Sarah Palin decries the Alinskyite tactics an organized GOP establishment has been using to clear the field for its preferred candidate, Mitt Romney, and the response from certain conservatives is to note that it is the TEA Party who profits most from the tactics of Alinsky — indeed, that it relies on them for its very political successes:
Rather than reject Alinsky’s rules for radicals, the Tea Party has adopted many of them in the spirit of fighting fire with fire. Tea Party leader Michael Patrick Leahy wrote a book about it called “Rules for Conservative Radicals,” which encouraged conservatives to “follow the tactics of Saul Alinsky, but apply the morals and ethics of Martin Luther King.” James O’Keefe was also inspired by Alinsky, particularly Rule 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” FreedomWorks, a Tea Party-affiliated group (although it’s based in D.C. and chaired by uber-Establishment figure Dick Armey), boasted in 2009 that “Rules for Radicals” was the first book given to every new employee. Conservative organizers were teaching activists about “Rules for Radicals” at training sessions throughout 2009 (see here, for example).
So it’s surprising to me to see Palin complaining about Alinsky tactics now. Having enthusiastically embraced these tactics back when their anger was directed at Obama, it’s not surprising to see Republicans pointing their new-found tactics at each other. A tool is a tool and there’s no denying that these folks want to win, whether they’re competing against Obama or competing against a fellow Republican.
Got that? The TEA Party, in an effort to fight the Alinksyite tactics of the organized left for whom Rules for Radicals is a Bible of sorts, began in earnest to intimately familiarize itself with the book so as to readily understand and identify the kinds of tactics being deployed against them. Further, at least one writer who identifies with the TEA Party counseled conservatives to borrow some of Alinsky’s tactics, provided they be filtered through “the morals and ethics of Martin Luther King” — a move that I’d submit fundamentally transforms them. To borrow a phrase. After all, Alinsky was instructing his followers in the ways of Machievellian opportunism, not Christian forgiveness.
Nonetheless, we’re now to find it “not suprising” that Republicans are “pointing their new-found tactics at each other” — Alinksy’s rules being a tool, and a tool being a tool being a tool — while simultaneously pretending to be surprised that Sarah Palin, a TEA Party favorite, would be so appalled (supposedly; perhaps this is just more TEA Party Alinksyism at play, the sneaky populist warriors!) by the use of Alinsky tactics against a Reaganite like Gingrich. Because it follows — at least, to this particular writer’s way of thinking — that once you learn Alinsky’s rules, and once you evince an honest desire to win, you will naturally follow the path of Machievellian opportunism, naturally begin using what you’ve learned to destroy those purportedly on your side.
But of course, none of this follows: having learned Alinsky’s rules in order to recognize and counter them does not mean it is therefore unsurprising that you’d be appalled that those tactics are being used against you by your own side; just as having learned Alinsky’s tactics as a way to defang them doesn’t commit you to adopting them as your Bible for activism.
No, what I find surprising is that we’re to believe Sarah Palin, who herself was smeared relentlessly by the left and their Alinsky playbook, has no business acting surprised by the GOP establishment’s use of Alinsky tactics against competitors in the GOP primary — and that the reason we’re supposed to believe this is that certain TEA Party activists have in other contexts spoken or written of learning Alinksky’s rules in order to take away their power.
Rules for Radicals doesn’t provide a mere tool set; it embodies a mindset — the coupling of a utilitarian “pragmatism” with ideological zealotry in order to produce a blueprint for winning at all costs that, by appealing to practicality, outwardly disguises that very ambition and power lust. Gingrich’s (and Perry’s) attacks on Romney’s private equity work at Bain brought them jeers not just from Romney Republicans but from conservatives, as well. And so the organized attacks on Gingrich — and there’s no doubt from where they’re coming — shouldn’t be brushed aside as somehow “not surprising” and therefore palatable.
