |
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2009/05/03/dont-let-your-enemies-define-you/
0
0
  |   40 comments

enemiesStarting with their devastating defeat in the 2006 elections and expanding after the 2008 election debacle, Republicans have been struggling to redefine their coalition for the 21st century. This sort of process is routine for parties in decline, and the Republican troubles are similar to those confronted by the Democratic Party after the 1980 and 1994 election defeats. The problems are the same in that both parties have had to struggle with disparate internal elements warring with each other for control of the party and pointing fingers of blame at each other for electoral failures.

But layered on top of the typical problems of a stint in the political wilderness, Republicans must confront a unique problem — their reconstruction must take place in an environment where their ideological and political enemies are completely and unaccountably empowered to define the terms of the conflict. Or, as Peggy Noonan puts it in a typically insightful column:

The argument over the Republican party now always devolves into the question: Should it be less conservative? I say devolves because it is Democrats and the left who frame the question that way, and they do so because whatever the answer, yes or no, it will damage Republicans.

The problem for Republicans is that staunchly anti-Republican liberals dominate the high ground in the media and blogosphere. As a result, all factions of Republicans are in a no-win situation. Social conservatives are anathema to media and blogging liberals, and the liberal hatred for the social conservatives is sufficient to render social conservatives persona non grata to the entire realm of debate in the environs that liberals control. Thus, to whatever degree social conservatives retain influence in the Republican Party, it is not possible for Republicans to receive a fair hearing.

On the surface, this would seem to empower the other Republican factions — fiscal conservatives and libertarians — with an opportunity to capture the party with the support of outside liberals. But a closer examination of the incentives and tactics of liberals shows the opposite to be true. For even as some of them will claim to desire a Republican revival under a more moderate banner, it is interesting to note how media and blogging liberals will eagerly take any opportunity to exaggerate the degree of social conservative influence and the complicity of Republican moderates, fiscal conservatives, and libertarians. In order to maintain their now-absolute political hegemony, those liberals that pretend to support a moderate Republican revival actually have very strong reasons to nip any such revival in the bud. For what better way to keep Republicans down permanently and Democrats empowered indefinitely than to keep all Republicans rhetorically linked with the hopelessly discredited social conservatives?

This insight is what may explain the continuing obsession of the liberal and faux moderate media and blogosphere with the defeated and completely disempowered social conservative wings of the Republican Party. The continuing obsession in segments of the blogosphere with the defeated Republican vice-presidential candidate is historically unprecedented and would be inexplicable except for the long-term utility with using Sarah Palin as a rhetorical bind that keeps Republicans from reforming into a more effective political force. And the startlingly shameless reversals in the liberal and faux moderate media and blogosphere on issues ranging from budgetary accountability to Senate filibusters to the virtues of bipartisan consultation would be difficult to explain if not for the possibility that those “principled” poses were and are quite simply a sham used to cover up hardball political manipulations.

One would think that absolute power for Democrats would mean no excuses, but that doesn’t seem to be the way it actually plays in the revenge-obsessed leftist and faux moderate media and blogosphere. One would think that absolute power for Democrats would mean no excuses, but that doesn’t seem to be the way it actually plays in the revenge-obsessed leftist and faux moderate media and blogosphere. Instead, they will find mild-sounding excuses for the exact same things they would breathlessly condemn just a few months ago. Again. And again. And again. Some liberals even fantasize openly about a permanent one-party state in the United States — a concept they would have breathlessly called “dictatorship” just a couple of years ago.

The real problem for Republicans, then, is trying to find a mechanism to circumvent their enemies evident willingness and ability to define them in terms that render the Republican Party permanently ineffective while at the same time evading any reciprocal accountability that might allow for Republican resurgence through the back door. Given the no-holds-barred ground rules that have been set by the current dominant players in the media and blogosphere, it will be difficult for the Republicans to mount an effective resistance. Quite simply, any resistance can be instantly distorted, misrepresented, and caricatured out of existence — if not by self-destructive ideological enforcers within the Republican Party itself, then by disingenuous liberals and faux moderates eager to justify an endless anti-Republican jihad that carries both political and emotional rewards for them.

It’s going to be an ugly next 4 years.

  1. Posted by Yo
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #92777 ›
    Yo This article clearly illustrates the primary reason the GOP is in its current state of disarray. Rather than take a critical look at itself and work on its shortcomings, the GOP and its supporters would rather waste energy looking for a 'boogeyman' they can use to distract everyone from the truth. (It's the liberal media's fault; no it's the gays; no it's the Mexicans; no wait, it's the Muslims.) No one has 'render(ed) the Republican Party permanently ineffective" except for the Republican party. Their insistence on instilling fear and hatred into their speech has not only been offensive to liberals, it has also alienated many within their own party. And no, the blogosphere is not obsessed with the former VP; rather HE is obsessed with trying to retain the mantle of a leader (which he never wore well). Further, I find it ironic that the author complains about hypocrisy from the Democrats...'(T)hey will find mild-sounding excuses for the exact same things they would breathlessly condemn just a few months ago. Again. And again. And again." The GOP decries Obama's policies and accuse him of being a socialist/marxist/fascist/communist (have I forgotten anything?) but somehow overlook the fact that Bush trampled the Constitution under the guise of 'national security'. And lets not forget Sen. Kyle's threat to filibuster anyone Obama nominates to the Supreme Court. Kyle, of course, has conveniently forgotten his previous stance on the subject: "My friends argue that Republicans may want to filibuster a future Democratic President’s nominees. To that I say, I don’t think so, and even if true, I’m willing to give up that tool. It was never a power we thought we had in the past, and it is not one likely to be used in the future. I know some insist that we will someday want to block Democrat judges by filibuster. But I know my colleagues. I have heard them speak passionately, publicly and privately, about the injustice done to filibustered nominees. I think it highly unlikely that they will shift their views simply because the political worm has turned." - Senator Jon Kyl, May 19, 2005, On the Right of the Senate to Govern Itself So although Democrats can be guilty of hypocrisy please don't ignore the fact that the GOP is guilty of the same behavior. The bottom line is that the GOP is hopelessly out of touch with the majority of Americans. Until they begin to understand and accept that their narrow view of the world is obsolete, they will remain irrelevant.
