— Though as I anticipated, it is (as of now) a soft and bloodless one.
Paul Ryan seems to get that. Responding to David Brooks — and, by proxy, to the rest of the establishment Republicans content to live within the faux binary of the current two-party competition for control of first eats at the taxpayer trough:
The issue is not whether we ought to “zero out the state” or whether “all government action is automatically dismissed as quasi-socialist.” The issue is rather more subtle and sophisticated than that. The real debate is about whether and how government ought to create the foundations for growth and prosperity, securing a safety net for those who need it most; about how government can act now to avert a catastrophe later.
The truth is that there are two stark, competing philosophies over this matter. I know better than most that the debate will at times be uncomfortable and unpleasant. In ordinary times, political debate concerns the means, not the ends, of government. But we do not live in ordinary times; we live in a time when the first principles of governing are on the table. Nor did we seek this debate; bipartisan failures of the past and our current leaders’ acceleration of their agenda have forced America to make this choice. So we cannot advance to the “day after tomorrow” until we decide today what kind of government we want our nation to have after tomorrow. And that is, right now, an open question.
This is a potentially clarifying moment for the US.
Sure, media filters applying progressive, big government spin will slow the impulse and blunt much of the early momentum of what the establishment is trying to term “anti-government” sentiment. But that’s no reason to accept the flawed (and unstated) premise from the GOP establishment that the best way forward is to continue to act within the constraints imposed upon civic and political discourse by the left. Progressives have made incremental changes to our various institutions — each one of those changes designed to move us away from the principles of classical liberalism and toward the tenets of progressive leftism, with its concentration on identity politics, epistemic contingency, and linguistic unmooring, all of which taken together leads to the deconstruction of the individual and the inversion of liberty into a federal soft-tyranny, a liberal fascism. It’s not that those rebelling are “anti-government”; it’s that they are pro-liberty, and they see the government as overreaching and out of control.
What GOP members are or are not “electable” or not is really up to those voting — not to pundits and pollsters operating without all the facts, or well in advance of any kind of potential groundswell. And frankly, electing GOP candidates who vote for conservative policy only (roughly) half the time anyway has the perverse effect of providing cover for a progressive policy agenda. As I noted in an interview with NPR during the 2008 GOP primaries, if we have to have a statist in the White House, I’d just as soon s/he wear a D — because then, when the progressive agenda so obviously and fully failed, voters would know going forward precisely who to blame.
Obama, in recent speeches, if fond of telling crowds that a vote against the Dems is a vote for a return to Bush-era policies. But what the Tea Party movement is saying is something else entirely: a vote for big government is a vote against the people, regardless of what party letter a candidate aligned with big government wears.
And now that even Karl Rove — long depicted by the left as an evil “ultra-rightwing conservative” is being denounced by those who are tired of politics as usual, the left’s most potent attack rhetoric is greatly diminished: by painting Bush and Rove and the “compassionate conservatism” and statism of the establishment GOP (and hell, even of “mavericks” like McCain) as “extremist” and “ultra-right wing,” the left gave itself no room to denounce the Tea Party movement in fresh political terms.
After all, Bush was Hitler, remember? And it’s hard to get more “extreme” than Hitler.
Keep the fight going. Vote for who you believe in, not who you think can win. We are at a crossroads in this country — a time of deciding on the ends of government, not the means.
If that end is to be individual liberty, equality of opportunity, and a government designed to protect your natural rights — not one designed to grant and deny rights based upon current fashion and ideological bullying — the choice on how to move forward is clear: refuse to give power to those who wish to lose more slowly simply because they claim to have your team’s interest at heart. They may or may not in theory.
In practice, however, they are creating a conservatism that continues to slide to the left — and that lays claim to the mantle solely by staying to the right of a “liberalism” that continues to drag the country more and more toward the leftist paradise of social democracy / Marxism.
(h/t sdferr)
“…the best way forward is to continue to act within the constraints imposed upon civic and political discourse by the left.”
Seems like this position has a great deal in common with the nation’s refusal to recognize that al Qaeda had declared war on it in 1996, preferring to skip along treating attacks as mere violations of law, as simple crimes, doesn’t it? What is it that makes for a dysfunctional mind of this sort?
It’s doesn’t take any hard work?