Those on the right who would borrow Alinsky’s tools by coupling them with the kind of pragmatist mindset that gives those tools their real political utility, are those on the right who, while they happen to vote for Republicans, would from an ideological perspective be just as comfortable on the left. The constitutional conservatism embodied in the TEA Party movement does not allow for the situational suspension of core beliefs — and that is an impulse at the very heart of pragmatism, where the ends often justify the means, and where the ostensibly “practical” is elevated above the ideological as a way to justify strategic surrenders couched as necessary compromises.
(thanks to JHo)
Who? What? When did you guys vote on this?
Nobody ever tells me anything!
I saw this earlier today and thought the opening
demonstrated an astounding lack of self-awareness. Malor is talking about Palin being out of step with the TEA Party?
“Sarah Palin’s latest post taking the Establishment to task for using Alinsky tactics against Newt Gingrich is noteworthy for how out of step it feels with the rest of the Tea Party”
this Gabriel Malor thing doesn’t have much historical perspective. what happened to mr. newt in the 1990’s as speaker vis a vis demonrats and “ethic charges” is similar what happened to then gov. moosehunter and “ethics charges”. only the romneybots are taking the demonrats position.
It’s being reported that Herman Cain will endorse Newt
http://shark-tank.net/2012/01/28/breaking-news-herman-cain-to-endorse-newt-gingrich/
I liked and respected Cain a lot; I planned on voting for him in the primaries. But his endorsement doesn’t change my support for Santorum.
But I’m thinking Mittenz isn’t going to like this…
newt and the hermanator are buds no suprise
So, Newt has Herman and The Fred on his team. Legends.
Romney has Nikki Haley and Bob Dole. A newb and an oldster.
btw, I keep misspelling Romney as Romeny. Romany = Roma = Gypsy. Coincidence? I think not.
time to shift to 2010 mode. senate and reps primaries. the future is a statist at the top.
I love this comment I found on Prof. Jacobsen’s summary of where we stand at this point:
“This is no longer about quarrels between candidates or wounds being inflicted or “healing over time,” it’s about existential differences of political and national identity, and about generations of GOP betrayals which have brought us to this point and which will no longer be denied, ignored, forgotten or forgiven. “Critical mass” has arrived.
Romney is just a representation (if not him, someone else like him) — of power and a presumption to power whose purpose is only in the gaining and keeping of power. This “power” has allowed our collective ship to drift outside the currents of the Constitution, and it clutches the rudder with a death grip.
I don’t know what will happen in Florida, but what Romney has done in the past few months (truly the only “inevitable” thing about Romney was that he would do this) has set in motion something historic. Nothing will be the same. The GOP chose Romney and he’s their destiny.” -Commenter “raven”
Really. I did the suspend disbelief thing with Sara because she’s engaging. I fought with my friends and neighbors about her qualifications for the job and puffed up her performances and answers and played along that she was a victim of staging.
Enough. She was a disaster as a candidate and she chose not to run but to sit back, pontificate in a snarky and ineffective manner and use the good will of people like you. Really. You know the difference.
Let’s consign her to the footnotes of history that includes Dan “Potatoe” Quayle. No, no. He’s wonderfully bright and highly educated.
Let me also add, Obama is a fraud. He’s not smart and he’s anything but a wonderful public speaker.
Go peddle it elsewhere.
You’re a leftist’s dream conservative: you are ready to toss out those they destroy as damaged goods, and in so doing insure that the next movement conservative who comes along whose populist appear they fear (Palin at one point had an 80% approval rate) will likewise be destroyed in the same manner.
Then you’ll sniff, tell us s/he’s damaged goods that at one time you were willing to defend (even though you secretly knew all along s/he would be a disaster as a candidate), and that we need to move on.
Meanwhile, Romney. And Newt.
So. Who is it you’re backing? I mean, so long as you’re giving advice on when it’s best to avoid getting an out-of-fashion conservative’s stink on us?