  2. Posted by Jason Arvak ›
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #92782 ›
    Jason Arvak Thank you for that comment, Yo, since it illustrates several of the things I was talking about: 1) Misrepresenting what the critic said in order to avoid dealing with the actual criticism made about liberals' behavior 2) Changing the subject to focus exclusively on Republicans in order to avoid actually discussing Democrats' behavior 3) Blaming the Republicans for everything that goes wrong even though they are not in power over anything at all 4) Claiming that Republicans' presumed sins justify Democrats' 5) Treating all Republicans as social conservatives without regard to the true diversity of Republican and other non-Democrat opinion 6) Assuming that anyone who criticizes Democrats must be a Republican at all and using that assumption to avoid actually discussing what they are saying -- since they are all "Republicans and their supporters", you don't even think they deserve a response at all 7) Dragging in tired written-by-others memes like "hate speech" without paying attention to what was actually written in the article you are responding to 8) Cut-and-paste regurgitation of talking points written by others (you can't even spell Sen. Kyl's name right except for the part that you cut-and-paste from someone else -- CLASSIC!) All in all, an excellent demonstration of the kind of dishonesty that has become the norm from liberals so obsessed with hating Republicans that they are incapable of talking about anything else at all. In the end, of course, your playbook is so predictable that I was able to see it coming in advance. I knew because I've seen the exact same tired word games played in hundreds of similar liberal commenters before you. You guys are like clones.
  3. Posted by meitene
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #92790 ›
    meitene It's hard to avoid painting Republicans with a broad brush, since they pride themselves on party unity. Insofar that this is sometimes unfair, it's a self-inflicted situation. They don't like to hear Limbaugh called a pary leader, but they invite the likes of him and Ann Coulter to major events. You don't see Michael Moore of Keith Oberman at many fundraisers. The latter, btw, criticizes Obama quite a bit - another difference! Democrats provide such a braod tent, with various factions constantly at odds with one another, that the unfairness of broad brush paining becomes much more evident. I think it is ironic that conservatives complain about being defined by their enemies, because it is they who have mastered the art of manipulaing language to define the opposition to a much more sophisticated level. Repib;icans are crying 'unfair' when their opposition is emulating thir own tactics. Democrats have openly bemoaned the fact that they lag in the art of 'messsaging'. In all of politics, there is quite a degree o hypocrisy involved. There is a fair amount of paranoia involved,too: a sense of being persecuted. Some of that is justified, since so much of politics is openly centered on trying to persecute the opposition. It is striking, though, that this sense of persecution seems to afflict conservatives, especially social conservatives, more than other groups. It is not surprising, though, when you consider that by definition, conservatives are abers to change of any kind. .When a conxervative has to receded to power sharing from a position of dominance, he finds that threatening, because it is, above all, a change in status. Most Democrats grumbled about Raagan but lived in a state of acceptance. I don't remember anyone screaiming that the end of America as we know it was upon us! But look at what is happening today, when a Democrat is in the WH! You'd think the end times were near, to hear the rhetoric of DC Republicans! A prime example is provided by Obama's ivitation to Rick Moran to speak at his Inauguration. Some somplained, but there were no mass demonstations. Now groups at Harvard are raising a ruckus because Obama is invited to speak at a Catholic University. Do they really think he would convert the graduates to his view on abortion by his mere appearance? That's paranoia - especially so, since many other pro-choicers have spoken at Harvard and have received honoraty degrees without visibly affecting the jumbers of congretants at mass. The mere existence of a divergent viewpoint seems to threaten social conservatives! When they react with such rage, then it's small wonder blowback heads their way. I would suggest these agitated folks practice a little tolerance and respect of others if they are so sensitive to criticism. When you start a boxing match, you are liable to get hit!
  4. Posted by Garland
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #92795 ›
    Garland "The argument over the Republican party now always devolves into the question: Should it be less conservative? I say devolves because it is Democrats and the left who frame the question that way, and they do so because whatever the answer, yes or no, it will damage Republicans." First reaction to previous democrat defeats from "the right": "America is a center-right nation", "Get rid of MoveOn.org", "extreme left-wingers like (random moderate left-wing blogger) have taken over" etc. The media has participated in this narrative to a degree. I'm not saying it is OK, I am saying that's usually how it goes. "The problem for Republicans is that staunchly anti-Republican liberals dominate the high ground in the media and blogosphere." It's not exactly like there's any cheating involved. I'm not saying "the left" has earned this perceived ("perceived" because the media is fickle, and the journalists don't edit and control the content) dominance on merit, I'm saying that "the right" simply needs to work harder, just like Obama had to work against common right-wing memes (that did propagate in the media as well) during the campaign. The GOP had eight years of a fickle media that turned from unquestioningly supportive to unquestioningly negative. They weren't complaining during the unquestioning support. "Social conservatives are anathema to media and blogging liberals, and the liberal hatred for the social conservatives is sufficient to render social conservatives persona non grata to the entire realm of debate in the environs that liberals control." Exchange the two factions you mentioned here and you will be just as accurate. "Thus, to whatever degree social conservatives retain influence in the Republican Party, it is not possible for Republicans to receive a fair hearing." The US is moving against social cons on all their issues. A beauty pageant contestant was shuffled away for wanting sexuality discrimination in the same sense that she would have been shuffled away if she claimed that it should not cross racial lines some 15 years ago. That's the latest example. I can see the media having a part, but I can also see the media reflecting the people's sentiments to a degree. Which it shouldn't, if you ask me. Still, not all of the heat comes from the media. "For even as some of them will claim to desire a Republican revival under a more moderate banner, it is interesting to note how media and blogging liberals will eagerly take any opportunity to exaggerate the degree of social conservative influence and the complicity of Republican moderates, fiscal conservatives, and libertarians." An extremely common depiction of "the left" from "the right". Not saying that makes it OK (criticism should be base on argumentation based on actual insight into the criticized entity), but I would like to point out that this is nothing new. I don't think "the left" should use this line of offense unless it is warranted. "The continuing obsession in segments of the blogosphere with the defeated Republican vice-presidential candidate is historically unprecedented" She is still appearing here and there, and she is still considered a sort of way forward among some conservatives. She likes attention, she has supporters who want her to get attention, and that is what she gets. "Some liberals even fantasize openly about a permanent one-party state in the United States — a concept they would have breathlessly called “dictatorship” just a couple of years ago." You just linked to *one* liberal, but that's OK, it's a given he has people who agree with him.
