Internal MO polls show Akin in statistical dead heat with McCaskill
Obviously, this being the most important election ever — so much so that we have to stop all our Hobbity “True Believer” nonsense and get behind the Romney Technocrat Express — the RNC is going to do everything it can to pick up this Senate seat in Missouri, yes? After all, we need all the seats we can get if we’re going to repeal ObamaCare. Right?
And this would seem to still be a winnable seat, correct?
So what’s it going to be? Do we really need to win, or is it only acceptable if we win with the right kinds of candidates — a position that, from my perspective, seems ascendant, particularly in light of the convention rules power grab, and John Boehner’s surreal refusal to acknowledge the minority report and the dissenting delegates who were literally jumping up and down in front of him?
Seems to me some of the most quickly OUTRAGED of the Akin critics may have had a different agenda than the rest of us. Either that, or there are a whole lot of useful idiots out there or our side.
Oh, and just to forestall the inevitable response that I’m some sort of Akin apologist, let me say it again: For me, this was never about Akin. It was about the swarming, thoughtless, PC groupthink that helped damage one of our Senate candidates far worse than he needed be damaged by some inelegant phrasing in a local interview. It’s about a willingness to declare a controversial assertion made in the context of an exchange dealing with very complicated ethical and moral issues with their roots in the question of when exactly life begins,”unacceptable,” rather than wrong on the science — particularly when that declaration of finality comes from people who are displeased at being called climate deniers. It’s about the kneejerk effort to shun and shame and disavow — to adopt anti-intellectualism as a show of intellectual sophistication.
This was, and for me always has been, about how a fear of mockery by serial relativists and anti-foundationalists posing as our moral and intellectual betters, even as they’ve adopted a worldview that necessarily ends in some sort of totalitarianism, has come to control the public reactions, and the public stances, of many on the right — almost always to the detriment of classical liberalism and the Enlightenment’s epistemological paradigm. Which are the bulwarks against “progressivism” and the tyranny it demands.
Our willingness to publicly scapegoat those who press uncomfortable issues, be it Derbyshire in a pointed rebuttal essay that touched on racial unpleasantries, Bill Bennett in a discussion on Freakanomics, or Akin, grasping for a way to navigate the political minefield that requires devoted pro-life politicians to justify themselves with respect to gotcha questions about babies conceived through rape, shows that we have surrendered much of the rhetorical playing field to the left, which is able to dictate what comes to constitute the legitimate — ahem — topics for public discussion. Or at the very least, compel us to speak of such things in such strained generalities that we can’t muster a clear or forceful argument.
Most disturbingly, at least to me, is that this capitulation is so ingrained, particularly on certain controversial subjects, that the left rarely has to push the issue these days. And that’s because those on our side don’t just have a tendency to self-censor, but now they will attack those on our side who don’t — just to get out ahead of the accusations and mockery they believe will be forthcoming, offered by those they know to be acting in bad faith, in order to save themselves some temporary political discomfort.
For a group of people who are always claiming an need to reclaim the country, they seem content to do so on the left’s terms and under the left’s rules. That to me represents a Pyrrhic victory. Unless, that is, politics has become just another team sport — and what matters are wins and not principles.
– Which might not be so bad, pragmatically-speaking, if we used one of those wins to push those principles, rather than consistently hiding them and tempering them in order to appeal to the “moderates and independents” who we insist will otherwise reject us. And we can’t win re-election if they reject us. So.
(thanks to geoffB and EBL)