“Let’s consign her to the footnotes of history that includes Dan “Potatoe” Quayle. No, no. He’s wonderfully bright and highly educated.”
mr. dan was a billy crystal protege and ghwb establishments’ pick. so take you mittens eff yourself.
there was some intentionalism in that “you/your”
I’m with you, Bob.
The media is now telling us it’s a two man race b/w Newt and Mitt. It isn’t, so long as we don’t allow it to be. In FL over 150K people voted before that last debate, in which Santorum really flashed and Newt floundered. So those results will be unfortunately a bit skewed, I think.
Rumors started circulating that Santorum was going to drop out — which rumors Santorum’s campaign say they traced to the White House.
All the left has to go after Santorum on is his “intolerance,” and that’s a card they’ve played into a joke. They know it, too. And because Santorum is willing to sit and debate those issues makes it very difficult to depict him in a cartoonish way, once people start paying attention to his actual answers.
As I’ve said, I’d vote for Newt. But I’m pulling hard for Santorum. And if it’s Romney, I’ll work with Bachmann on turning the Senate. But Mitt and his machine haven’t earned my vote — and the people who vote for Obama are who is going to re-elect him, not me. I’m just not voting for Romney — the erstwhile “moderate Republican” “independent” “progressive” who designed the top-down state-run health care system borrowed by Obama.
Sarah Palin is right as rain which is really very right indeed I wish the Santorum would’ve dropped out though so at least we could’ve stopped Wall Street Romney
more broadly this has been a primary about dick, while our pathetic little country twists in the wind
Santorum is the best of the bunch. Even if you think he wants to stone the gays and force you to watch G-rated TV shows.
By the way: I keep reading about Romney’s “superb debate performance” on Thursday. And yet I watched the debate, and he looked petty — then got ass raped over RomneyCare and TARP by Santorum.
I’m starting to think that most Republicans care more about who they’ve been told can win than they do about the principles their “team” is supposed to espouse and champion. It’s sad.
For them. Me, I no longer consider myself Republican. The Republican party left me.
well I’m certainly not one to reach for the e word at this late date so I’ll just say I can vote for Santorum more readily than I could Wall Street Romney
Romney is a loathsome cowardly whore nonpareil and Jesus fuck this is the second time in a row Team R has said hey you guys let’s all vote for a whorish coward
I’m just not fucking amused is what I am not
“force you to watch G-rated TV shows”
its worst than that: church on sundays!!11!!
and I just don’t have anything nice to say I’m sick and I’m a go get cozy shack products
romneyism is kinda of a cult or a curse
Feel better happy. Puddings are good for the sickness.
I’ve argued this as well. My fear is because of the fact that close to 50% of the American public receives some sort of government bennies, all Obama has to do to lock the 2012 election is to give his “Vote for me or the free [stuff] stops” speech right before the election.
Consequently, the GOP would be far better served by focusing their resources on House, Senate and state gubernatorial elections instead, where they may have more success…
One thing left to say is to raise the question whether, in the days just after the Nov. 2012 election, a new party, intended to represent the currently unrepresented conservative Americans and those who would ally with them to fight for the country of our heritage, and against the Democrats and Republicans who would so easily destroy that heritage, ought to be formed? And if to be formed then, at that future time, the further question may be raised: ought not the planning for such a party to begin sooner?
FWIW,
I sent in my ballot for Santorum. I did consider Newt, mostly to counter the Establicans efforts (which were quite effective w/ Herman Cain as well) but in the end Santorums ideals were more in line with mine and I have a little more faith that he’d be consistently conservative as President.
“where they may have more success…”
well the”newtrickron” delegates might have a say at the convention: so there’s that. pipe dreams.
I think it has begun, sdferr. And I think if we get Romney as the nominee and he loses the general, the mothballed, footnoted Sarah Palin is going to play a large part in the formation of that new Party — or at least, a major shake-up within the GOP hierarchy.