  5. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #92808 ›
    Doomed The problem Jason is that until the Democrats really screw the pooch its going to be very hard for the GOP to have a leg to stand on. However the worm will turn when he institutes the Cap and trade plan and the cell phone companies raise your cell phone bill by 20-30 bucks a month and the internet providers up your monthly bill. When the prices of all the toys the democrats are using right now to beat the GOP senseless suddenly become like gasoline then the GOP will have there opening. Until the democrats make that mistake that costs people something......then they have the power and Obama will continue to have 60 plus approval ratings. I have said repeatedly the cure for the GOP blues is 4 years of democratic rule. The question is will we survive a doubling of the debt in 4 years?
  6. Posted by Jason Arvak ›
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #92811 ›
    Jason Arvak Doomed, I am just not confident that even a major policy failure will produce a major shift, since the sycophants in the liberal and faux moderate media and blogosphere will just find ways to uncritically accept the DNC spin (i.e. blame it all on Bush and the Republicans, even months after they have lost all power) or to just do what they are trying to do here -- change the subject. We've already seen the easy success of such dishonest tactics. And as long as the major channels of information refuse to accurately channel information and remain willing to replace it with biased talking points cut-and-paste from the DNC, I don't see how an apathetic and cynical public will be able to navigate its way clear.
  7. Posted by Travis Johnson
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #92812 ›
    Travis Johnson Jason, You make some very good points. We're addressing many of them @ our website www.progressiverepublican.info. Hopefully you and some your readers will sign our Open Letter to Republicans.
  8. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #92813 ›
    Jay_C Everyone is partisan to some degree. Your worldview will not allow otherwise. In most cases, there are 2 sides to every story. However, the problem seems to be when it comes to REpublicans and democrats, is we get the "the other side does it, so it is OK for us to do it" argument, or the "they started the problem, we are just trying to fix it (I.E. big Government intervention and spending), while in the process doing the same thing, (big Government intervention and spending). I think the argument between parties needs to switch to where both parties compete and focus how to best (realistically) demonstrate how we can implement less Government intervention, and less spending, while not using the "easy out" arguments above as a crutch. I think, whoever can do that, will win. Most of the poeople I know, focus on who has the best common sense IDEAS, not who can best point fingers and blame, and complain and whine. THe latter set is all I am seeing these days, and why I really don't support either party at this point.
  9. Posted by Yo
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #92818 ›
    Yo Jason, I'll grant you that I misspelled Kyl's name - mea culpa. And if you are not a Republican, I apologize for making the assumption, but based on the tone of the article, it was an honest mistake. But what I don't concede is your point that I'm attacking all Republicans. Rather, my so-called attack is merely a statement of fact that is borne out by the current state of the national GOP. The extreme right wing of the party has dominated the GOP and the results have been disastrous for their cause. They shun any debate from within and have disdained those who might want to explore the possibility that there may be more than one side to an issue. And as to your comment that I close my eyes to Democrat's bad behavior - no, I don't. I acknowledge the fact that there are bad apples in the Democratic party; however, I don't blame the GOP for the Dems' problems. On the other hand, the GOP should buck up and take responsibility for its current state. And, by the way, the statement I included was made BY Kyl, not ABOUT Kyl.
  10. Michael van der Galien Travis, I'm not saying I oppose your entire letter or the entire sentiment you express in it (or the other signees) but I have to wonder about this part: "condemn in the strongest possible fashion the circumstances and actions of so-called “conservatives” who have driven Senator Arlen Specter and many of our best and brightest from our Party." Specter left not because he was pushed out, but because he was challenged by another Republican - a conservative this time - who thought he could do a better job and who believed that it was time for Specter to leave after being a Senator for almost three decades. Three.Decades. Don't you think that it is important for people to participate and to challenge sitting lawmakers every now and then? Should they be allowed to do whatever they want to do because they are 'Republicans'? Even when Republicans think it is time for that person to go because he has become too entrenched in Washington's culture of a favor-for-a-favor? I find it troubling that more moderate elements within the GOP are identifying themselves with a man who cares not about the party, nor about principles other than keeping his Senate seat no matter what.