Bleeding out while laying on the ground, wondering how I got there surely won’t be hard work either, I guess. Plus bonus, it’ll have an otherwise unobtainable finality built right in!
: refuse to give power to those who wish to lose more slowly simply because they claim to have your team’s interest at heart. They may or may not in theory
This is EXACTLY the point in the war against the Islamists. These two battles are very similar. Again, I pimp my blog.
But, I totally agree. No more fucking Rhinos.
The NY Times editorial board thinks the future of our country hinges on defeating the radioactive hatey angry teabaggers in 2010.
[T]hey are creating a conservatism that continues to slide to the left — and that lays claim to the mantle solely by staying to the right of a “liberalism” that continues to drag the country more and more toward the leftist paradise of social democracy / Marxism.
Not much point in supporting a conservatism that seeks to “conserve” the New Deal concensus, is there?
The NY Times editorial board is right.
So do many in the GOP establishment.
It’s alright to advocate for the people, so long as you don’t have to, like, listen to the wretched things.
The answer for me is inertia.
How so?
I wonder if there is a lurch leftward that the NY Times would say is too far.
Sure wish we could find a way to get better people running. O’Donnell and Castle were pretty shitty choices, and by pretty shitty choices, I meaning steaming piles of oozing craptacular crappiness.
We can also see in the background of this (or any) political conflict the plain reasons that political thinkers find it necessary (and have from time immemorial) to pursue ontological (and in the modern times, epistemological) questions which may seem to innocent bystanders as rather far afield from the subject at hand.
They’re right that their true opponent is the Tea Party and the related sentiment in the country. On the other hand, they can quite comfortably coexist with the establishment GOP.
I could see how their future hinges on it, but I do not see how America’s future hinges on it.
Inertia it may be Ernst, I don’t know. Still, that would seem an odd reaction to someone swinging a baseball bat at one’s head, or pulling out a gun and pointing it at one’s chest.
It’s quite annoying to see the establishment “play it safe” argument used in each senate primary; It’s better to have a shot at winning the critical 1 seat majority with a RINO than it is to have genuine conservatives stand for election and lose. It takes such a narrow, short term view that success or failure of the anti-establishment revolution is dependent on this one election alone and if we can’t get majorities NOW, we’ve blown it.
This is only the first blow of many that will be required to beat back the state. If the tea party effect cannot survive until at least 2020, which will ideally give us a two term conservative president and control of both houses in order to roll back the worst excesses of the state, then Americans are not yet alerted enough to vote for their own survival. If the tea party fails to keep the momentum up for 2012 or 2014 then really, this “one shot” is just a tantrum and of no lasting significance.
What we need more than anything is to rip the heart out of the establishment GOP and over several election cycles, replace them with conservatives who will vote conservative. Either we win the long term or we lose the game. Making bad compromises with the weak links of our own side when we are just setting out sets a bad example and only serves to dilute the message by including RINO’s as “part of us”. They are not, they are the enemy. An enemy we need for the moment perhaps, but it is them who must be discarded at the earliest, not out principles.
I’m done with pragmatism. Every time I stop thinking about politics too carefully, I start to believe that we perhaps should look at the more “electable” candidates. Look where that got us. We don’t need any more statists with an R next to their name. Plus, those “swing” representatives end up with too much power when it comes time to count votes (and favors).
There’s a lot of housecleaning to do. We need to rid ourselves of any Republicans who are not passionate about fiscal responsibility and small government. That’s the only ideological purity test I’m interested in. Otherwise, there will not be two parties, but one.
Well, as we’d each like to see America’s future birthed from our own ideological mold, the nation’s future will be the inevitable manifestation of the victor of this battle.
I think you spelled “Satan incarnate” wrong.
What is left out of the narrative, is that those exciting candidates like Clatworthy and Ting, all part of the Castle crew, did almost as bad, in good years (2002), as in bad (1996), But this little
skirmish is Bull Run
Patrick Hoy sees little good in the defeat of the RINO in Delaware. Let him take heart in last year’s Massachussets race, where “the people’s seat” went to the Republican.
I don’t care if Constitutionalists / classical liberals / fiscal conservatives lose the next 10 elections — provided they stick to their principles. The media and the reality on the ground can only fool the electorate for so long — and a break in the action where conservatives are out of power takes away the left’s ability to lay blame at the feet of the right.