For my own part, I am forever done with the Republicans. They simply have refused to represent me. These creatures, these parties, are ours, no less than the nation is ours, and it is up to us to make them.
ot
why can’t the keystone pipeline be built up to the canadian border but not cross it? seems we’ve been sold a bill of solyndra. the “state dept.” does interstate commerce now?
sdferr,
Another good reason to vote for Santorum (in my estimation). If a break must occur I’d like it to be FOR something (original principles to be specific) rather than an anarchist movement that a third place (or heaven-forbid second place) Paul result might inspire.
29 was for 23 (if it wasn’t clear)
@26
Mitt Romney: “I don’t know why” Newt is angry enough to call him a liar
you don’t be no angry around the mittens no sir
link
There is nothing wrong with applying Alinski’s rules against the left as a counter measure. The problem is the Establishment GOP applying it against conservatives.
Now I have my doubts about Gingrich. There are a ton of things to attack him on. But why not try attacking Gingrich for things he did that were not conservative. And limit your attacks back on Romney on things he did that were not conservative. So the process is us pushing our candidates in the right direction.
As for the Alinski attacks, direct that fire at the left. Sadly I sometimes have a hard time telling the Establishment GOP from the left.
Danger, a break has already occurred: namely, first, the break of the Republican party with the good faith of people like you and I, and second, the break of the Republican party with anything nearly resembling a dedication to a plain, decent and faithful understanding of fundamental American political philosophy. It is not we who make the break. We merely react to it.
What that break was for, you and I can readily see. It was for power.
Now, as to our own purposes, or my purposes, so as not to put words in your mouth, I move for something indeed: for the good of the country; for the good for myself and my kin; for the good of my friends and neighbors; for the certainty of restriction our founding placed on the growth of government; for limits to arbitrary power, wielded by unscrupulous men who would make themselves tyrants over whatever and whoever they can obtain; for an end to injustice done to the good citizens of this nation, done at the hands of their own government. And for much else besides.
mittens: progg mole. harvard guy though no?
thank you
some person at amthink says we must confront the demonrat party. one stupid party at a time pal. also gold is a good deal don’t worry about the iceberg.
sdferr,
By break, I was thinking of the establishment of a third party.
Amen to the rest of your sermon though;-).
your welcome
“By break, I was thinking of the establishment of a third party.”
I know that Danger, but think it an awful rhetorical gift to your opponents.
Only reflect Danger, when Reagan was asked why he left the Democrat party, what was his answer? “I didn’t leave them. They left me.”
we should really shift now and support walker in 2012. this is the the election that matters. if soros sees no difference between mittens and baracky neither do I. on to wisconsin. let’s win there
That whole Jan Brewer Obama dust up may have been provoked by Obama: http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/01/27/so-thats-why-obama-picked-a-fight-with-jan-brewer/ Obama knows where to direct his fire. I cannot believe the only choices from the GOP to combat this are Mitt and Newt (it is like Santorum has already dropped out).
sdferr,
I’d justify it by stating: I prefered not be one of those good* men that sat idly while evil flourished. (Tough to beat Reagan though, and I gotta be me;-)
*not refering to Barack Obama good
Sarah Weighs In.
I recommend folks read the comments. They’re largely appalling, no matter which side of any given issue they take. Then, think what a relief it would be to not have to participate in such time wasting drivel, but to focus on true problems and honest solutions to them. Think how little you relish internecine squabbling, and how little good such crap does. Let the Republicans bury themselves with their moribund National Review characters, while the rest of us get on with the business of paying attention to our country. Things are not going to get better on their own.
There is nothing wrong with applying Alinsky’s rules against the left as a counter measure.
Really? Alinsky’s rules work only against people who have some degree of shame.
But the Left doesn’t have any. You can attempt to “make [them] live up to their own book of rules” until you’re blue in the face, but it won’t work, because they’ve long established that they don’t have any standards to live up to.
Furthermore, you can’t use Alinsky’s tactics without first possessing his mindset, as Jeff pointed out, and that mindset puts power ahead of truth (even denies that truth exists), which means you can include me out.