  11. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #92836 ›
    Doomed You make your point well Yo and your Jon Kyl quote was a perfect example of the blatant hypocrisy being displayed by the current ‘leadership’ of the Republican Party. Unfortunately it seems the right side of the room has no desire to debate the issue. The dishonesty by both sides is rather saddening. Let me quote. Nay let me cut and paste. Pelosi's document, which she vows to honor if Democrats regain the majority, says: "Too often, incivility and the heavy hand of the majority" have silenced Democrats and choked off "thoughtful debate." She called on the majority to let the minority offer meaningful amendments and substitutes to important bills; to limit roll-call votes to the normal 15 minutes rather than keeping them open to round up needed votes; and to let all appointees to House-Senate conference committees participate in meetings and decisions. "When we are shut out, they are shutting out the great diversity of America," Pelosi said in an interview. "We want a return to civility; we want to set a higher standard." and what happened when Nancy Pelosi became speaker. The spirit of bipartisan cooperation didn't survive the first day of the 111th Congress as House Democrats pushed through a package of rule changes Tuesday that the furious Republican minority said trampled their traditional rights to affect legislation. The most contentious rule change places new restrictions on motions to "recommit" a bill for new amendments to the committee that approved it. In practice, that motion often meant a lengthy or even permanent delay in passing the measure. Motions to recommit would still be possible, but the new rules allow the full House to reconsider the bill almost instantaneously. conclusion. people simply believe what they want to believe when it comes to the truth in politics rather then what actually is...........
  12. Posted by Garland
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #92837 ›
    Garland The biggest problem is that no one wants to make the rules more lenient on the party in minority when you are in majority, but if you are willing to sacrifice something when you are in majority you will force your opponents to do the same when you are in the minority. In fact, you will not only gain in this hypothetical future, you will make the political sphere of things less combative and stable. Plus, it is seen as a sign of pretty basic good will that translates equally for all serious voices among politicians and voters - the party that tries to keep the stakes high or doesn't remember offerings by the other side will be seen as line and petty, and Americans really don't like banal meanness. Republicans in general sure indulged too much these past eight years, and several of them are still stuck in rote and self-satisfied thinking, but democrats can at least think on which republicans can talk sensibly and what can be offered. The GOP's behavior when offered a chance to influence the stimulus package was seriously disappointing, but democrats need to always think on how they can offer some reconciliation.
  13. Posted by Yo
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #92910 ›
    Yo The claim that Democrats are the only ones being critical of moderate Republicans and their ideas is simply not true. Social conservatives (aka the religious right) have made it impossible for moderates to have any voice in the GOP. When Michael Steele made the comment inferring that being gay was no more a 'choice' than being black, he was promptly chastised and was forced to backpedal on the issue. Why? Because he dared to stray from the party line. In response to Sen Specter's defection to the Democratic party, Sens Snowe and Collins have both blamed the GOP's far-right swing for his decision. Sen Snowe, while stating that she has no intention of leaving the GOP, did say, "I haven’t abandoned those principles that have been the essence of the Republican Party. I think the Republican Party has abandoned those principles.” Reasonable people are open to reasonable debate. For some Republicans, that means that they will have to recognize that dissent is healthy and should be welcome - even within their own ranks.
  14. Posted by Sapwolf
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #92913 ›
    Sapwolf Anybody, Dem or GOP who thinks that a one-party system for the USA of extreme right or extreme left is good for the country is nuts. As Obama and the Dems continue the hard pull to the left on a variety of issues, we get a flavor for what happens similar to LBJ and his congresses or FDR. Government will be extremely intrusive. This is what happens with one-party rule. Bush was not a conservative on overextending the military in Iraq (although correct to spend the money and time to finish the job hopefully during Obama's term), or in not fighting the growth of government spending/regulation. A strong military, but one that it used prudently along with the tenets of lower government spending and taxation, limited government, and the pushing of some social issues to the states if not addressed in the Constitution: These are very popular views in the America. We really have not tried more liberty. We seem to degenerate towards a nanny-state as that is human nature over time without constant maintainence to have self-reliance and a minimal amount of moral fiber. It will be interesting if the USA can pull out of the socialism we currently embrace once it fails. And it will fail. It always does throughout human history. "...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" This is conservatism in 7 words. It also is one of the rallying crys of the Tea Party grassroots movement.
  15. Posted by wilky
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #92916 ›
    wilky Amen Sapwolf. Every word of it. Amen In the secular sense, of course.
  16. Michael Merritt
    This is conservatism in 7 words.
    I prefer to call it a great goal in 7 words. These things are not ideologically based.
  17. Posted by Jason Arvak ›
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #92922 ›
    Jason Arvak Once again, Yo, your response is to evade all criticism of what Democrats are doing by changing the subject to focus exclusively on the hated social conservatives. Can you not see how mendacious this pattern is? The net effect is to say that all criticism of Democrats is disallowed by the Republicans' failures. That's very bad logic and very dangerous politics. You again are proving my point by your own behavior. It seems that Democrats are exempt from criticism because every single time anyone tries to criticize them for anything, the subject is immediately changed to focus back on criticizing social conservative Republicans. No deviations allowed. Well, we're not allowed to talk about that, because the subject is changed and only Republicans are allowable targets for any criticism. And round and round we go on the liberal merry-go-round while the country burns and Democratic hegemony reigns unchallenged, unexamined, and completely insulated for all accountability.
  18. Posted by Yo
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #92931 ›
    Yo Jason it appears that you are the one that continues to change the subject and resort to intolerance and name-calling (sycophants, idiots, clones). I have not claimed that Dems are innocent of bad behavior; it seems you hope that if you accuse me of it often enough it will somehow be true. Once again, I do acknowledge that Dems can and do make mistakes. You on the other hand don't seem to do the same about the GOP. No, Jason, YOU prove MY point. Conservatives (at least those of your ilk) seem to accept no responsibility for their standing in the nation; they just whine that everyone else is just picking on them. My only point is to say that the GOP must first look within for its failings before assigning blame to others. It's too bad that your blinders make you oblivious to reality. It's obvious that you don't want to debate, just to rant. Too bad.
  19. Posted by wilky
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #92958 ›
    wilky "I prefer to call it a great goal in 7 words. These things are not ideologically based" I would like to think so Michael. However, abortion does not equate to life. Laws that protect me from myself does not translate to liberty, and most liberals I know view the world thru the "glass is half empty" lens, to busy chasing the unfairness of it all to pursue happiness.