The GOP establishment has been playing that game too long: they are depicted as far right extremists, and take the heat for being so, when in fact they are more of the same, statists who happen to be a bit more prudish.
It serves our long-term interests as a country to make the choice very clear between the competing ideologies. We have the Constitution and the ideas this country was founded upon on our side. The left has nothing but promises countered by a world history littered with failed states, poverty, tyranny, and violence to point to as the end game of their “Utopia”.
sdferr, it’s somewhat analogous to the situation a lot of central Europeans of Jewish ancestry found themselves in during the 1930s. If you identify a problem as a problem, you have to deal with it, dealing with it means making changes you might rather not have to make; and even if you make those changes the problem might be bigger than you. Better to ignore it and hope it goes away by itself.
The go to guy on this problem isLee Harris, who coincidentally, also thinks it might be a a civil war.
That comment should be an update, Jeff G., or a new post.
Hoy assumes people like Castle would be the vote that stops Obama’s agenda. Bullshit. The guy is for cap-and-trade, eg.
If Obama’s agenda passes, let it do so without GOP cover. The country needs clarity. And if it takes a meltdown to finally open people’s eyes, so be it.
We need to rid ourselves of any Republicans who are not passionate about fiscal responsibility and small government. That’s the only ideological purity test I’m interested in. Otherwise, there will not be two parties, but one.
very nicely said Mr. cranky
I’ll make it a new post, cranky, so if people want to discuss it, they are welcome to.
Chrstine is an odd duck (let’s face it she is). Mike Castle is a DIABLO (which became completely evident after he lost and refused to endorse or even speak to O’Donnell and who is now hobnobing with Huff Puff). Okay, O’Donnell suggested Castle is a fagalla. Get over it Mike. She is a forty year old virgin, what does she know. Given that choice, I would prefer O’Donnell. I definitely prefer O’Donnell over anyone who is Harry Reid’s pet.
Win or lose, she is scaring the shit out of the establishment GOP (which is a good thing). Reagan reformed the GOP from the grassroots and I suspect the tea party could over time result reinvigorate the GOP. It needs it.
I would have preferred more choice than that. I would much rather have a Chris Christie than say a Rick Santorum. Christie has his flaws, for sure, but he is focused on the issue that matter right now: It’s The Spending Stupid! And Christie shows you do not have to elect a Mike Castle in the Northeast. You can do better.
BTW, I agree completely. We need clear choices in front of the electorate, the stark contrast of the statists who are currently running things from both sides, and the classical liberals who want the government to stay out of our way as much as possible.
The fact that this administration continues to try to blame Republicans is laughable on its face, and yet the MFM keeps reporting the same bullshit. I’d like to think more and more people are paying attention, and I hope they keep doing so.
Mr. cranky did you see the latest adventures of Sarah Palin fave John McCain?
Is endorsing simpering Meghan’s coward daddies the same as to be passionate about fiscal responsibility and small government? After giving this question much thought I have decided that no it is not sufficiently the same.
This is from an email I wrote in a discussion with sdferr and bh a while ago and seems to fit in here.
Our elections are a substitute for war so that politics is war by other means. The thing that wars can accomplish is to make a decision, decide a question that cannot be decided by other means but which cannot remain, refuses to remain, undecided. Our elections are designed to be revolutions/wars by non-lethal means. A way of making that undecided, decided, without a war because it is worse to have some questions left hanging than to decide them one way or the other.
I should say it is better for people, the people, not so for Parties or politicians. Just as military leaders do not wish for a war, they having the most to lose from a decision/war going badly so Parties and politicians wish to glide by the tough choices. They do so by maneuvering to have the choices presented be ones peripheral, Tweedledee debates Tweedledum on big-endien vs little-endien soft boiled eggs when we really want to decide fried or scrambled for breakfast.
We’ve got to protect our phoney baloney jobs here gentlemen!
Don’t let professor Kiteley hear you say that, geoffb. He’ll ask that I remove this comment because his name is now attached to your position.
I’m not going to get into it with you about Palin, happyfeet. I believe she supports McCain out of loyalty, and you believe otherwise (apparently). There is no way to reconcile that difference of opinion.
As far as McCain goes, to me he’s the old guy who was running with Palin, and the sooner he’s gone, the better. He’s a progressive in Republican clothing, and is at the top of my list of people who need to retire from public service and spend more time with family.