Alinsky was invested in the gamesmanship involved in overturning current power structures, not in restoring America to its Constitutional framework, for which he gave not a rip.
It’s one thing to know the tactics so that you can counter them; it’s another to use them yourself. Rule 13 is vile, regardless of who the target is, because it depends on lies and distortions.
If you can’t make your case without lying, you don’t have a case to make.
build the keystone to the border. transit oil across over the border via rail. n. dakota needs to shut down buffet/bnsf. eff these clowns.
there’s 2 parties: slavery or freedom.
http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/01/herman-cain-endorses-newt-gingrichand.html Yes you are right.
I beleive the 3rd party must be a very broad tent indeed. It will have to pull from all sources and turn away no comers for disagreements over style, or disagreements over other opinions, not party to the sort of limited coalition of the willing.
Anyone who recognizes government and the entrenched interests and privledged powers that are the problem, and will fight to reform them.
To that end I think Federalism is the answer. Our factions are many and fracturous, and we can be divided and conquered by a unified front amongst the establishment. We must agree to disagree, and stand together on the principle of leaving each other alone.
Very right at #46 Di. The rules themselves, regardless of who is wielding them against whom, are antithetical to a system of government that requires a tiny little bit of boy scout in every citizen. The Progs have been very effective at developing the People’s Ridicule Brigade and using it to destroy our Conservative possibles. Is there any counter to Rule 5 other than Rule 5? For the low info voters that decide elections.
I don’t know the Leahy book Malor is talking about. I started the Kahane book and chose not to finish it when it went from descriptive to prescriptive. I just think it’s too much like taking up the One Ring and thinking you can use it to do good.
The important point, understated a usual —because Jeff is just too shy and retiring to thump his chest and shout behold the awesome power of my superior intellect!— is that in adopting alinskyite tactics what we have here is yet another example of some on the right accepting the linguistic and epistemological premises of the left and embracing them as their own. Somebody tell me, how do you do that without becoming part and parcel of the problem yourself?
Different people mean different things by invoking “alinsky”. To the extent I think there are some uses for it against the left themselves….
Alinsky was invested in the gamesmanship involved in overturning current power structures, not in restoring America to its Constitutional framework, for which he gave not a rip.
Yes, and we no longer live in a Constitutional framework. The problem at hand is we must overturn the current Statist power structures and perverse-incentive Institutions.
To that end, intellectually and morally bankrupting them by parading their hypocrisy in front of the public is fair game.
I think most of the ‘rules for radical conservatives’ teaparty types would call that ‘alinsky tactics’.
I don’t know the Leahy book Malor is talking about. I started the Kahane book and chose not to finish it when it went from descriptive to prescriptive. I just think it’s too much like taking up the One Ring and thinking you can use it to do good.
Maybe, maybe. But when an animal is backed into a corner, when the battle is existential, the ‘rules of warfare’ always go out the window. Any man may do whatever he may have to to survive, and can’t be faulted too much, as such is average.
If we do not take out the bastards who are killing us before they kill us, it doesn’t really matter what sort of tactics we lost with, or how gracious and dignified was our concession speech. It’s still our death.
I should say that my attitude toward Alinskyism is pretty much, perhaps, the exact same as my attitude toward force and violence.
It is sometimes justified. A pacifist I never was.
And if we go all war to the knife, the knife to the hilt, the bastards who will be killing us will be “our” bastards, when they stab us in the back.
I’m all in favor of saying “I know what your doing and it won’t work because I won’t be intimidated or shamed by the likes of you.” But I fear that if we start acting like the people who seek to supplant the Constitution with something more to their liking, “because we no longer live in a Constitutional framework” anyways, we’re going to have that much harder of a time getting back to that framework.
And if indeed the struggle is existential, that’s when it’s most important to hold on to the “rules,” or better still, the principles and virtues that make existing both meaningful and worthwhile.
A pacifist I never was.
Neither am I. Nor am I an animal backed into a corner with nothing to lose but it’s life.