  20. Posted by CStanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #92959 ›
    CStanley What's interesting about your statement, Michael Merrit- that those ideas are not ideologically based, is that this dovetails with Wm F. Buckley's assertion that conservatism is not an ideology, it's a nonideology. It's liberalism that ideologically believes that these virtues or positive attributes of a free society can be imposed, while conservatism advocates that that's impossible and the best case is to limit government to allow those things to flourish. So, yes, the words in that phrase are nonideological- which means they are represented by conservative philosophy. :)
  21. Posted by Jason Arvak ›
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #92961 ›
    Jason Arvak
    I have not claimed that Dems are innocent of bad behavior
    No. You haven't claimed they were innocent. You have only refused to allow any sustained discussion about it and you instead instantly change the subject BACK to bashing Republicans any time a criticism is raised. And whether or not it is your intent, this has the practical effect of giving Democrats an unlimited pass on everything, as can be seen throughout the liberal and faux moderate media and blogosphere. That's my point -- I have observed this as a common pattern among many liberals and faux moderates -- so common, in fact, that it appears to be coordinated and intentional. As for your claim that I give Republicans a pass, that comment merely shows that you are ignorant of the many times I have criticized Republicans as well as the far right (not the same thing, in spite of tireless liberal and faux moderate efforts to conflate the two) for their excesses on many issues including gay marriage, immigration, and national security. Nice try at changing the subject AGAIN, but FAIL.
  22. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #92963 ›
    Doomed What has failed notice is that social liberals have taken over the party of the unions. The intolerant left that has shouted from the roof tops that all gop'ers who dare to spout religious beliefs as part of their party are to be marginalized because they are a threat to the lefts agenda. Thus the default debate is to villify the religious right as if somehow they are responsible for lower taxes, 10 trillion dollars in deficits and a war. But the radical left does not want to talk about these important issues. Instead they simply want to bulldoze their own party and make the debate about social issues. It is here that they thrive. Flourish and are able to paint the right as Religious zealots and bigots. The GOP has so failed in making its case and has continued to be painted the party of intolerance when in fact the left is equally dubious of that honor as well. Yet the party that railed against 500 billion dollar budget deficits has turned the debate about 1.7 trillion dollar budget deficits into the Religious right is evil and is destroying the GOP. Unless and until the GOP can focus on the message, ignore the lefts incessant social agenda and get back to being about Fiscal responsibility and social acceptance then the left wins. Over and over they win. Over and over the left gets to define the debate. Look in the mirror democrats. Your party has been hijacked as well.
  23. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #92965 ›
    Doomed It’s liberalism that ideologically believes that these virtues or positive attributes of a free society can be imposed, while conservatism advocates that that’s impossible and the best case is to limit government to allow those things to flourish. AND THIS....precisely is my philosophy. Limited government is going to allow for Gay marriage, abortion rights and religious tolerance because it is up to the people and not a political movement by either side to force their views. This I believe is and should be the GOP's message that somehow they got lost in the context of a neoconserative movement that actually advocated LARGER government. In short it really should be a government "OF the people". Not a government that represents HALF the people until they fall out of favor.
  24. Posted by Garland
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #92968 ›
    Garland "Limited government is going to allow for Gay marriage, abortion rights and religious tolerance because it is up to the people and not a political movement by either side to force their views." Yeah, and the people always have empathy and understanding for people who are different from them. I mean, it's not like women, homosexuals and people of different ethnicities have been discriminated socially and legally for millennia at the whims of the established, privileged, stupid or self-righteous. No, I'm sure that the minute government steps back social attitudes will improve or at least not degenerate.
  25. Posted by Jason Arvak ›
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #92969 ›
    Jason Arvak Your sarcasm noted, Garland, it does display an interesting contradiction at the heart of modern liberalism. On the one hand, whenever it is convenient, liberals love to pose as the champions of the people. They chant "the people, united, will never be defeated" at protest rallies and they wield populism as a sword in political combat day-in and day-out on economic issues. But as soon as the majority turns against them, the underlying elitist and authoritarian impulses you display here surface with a vengeance. Indeed, liberals seem to have contempt for the people they claim to adore and champion. They presume they are ignorant, intolerant, hateful, and in almost every way despicable moral inferiors who deserve only to be guided by the firm hand of liberal correctness of thought on all matters. Anyone who disagrees even in the tiniest degree is condemned in absolute terms and immediately excluded from the conservation. Then they turn around and call conservatives intolerant and hateful. As I've re-discovered from recent email exchanges with one of the most hateful liberals in the faux moderate blogosphere, it appears to be classic psychological projections under the self-deluding banner of "speaking truth to power" (or whatever new haughty and self-serving platitude appears on the protest signs in the desperately evasive post-Bush era of the leftist protest movements). Maybe instead of trying to use the force of government to change hearts and minds, you liberals should try the difficult but much more effective process of actually persuading people. Or are you all just too lazy and ignorant for that? I know that not all liberals are too lazy and ignorant for that, because groups of liberals in California are undertaking a mild-mannered public education and awareness program in support of gay marriage that promises to be FAR more effective than the demonization and violence that the anti-Mormon protesters used after Prop 8 was passed. Which variant are you going to choose to support, Garland? The classic liberals who use persuasion? Or the intellectually lazy new-left liberals who prefer demonization and coercion? Your pattern here indicates that you prefer the latter, but it also includes elements of hope that you might someday understand how self-defeating that is.
  26. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #92971 ›
    Doomed Garland. I am not nor did old school conservatives say the government needs to disappear and let the animals loose in the park. No one is saying the government does not have a role in ensuring equality and fairness. No one is saying the government should not be involved in regulation and ensuring fair working environments. But when is the government too much? When the deficit is 3 trillion? 4 trillion? 5 trillion a year? When is enough, too much. Government is already so large that it cant pay for itself.