No one else bothered to run, Castle has the state so locked up, the Delaware gOP is his instrument,
Decisions seem to be to one thing that the whole of intellectualism is aimed at avoiding. Link from sdferr.
Hush, meya.
It is a situation strikingly the opposite of the 1860’s isn’t it, what with the leftist statists aiming at enslaving a population anew, rather than liberating a population long enslaved.
The correct answer, sdferr, was “hush, meya.”
No, Abe. sdferr does an excellent job of showing meya to be the twatwaffle we know her to be.
Indeed he did, JD. But dealing with that mendoucheous cuntbag in a serious manner has long been an act which Christine O’Donnell finds objectionable.
True dat
Hey, that’s not nice.
As usual, well said. The statists, particularly on the left given their media dominance, just don’t understand that. It’s not an R vs D thing. It’s a personal liberty vs personal security thing. That’s why I just love the thick juicy irony of any statist leftard invoking the “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” quote in regards to national defense. They’d give up every last liberty to assuage their idea of “fairness”.
Obs..infidel : ‘They’d give up every last liberty to assuage their idea of “fairness”.’
Yes, yes, they bow in homage to a word that is defined in any dictionary, but is impossible to apply to reality to the satisfaction of all. Of course, that’s why the leftist tries so hard to ‘show’ that they are so much smarter than hoi polloi they detest, so that they alone get to determine and what is and isn’t ‘fair’.
I am glad some in the GOP are finally taking down the inflated ego of Karl Rove.
Karl Rove brought about the Great Republican Rout of 2006 by his “big government conservatism” and his Hispandering Scamnesty. Look at the Polls and when they plumetted.
And frankly, had the Bushyrovies been serious about the Mexican borders back in 2000, we wouldn’t have had a popular vote loss, and several squeaker states that went for Gore wouldn’t have gone that way.
Why do I say this? Because Rove’s Hispandering and going on an ethnic snipe hunt for non-existent mythical Hispanic votes on the Immigration issue, cost him a lot of neglected Joe Lunchbucket votes, you know, the kind that liberal pollster Thomas Frank simpered about in his “What’s the matter with Kansas” book.
Rove WAS NOT a political genius.
As long as we have self-governance at work, moron, it will always be crisis time.
But, JHo, utopias are supposed to be easy! momeymen has a circus to go to and shouldn’t be worried about this icky stuff!
or moneymen…
#51 – I rather thought that a clever play on the name, m’self….
Sorry to go ballistic on meya but that kind of gratuitous noise just insults the proprietor, staff, and patrons.
Of course you will. That’s what leftists do.
The Union was the pro-enslavement side? Who knew? Is moneymen one of those “War of Northern Aggression” guys?
Spiny – “moneyman” is one of the 50 iterations of meya/RD. It is an imbecile. Objectively.
And in fairness, #54 has a point. Slavery has to be the “social justice” issue of all time, and the Republican Party was originally influenced by the then-new Leftist thinking (the Manifesto was 1854 IIRC, and the first volume of Capital wasn’t published unti 1867). One of Harry Turtledove’s alternate history series has Lincoln turning into an Ulyanoff-looking figure, and the idea isn’t unthinkable.
Then as now, Democrats supported slavery on the ground that n–s had to have somebody to help them cope. Whigs wanted to split the difference, be cooperative and conciliatory and all that. John McCain would’ve made a good Whig.
Regards,
Ric
Harry Turdledove has written some great alternate history stories, but his obvious admiration for the Soviets and Communism often overtakes his narratives.
Mike: Oh, sure. Not like Mack Reynolds, who was a true “we will bury you!” believer, but very much in the “Stalin was a genius with unfortunate perversions” camp.
Many of the stories are fun, and he’s a good researcher; most of what shows up in the stories is at least remotely plausible based on historical record. The Lincoln thing is one of those.
Regards,
Ric
Yeah, by all means, re-read what I wrote. Then think to yourself what I intended. Then ask yourself if the Tick is a trustworthy interpreter. Then think again about the Tick’s interpretation. It’ll come to you.
No, meya isn’t a trustworthy interpreter. In fact, he/she/it isn’t an “interpreter” at all, merely someone who’s good at finding cracks to jam Talking Points™ into.