There’s something to be said for projecting a “cornered animal” attitude though, even if you don’t mean to behave exactly like one. I believe I’ve avoided a passel of fights simply by looking the other guy in the eye and making him think I didn’t care what happened afterward.
The surest way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory — after the venerable “don’t fight like you mean it,” of course — is to let the enemy realize he’s cornered and really does have nothing to lose.
I daresay that will prove to be the statists’ fatal mistake.
What I’m trying to drive at (more like blundering towards) is that I’m very uncomfortable with treading down the path in the direction of the ends justify the means. It’s a self-defeating path that ends in self-negation.
@#43 Brewer,
Here is the AP video which starts with a good view then cuts to an obstructed one for the interesting part plus it is only 1:15 long when this video, the obstructed one shows a much longer meeting took place.
Rick Santorum’s daughter admitted to hospital .
Tools like Malor don the mantle of acceptable conservatism in order to label the TEA Party’s neostructural ethics radical … in the Alinskyite mold? Huh?
I mean: The Founders were radicals. We know this. In other words, Malor’s using the word radical correctly, but has utterly upended the formulative cause that built this nation — he labels the TEA Party radical today to what was certainly a radical origin then! No, it’s in complete harmony with structural ethics and principles, Gabe. It is anything but radical to itself.
So dumb.
Malor:
It’s not surprising to me to see Malor surprised by his own gross fallacy.
This is staggering stuff, not because Malor (who’s consistently wrong on everything from fiat money to this — PAULTARD ALERT!) has such a far-reaching voice, which he does not, but because he represents so many other “conservative” voices. The comments thread following this piece leaned about ten to one in favor of this obvious abuse of reason.
JG:
Exactly. Malor is the Alinskyite. By his lights The Establishment shall stand and American neostructuralists — as a matter of the nation’s survival — would have been radicals in the late 18th Century but today by an identical definition are radicals to that Establishment. This time King George shall not be questioned. By radicals. Alinskyites.
At which point Malor shall warn us all of the perils of the radicalism of a contemporary American neostructuralism informed by 18th Century American principles. Left is right. Alec Baldwin as Paul Revere.
What’s left to say indeed, when They have done the speaking for us all? Including such a clear violation of reason.
RADICALS!
“It’s a self-defeating path that ends in self-negation.”
But self-negation is exactly what may be required. The Founders understood that; that’s what lay behind “our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.’ They were willing to take the chance on giving up their mostly comfortable lives, literally and figuratively, and be known to posterity as rebels and traitors, not Founders, to give themselves and their descendants something that was worth more than themselves.
And as to means: Dipping people in smoking hot tar, vandalizing their shops and homes, theft, even murder; these were the means they used. They were fighting a war, not conducting a debate, because their foes weren’t interested in having one.
It was only their ends, what they were fighting for, that let them have a different outcome than the French Revolution. Were they defeated by the means they used? or sustained by the ends they fought for?
Rules for Radicals doesn’t provide a mere tool set; it embodies a mindset — the coupling of a utilitarian “pragmatism” with ideological zealotry in order to produce a blueprint for winning at all costs that, by appealing to practicality, outwardly disguises that very ambition and power lust.
Could the same be said about Machiavelli and Sun Tzu?
I mean: The Founders were radicals. We know this.
Edmund Burke’s ghost is banging his head against a wall somewhere.
Di : “Really? Alinsky’s rules work only against people who have some degree of shame.”
True, but as is mentioned at your link to the previous PW post, will it not work on the voters who vote for Dems?
I know it won’t work on the Dem pols, party leaders, MSM, pundits, Hollywood lefties, etc etc; but won’t it work on some of the Dem/moderate voters? Because if it does not at least work on them, then it’s game over. It won’t matter if we take back the Repub party or form a third party or have zombie Reagan as our standard bearer. If the Dem voters can’t be ashamed of the Dem pols, then the only thing left is total collapse and rebuilding (if rebuilding is possible.)