  27. Posted by CStanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #92973 ›
    CStanley Maybe instead of trying to use the force of government to change hearts and minds, you liberals should try the difficult but much more effective process of actually persuading people. Hear, hear. And lately, it seems that many liberals are not only trying to use the force of government, but also the force of social acceptability- basically promoting the concept that some ideas are not worthy of tolerance and should not be debated against but instead shut down and shouted down. Andrew Klavan explains the strategy brilliantly here.
  28. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #92974 ›
    Doomed Do away with the military all together. Spend zero on the military. Pull out totally from Iraq and Afghanistan. We will still have a 1 trillion dollar deficit. When is enough too much. Big government is not the answer. Never has been. Never will be. The left likes to say that its all the rights fault cause they want to have big armies and big weapons to wave around. Fine. Blame it on the military but I give you the entire military budget. Get rid of the military. In addition to putting about 7-9 million people out of work and further reducing tax revenue it still puts us with humongous deficits. Its time to talk about the size of the government and smaller government conservatives have the right idea. You cannot sustain this amount of government forever. We will fail. We just will.
  29. Posted by Jason Arvak ›
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #92975 ›
    Jason Arvak
    Hear, hear. And lately, it seems that many liberals are not only trying to use the force of government, but also the force of social acceptability- basically promoting the concept that some ideas are not worthy of tolerance and should not be debated against but instead shut down and shouted down.
    Political theorists have long recognized various dimensions of power. Coercive power uses punishments and direct control, for example, while agenda-setting power uses the ability to limit what proposals even come forward. What you're referring to here is what is called "productive power" and it is the most pervasive and effectual kind of power. But to wield it effectively requires dominance of an underlying culture that is insulated against challenges to basic norms. Thus, liberals are most effective when they can link themselves to very broadly accepted social norms like "freedom" and "equality" OR (and this is the big new development) when they can use the dominance of media and educational institutions to provide a FALSE IMAGE of what the challenges to their hegemony actually represent. That fundamental dishonesty in the liberal and faux moderate media and blogosphere is what I want to critique (productive power can only be resisted by productive power -- that is one of the things that makes it so effective) and what the liberals and faux moderates desperately want to suppress discussion about by any means necessary (as can be seen on this very thread).
  30. Posted by Garland
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #92976 ›
    Garland "On the one hand, whenever it is convenient, liberals love to pose as the champions of the people. They chant “the people, united, will never be defeated” at protest rallies and they wield populism as a sword in political combat day-in and day-out on economic issues." What I think is crazy is that liberalism and conservatism seem to hold different people to different standards. Liberals (in general): Conservatives are nuts. The capital, the financially powerful and the capitalists will always accumulate problematic levels of arrogance and influence, always grabbing more power than necessary and harming society. "Extra" freedom, perks or aid distributed among workers, the incarcerated, unions etc. will never be a problem. Proles can handle everything on their own and powerful unions is never a problem. Drugs and other factors are concepts that can spread everywhere and even be facilitated without negative side-effects. Conservatives (in general): Liberals are nuts. Anyone can see that our vice versa position rocks. "But as soon as the majority turns against them, the underlying elitist and authoritarian impulses you display here surface with a vengeance." This is true for all political parties, not just liberals. Mark Steyn loved to tell democrats that they were an out-of-touch minority elite harming the "salt of the earth" with their nasty top-down utopian secularist dhimmi crazyness. Then, when voters gave democrats the majority in 2006 Steyn said those who voted democrat had forgotten about 9/11 and its impact. I'm not on the side of the "people", and I don't consider there to be a need to fight back against the capital on a class-size scale of things. For example, I consider many complaining voices from the black community to be hypocritical considering the strong homophobia they don't dare to attack as well. I think very little of the people in the west who complain about the politicians forgetting about them while not considering their own nihilism, antagonism towards diversity etc. I don't think "the people" are on my side, nor do I think they are stupid for turning away from my obviously superior solutions. I don't think societal flaws can be solved by the government, nor do I think they can be left alone. If misogyny or homophobia is common, politicians should take tax money from the people and somehow try and change their attitudes. Some progress in society needs an artificial push in the right direction. "They presume they are ignorant, intolerant, hateful, and in almost every way despicable moral inferiors who deserve only to be guided by the firm hand of liberal correctness of thought on all matters." Well, gay teens kill themselves three times as often. I do think that is a result of ignorance and intolerance. I do think that problem could be solved with some elitist liberal correctness of thought. "Maybe instead of trying to use the force of government to change hearts and minds, you liberals should try the difficult but much more effective process of actually persuading people." Some positions should not need persuasion to take hold. Said positions are not liberal but basic common sense. I don't support some general left-wing notion of what should be taught in schools, those attitudes that I think should be pushed on people are the ones I consider important to alleviate the suffering of those that don't get a voice of their own. "demonization and violence that the anti-Mormon protesters used after Prop 8 was passed." Examples of violence? Said mormons funded a divorce by plebiscite (an option that voters should never have had in the first place) in another state. They took a political stance against the freedoms of their fellow Americans, even though they well know that a lot of the discrimination gay people suffer comes from the fact that they are not legally recognized and are deligitimized by this. That's demonization. In Sweden we say that the one who makes the rules of the game doesn't get to complain. "Which variant are you going to choose to support, Garland? The classic liberals who use persuasion? Or the intellectually lazy new-left liberals who prefer demonization and coercion?" That depends on what the conflict with the zeitgeist of society is. Sometimes, but rarely, even bothering to persuade is a tacit validation of the dissenters' position that has dangerous implications.
  31. Posted by Jason Arvak ›
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #92983 ›
    Jason Arvak
    This is true for all political parties, not just liberals.