Nevertheless, one of the major advantages of the “partial truth” form of lying is that if the respondent disagrees using a broad brush, the liar can cite the true fraction and divert the debate away from the lie. If you fail to fish the nugget of truth out of the pile of steaming horse s*t, and acknowledge it while calling out the lie, you lose. In case you haven’t noticed it, meya is quite good at fooling you into violating that requirement.
Regards,
Ric
You are so wise Ric. Teach me brother.
That partial-truth form of lying is included in the introductory courses at most law schools, Ric; and an elective in many of the soft-sciences cirricula.
Remember, it depends on what the meaning of “is” is…
My apologies to all of the honest attorneys amongst the commentariat, and no one tell my lovely wife I said what I did :)
Sorry, it is pretty exactly analogous to 1860: We have a choice on whether or not slavery will be allowed in America. Plantation, collective, what’s the diff, other than who’s being defined as the natural slaves? The only constant is that we still have Copperheads, and they still love slavery.
It is analogous to the original revolution. The proggs are incapable of stepping back from their own predjudices and see what is going on. Much like our British betters did in 1775.
Unlike the 1960s and 70s, The people now are the producing class. The people with the greatest stake in bringing back fiscal responsibility.
Pay very close attention, maya. What is going to happen in the next couple of election cycles is going to reverberate for a century.
“Slavery has to be the “social justice” issue of all time, and the Republican Party was originally influenced by the then-new Leftist thinking ”
I just gotta quibble a bit. Sorry.
It wasn’t particularly new, and it was Christian thinking.
No, sdferr, I don’t consider myself extraordinarily wise.
But dammit, you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are perfectly capable of the mental effort necessary to sort out that kind of BS. It drives me batsh*t to watch threads — here, of all places! — degenerate into bash-the-troll without you, or anyone else, ever analyzing the Talking Points™ to separate the grain of truth from the bushel of lies. That’s what the trolls are after. That’s why they keep coming back. They can go back to their moonbat buddies and say, “Look, the Talking Point™ works! Those idiots never made any attempt to counter it, just started flinging insults! We can use it elsewhere, too!”
You will never, never, ever get meya to admit being wrong. It won’t happen. He/she/it can’t, because he/she/it isn’t expressing an opinion, just reading from a script nicely cross-referenced for applicability when certain issues come up. What you can do is demonstrate the lie to other readers. That game is worth the candle, even when patience is needed to sort out the diversions — which meya has already programmed for him/her/it in the decision tree thought out by somebody smarter. Losing your temper and descending to insult doesn’t do that, and isn’t worth the wear on your fingertips from operating the keyboard.
Regards,
Ric
Ha, I’d thought you were going to be digging through shit, as you put it Ric, saving me the time-waste and the trouble. But thanks anyhow.
Losing your temper and descending to insult doesn’t do that, and isn’t worth the wear on your fingertips from operating the keyboard.
But sometimes it’s fun!
Jeff, you are so on the money with this post. We went through an attempted communist coup in Canada when we foolishly elected Trudeau. He changed my country and damned near destroyed it. We are still feeling the pain economically, socially and politically. The only difference between Trudeau and Obama is the informational environment that we enjoy today. In 1973 there was no internet and a complacent media that idolized Trudeau. Today, people like you can shed light on the goals and ambitions of the enemies of freedom and liberty through posts like this. There truly is a power to the people but only if you and others are vigilant in your efforts to shine the light of truth and reason on these statists pricks. Keep it up. You are winning.
[…] America is in a civil war Posted on September 17, 2010 by John Doe| Leave a comment Protein Wisdom nails it in this short, but must read piece entitled It is a civil war […]
Excellent post! Down with the RINOs and Marxists.
[…] America is in a civil war, Smash Mouth Politics links to It is a civil war at Protein Wisdom with these words. Don’t accept the false premise that a vote for Republicans […]
Goofball President…
by Irish Cicero Ran across this video over at the Daily Caller. Note the discrepancy between our president’s speech and the actual wording of the Declaration of Independence: The actual wording of this second sentence of the Declaration of Indep…
[…] And it turns out that those who refused to recognize all this early on — and who openly went to war against conservatives / classical liberals over such (rather obvious) observations, diminishing them as extremists or “purists” who were looking to “purge” the party of solid intellectual Republicans — however late to the party they are, are nonetheless now joining in the wave. […]