Physical self-negation is one thing. Destroying the Constitution in order to save the Constitution is something else entirely.
What I’m saying is I’m prepared to risk an extended stay in one of Obama’s Ministry of Love operated mental health spas so I can be forcibly restored to sanity.
What I’m not is prepared to join Ann Coulter in thinking that the cure for Obama is a Republican fluent in leftist tropes who (so we’re led to believe) is privately far more conservative or classically liberal in his beliefs and will govern accordingly.
My point is the Constitution is basically irrelevant to the situation. It is not that it is wrong, or to be changed, but that in this task it is simply inapplicable. The constitution is a document outlying how a republic that no longer exists should be governered, not a document outlying the methodology of an insurgent movement toppling of tyranous entrenched power structures present in the 21st century. We should return to it, however it offers us no remedy to repealing the New King George save throwing it away altogether and instigating the bloody insurrection and overthrow that first prompted the Articles of Confederacy.
To say we must simply follow the constitution would be to reject incrementalism and to embrace the Ron Paul model wholeheartedly. We would then simply declare 4/5ths of the government illegal.
As radical as I am I do not see that as remotely possible.
Any slightly-less-unconstitutional law we might enact on the road back would still be unconstitutional. It was never a suicide pact, and I think it is wrong to pretend we are operating constitutionally when the whole government is very clearly anything but.
That doesn’t mean we throw the thing out and do whatever we want, nominate a foreign national for 8 consecutive terms because he ‘gets tea party reforms done’.
It is to say though that we have to acknowledge the fact of how fundementally compromised we are.
Neostructuralism?
Case in point.
Federal involvement in semi-privatized personal retirement accounts would represent a tremendous movement away from the Social State government model of Social Security, however, it would still be unconstitutional, and advocating for it is advocating for the unconstitutional, but it also arguably advocating for something less unconstitutional and more in keeping with the ‘spirit’ of it.
Likewise, any federal action toward school choice vouchers would directly assault the statist Public Schooling system that does so much to damage our liberty and assault our reason, however of course it would also be unconstitutional. The federal government has no business dicking with the subject at all.
As an adjective:
1. of or going to the root or origin; fundamental: a radical difference.
2. thoroughgoing or extreme, especially as regards change from accepted or traditional forms: a radical change in the policy of a company.
3. favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms: radical ideas; radical and anarchistic ideologues.
4. forming a basis or foundation.
A noun:
9. a person who holds or follows strong convictions or extreme principles; extremist.
10. a person who advocates fundamental political, economic, and social reforms by direct and often uncompromising methods.
Vigorous opposition to the State was — and is again — radical. Not unlike JG’s “outlaw”.
metal health will drive you mad edmund
The reconstruction of founding American principles.
(JHo’s indelible, eternal mark on the linguistic world … except that it’s probably already been co-opted, and perhaps with predictable results.)
Thanks.
Thought maybe there was a Foucault or Derrida structuralist angle there that I couldn’t figure out.
I’m not that smart, bh, or that well read…
Heh, I’ve only heard of such structuralism myself, JHo. Never been so unlucky as to ever actually find it on a required reading list.
It was only their ends, what they were fighting for, that let them have a different outcome than the French Revolution. Were they defeated by the means they used? or sustained by the ends they fought for?
One reason the American revolution was different is that the tyrants lived across the ocean, not in our midst. Furthermore, a long tradition of self-rule had already been established, with legislative bodies and the English judiciary system residing in the colonies.
All we did was cut the umbilicus and roust the British authorities from our shores, but we didn’t destroy the legislatures and courts, because they were not corrupt. In France, all the institutions were corrupt, so when they brought them down, there was nothing for society to stand on, so it devolved quickly into chaos.
Were we to storm Washington and try to cleanse the courts and legislatures, we’d most likely end up like the French. The American Revolution results only from self-sufficient colonies ousting their masters, not people trying to purge filth from their midst.
Well, dicentra, then we are well and truly screwed, and we might as well get fitted for the chains. Now. Today.