    That's not an excuse, Garland. Stop responding to all criticisms of liberals by changing the subject. "He hit Timmy" is not a valid excuse for you to hit Johnny even on a playground. Perhaps you need to realize that. (So does the rest of the liberal and faux moderate blogosphere.)
    Well, gay teens kill themselves three times as often. I do think that is a result of ignorance and intolerance. I do think that problem could be solved with some elitist liberal correctness of thought.
    Fine, let's assume that we agree that liberal thought regarding tolerance of homosexuality is superior. How do you get people to accept it? Using government power through court decisions or mandates or punitive "thought policing" programs serves only to further entrench anti-gay attitudes. Exaggerating or distorting the real anti-gay arguments serves only to make those who hold those positions feel that they are the victims instead of the victimizers. Demonizing them makes them thing it is proof that they are on God's side (or else they wouldn't be persecuted). In short, all the solutions that liberals usually prefer actually make the problem worse and succeed only in making the liberals feel morally superior. Doing the hard work of persuasion is the only effective route. Those who prefer to stereotype, distort, exaggerate, misrepresent, demonize, condone violence, and hate everyone who disagrees with them may succeed in dehumanizing their targets in their OWN minds and making themselves feel morally superior, but in the real world it serves only to make their adversaries stronger and making them appear to be arrogant, self-righteous, and completely disengaged. P.S. Apparently, among the many gaps in your knowledge which you have filled in by inaccurate presumptions is my view about Steyn's views.
  32. Posted by Tully
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #92984 ›
    Tully Jason giving ANYONE a pass? ROFLMAO.
  33. Posted by Yo
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #92988 ›
    Yo The title of the article was "Don't Let Your Enemies Define You" (BTW, characterizing the opposition as 'enemies' doesn't give the impression that one is sincere about initiating open dialogue). The basic focus seemed to be on the desire of the GOP to reinvent itself and stage a comeback from the wilderness. However, one point that was clearly stated in the article was the intent of the dishonest "liberal and faux moderate media and blogosphere" to keep the GOP from achieving its goals. My response has been directly and consistently related to the theme: The GOP must take a clear-eyed look at itself and decide what kind of party it wants to be and who it will welcome to its tent. With moderates turning away in droves, even a conservative like Joe Scarborough says that the GOP needs to "work on our temperament. We've got to be more like Reagan. We can't scare little kids and dogs". For the party's sake, I hope the GOP leadership is listening to him and others like him.
  34. Posted by Jason Arvak ›
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #92992 ›
    Jason Arvak
    The title of the article was “Don’t Let Your Enemies Define You” (BTW, characterizing the opposition as ‘enemies’ doesn’t give the impression that one is sincere about initiating open dialogue).
    Interesting criticism. Have you ever, even once, leveled a similar criticism to Democrats'/liberals' overheated characterizations of their Republican/conservative adversaries? Where were you when the leftist blogosphere was referring to "BusHitler" or screaming about a "dictatorship" every time a policy action they disagreed with was enacted? Where was your objection when "neocon" became an all-purpose label that permanently relieved the user of any and all burden of rejoinder? Didn't think so. Double standards -- that's my criticism leveled towards your side of the media/blogosphere.
    My response has been directly and consistently related to the theme: The GOP must take a clear-eyed look at itself and decide what kind of party it wants to be and who it will welcome to its tent.
    Sure. That is true. But what you hae persistently evaded by trying to change the subject is that EVEN WHEN Republicans try to do that, they are stymied by the dishonest mischaracterizations, misrepresentations, distortions, name-calling, and outright lies of liberals and faux moderates who gain personal satisfaction and political advantage by exaggerating the degree of social conservative dominance in the Republican Party and by short-circuiting all challenge to their hegemony by rendering all potential sources of opposition forever non-credible. Why won't you tolerate discussion of that aspect of the problem, Yo? Why must the discussion forever center ONLY on Republicans' flaws and NEVER on the Democrats' complicity in producing a toxic political environment where self-criticism is tantamount to surrender and attempts at reform are merely opening for the adversary to politically exploit and kick you while you are down? Until you stop trying to limit the scope of the discussion to ONLY criticizing Republicans, I will continue to view you as a demonstration of the aspect of the problem that this post was about.
  35. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #92995 ›
    Doomed This entire thread is why I continue to say that the GOP needs to take to the higher ground. They need to return to smaller government. Fiscal responsibility. They need to return to a time when they were not being defined but that they in turn were able to define themselves. I really have no problem with the Democrats doing to the GOP exactly what the GOP did to them ala the word liberal. Its actually funny to watch the GOP struggle and huff and puff and be pulled in a dozen different directions as a result. This is nothing more then the old addage "what goes around comes around." The GOP did it since Reagan and it finally fell out of power after the invasion of Iraq. Now its the conservatives. neocons. Its the Democrats trying to use Palin as a ditz and to link the GOP to Palin, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter and Ingram. Then for comedic relief they attack Michael Steele who is so confused as to be rendered inept. Not by his inability to articulate but by the clear lack of any message at all that has coherence put forth by anyone in the GOP. The GOP needs to get on board the same train. As it is now. They have all exited the station in 360 different directions and they are fair game and easy prey for their "Angry Mob" counterparts.
  36. Posted by Garland
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #93007 ›
    Garland "That’s not an excuse, Garland. Stop responding to all criticisms of liberals by changing the subject. “He hit Timmy” is not a valid excuse for you to hit Johnny even on a playground. Perhaps you need to realize that. (So does the rest of the liberal and faux moderate blogosphere.)" I'm not letting you pin problems on the donkey. I am willing to accept that "liberals do x, they suck", I am not willing to accept that "only liberals do x, and those liberals suck" when that is obviously false. I am not excusing anyone, I am just not letting anyone forget where the goalposts actually are. "Using government power through court decisions or mandates or punitive “thought policing” programs serves only to further entrench anti-gay attitudes." Who said anything about that? Common prejudice against left-wingers. Why not allow information in school regarding the humanity and genetic origin of homosexuality? Why not reveal how homosexuality hasn't been a big deal in previous functioning cultures? Why not treat different sexualities with the same respect we treat different ethnicities? Why not treat homophobia the way we treat racism? This was suggested in Britain. Whooops, here come the Tories who puke on this idea because the notion that children will be taught the truth horrifies them. Well, more gay teens laying down on the train tracks I guess. "Exaggerating or distorting the real anti-gay arguments serves only to make those who hold those positions feel that they are the victims instead of the victimizers." "Real anti-gay arguments". You must be flarking pooping me, dude. "Demonizing them makes them thing it is proof that they are on God’s side (or else they wouldn’t be persecuted)." Oh, so they can shield themselves from having to share their laws and their recognition by the law with gay people, they can shield their children from the fact that homosexuality is completely irrelevant, they can spread all manner of disgusting untruths about gays but somehow if the left just stops being so *mean* they may one day treat gays as 100 % human beings? They are knowingly perpetuating anti-gay sentiments in themselves and others (and most importantly their children) and their positions on marriage and civil unions is just a point on the agenda - they want to wield their religious views in society either because they feel it is good for society (misguided benevolence) or because they feel divinely entitled (get those people away from me). Leaving them alone will make things worse or not better, and gay people will pay the price for our deference to the "I'll sulk" argument. Forcing them to get married in the same church as, work with, serve in the military with and know the truth about outed gays will break apart their delusions, and spare gay people much suffering and humiliation. Knocking doesn't always work. Then you put your foot in the door. They'll complain at first, but all they have to do is have their fears and prejudices about gay people dispelled by having to treat them as actual co-citizens. How can you accustom yourself to people you insulate yourself from, whose particularity you are taught by your family, your friends and other aspects of your life? Segregation wasn'nt broken down by leaving it alone, you know. "Doing the hard work of persuasion is the only effective route." Their is no natural channel into the areas where homophobia and gender roles are rife, because it permeates most aspects of life there and gay people are kept legally and socially invisible, and the homophobia isn't challenged. You need to go to the schools. Provided those who have an emotional or political stake in the continuation of homophobia let you get in there and tell the truth. "P.S. Apparently, among the many gaps in your knowledge which you have filled in by inaccurate presumptions is my view about Steyn’s views." I was using him as an example. Where did I presume anything?
  37. Posted by Jason Arvak ›
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #93012 ›
    Jason Arvak
    I’m not letting you pin problems on the donkey. I am willing to accept that “liberals do x, they suck”, I am not willing to accept that “only liberals do x, and those liberals suck” when that is obviously false. I am not excusing anyone, I am just not letting anyone forget where the goalposts actually are.
    Please immediately provide the quotation where I say "only liberals do x" or else specifically acknowledge and retract your misrepresentation here, Garland. Your failure to respond with either documentation of your representation or a specific acknowledgment and retraction of your misrepresentation will result in my concluding that your dishonesty here was intentional.
    Knocking doesn’t always work. Then you put your foot in the door.
    Then you prosecute them, right? Your path leads to Stalinism, where all political dissent is deemed to be either evidence of insanity or a crime against the state.
    I was using him as an example. Where did I presume anything?
    As you often do, you erred in presuming that your selected "example" (in reality an extreme) is representative of all the people who DARE to disagree with you about anything in the world. Your inability to tolerate the existence of an opinion that differs from yours without concluding that the dissenter is wholly and actively evil may be representative of a large segment of the new left, but it is not representative of anything that can fairly be called a movement in favor of "tolerance" or "diversity".
  38. Posted by Garland
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #93016 ›
    Garland "Please immediately provide the quotation where I say “only liberals do x” or else specifically acknowledge and retract your misrepresentation here, Garland." I retract, because you didn't say "only": "On the one hand, whenever it is convenient, liberals love to pose as the champions of the people." You brought up a type of behavior, and I was willing to acknowledge it present in the people you described. In short, I think you were right to bring it up, and i think I was right to point out the non-exclusivity of the behavior. I wasn't trying to deflect the very sensible accusation you made, nor was I trying to excuse anything. "Then you prosecute them, right? Your path leads to Stalinism, where all political dissent is deemed to be either evidence of insanity or a crime against the state." This has to be eligible for some sort of award - now where have I said anything like this? I was talking in metaphors - in the same sense that not all attitudes and convictions will be dispelled by waiting them out (because the people who have them can keep themselves insulated from the truth) you sometimes need to change the goalposts on what the government can impose in schools and the like. That's how segregation was ended - a foot in the door. "As you often do, you erred in presuming that your selected “example” (in reality an extreme) is representative of all the people who DARE to disagree with you about anything in the world." One example should suffice, I think. He wasn't representative in the particular (because he is extreme), he was an example of the general partisan slight, and he was odious enough to be immediately recalled in the circumstances. "Your inability to tolerate the existence of an opinion that differs from yours without concluding that the dissenter is wholly and actively evil" Overreaching - You are erroneously reading into my comments to come to the conclusion that I am erroneously reading into others.
  39. Posted by Jason Arvak ›
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #93024 ›
    Jason Arvak
    I retract, because you didn’t say “only”:
    Since the word "only" was a necessary condition to make your subject change to talk about Republicans in any way relevant or responsive, please also retract those comments and take greater care in the future not to indulge in such diversions. If you do continue to indulge in subject-changing efforts after this incident, I will assume that it is intentional on your part and react accordingly.
  40. Posted by Garland
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #93026 ›
    Garland Understood, I retract it on the grounds that it was irrelevant.
1