Commenting on Jeff’s original post: You have to understand that Ace hates vagina-bearers much like happyfeet does. Also, Ace has expressed his earnest desire to be hired as a “new media consultant” by a campaign — something that will never happen unless he sucks up to the establishment.
Ace is, bluntly, a buddy fucker. He doesn’t give a rip about conservative values — hell, he can’t even express them, half the time — he cares about being on the right side of the money train.
who says vagina-bearers anyway they’re called women you big silly
#73: To quote the great British Conservative himself:
“Again and again, revert to your old principles—seek peace and ensue it; leave America, if she has taxable matter in her, to tax herself. I am not here going into the distinctions of rights, nor attempting to mark their boundaries. I do not enter into these metaphysical distinctions; I hate the very sound of them. Leave the Americans as they anciently stood, and these distinctions, born of our unhappy contest, will die along with it…. Be content to bind America by laws of trade; you have always done it…. Do not burthen them with taxes…. But if intemperately, unwisely, fatally, you sophisticate and poison the very source of government by urging subtle deductions, and consequences odious to those you govern, from the unlimited and illimitable nature of supreme sovereignty, you will teach them by these means to call that sovereignty itself in question…. If that sovereignty and their freedom cannot be reconciled, which will they take? They will cast your sovereignty in your face. No body of men will be argued into slavery. Sir, let the gentlemen on the other side…tell me, what one character of liberty the Americans have, and what one brand of slavery they are free from, if they are bound in their property and industry by all the restraints you can imagine on commerce, and at the same time are made pack-horses of every tax you choose to impose, without the least share in granting them. When they bear the burthens of unlimited monopoly, will you bring them to bear the burthens of unlimited revenue too? The Englishman in America will feel that this is slavery; that it is legal slavery, will be no compensation either to his feelings or to his understandings.”
I believe what Burke saw in America was England. Hence, we could be viewed as reformers which wasn’t so objectionable to his spirit as liberté and égalité — which is at least half wrong and what he properly viewed as improperly revolutionary.
Some of our founders didn’t necessarily want a break but rather wanted us to be treated and recognized as true members of the Commonwealth as compared to colonialists. That would make us reformers. Others were strong republicans (no constitutional monarchy for them) which again has a Western intellectual tradition. Which would be reformist again.
At what point do we classify taking pre-existing ideas with healthy pedigrees like English Common Law, republicanism, and natural rights and mixing them in a unique way until it’s revolutionary and radical?
Many of our founders thought that this was indeed revolutionary and radical. Surely the combination and form were. But, they all had precedence. One could always lay a claim to reformation.
That’s our similar circumstance now. To move back towards the good, back towards the virtuous would be revolutionary and radical by degree. It would also be reformative and common sense* by kind.
*There’s a reason Paine didn’t title it “The unself-evident truths of higher minds.”
Heh, I hadn’t noticed this before but that could actually be an acceptable Shorter Burke.
Okay, via email, sdferr gives us a nice bit of Strauss. Here:
“metal health will drive you mad edmund”
cough, cough
“metal health will drive you mad edmund”
cough, cough
Kevin Dubrow’s ghost smiles.
Meanwhile, Rudy Sarzo and Carlos Cavazo are doing the State Fair / Casino / Retro Revival burnout circut as members of Blue Oyster Cult and Ratt, respectively.
Ordinarily my egalitarianism would lead me to infer that Gabriel Malor is making a dishonest argument.
However Gabriel Malor is an idiot, so I do not think him, in this case, particularly insidious.
This…
…is spot-on. Crawford, thanks for the smile.
Looks like I’ll be scratching Sarah Palin’s name in parchment on Super Tuesday and again in November. That pretty much seems a lock at this junc-ture.
[…] or any challenger to the ruling elite, as we saw recently with Gabriel Malor’s remarkably strained suggestion that, if anyone is really guilty of adopting the tactics of the left (which is no big deal anyway; […]