“It’s time to embrace ‘the vision thing’ and proselytize for conservative principles” [Darleen Click]
The most widely offered explanation for Mitt Romney’s defeat is that the Republican party is disproportionately composed of (usually “aging”) white males.
That is, alas, true.
But the real question is what Republicans should do with this truth. […]
The Democratic party and the Left generally have done a magnificent job in identifying conservative values as white-male values. One reason for their success is that they dominate virtually every lever of influence: the high schools and universities, television, newspapers, movies, pop culture, and everything else except talk radio. Another is that they really believe that conservative values are nothing more than white-male — especially aging-white-male — values. Remember, Leftism has its own trinity, the prism through which it perceives the world: race, gender, and class. In this case, the race is white; the gender is male; and the class is the rich.
As a result of this identification, there is no debate over whether whose values are right. The Left has successfully forestalled any such national discussion by simply reducing conservative values to the dying fulminations of a former ruling class. […]
This identification seems to be working. But it’s intellectually dishonest. Aging white males are as important to the Left as they are to the Right. […]
[T]he Left may come to regret its contempt for this particular group. Without aging white males, I doubt the New York Times would survive. How many young people, females, Hispanics, and blacks subscribe to the New York Times?
Obviously the issue for the Left isn’t aging white males; it is conservatives, whether they are young or old, white or nonwhite, male or female. If female aborigines were conservative, the Left would have a problem with female aborigines.
For conservatives, the issue is that for generations now, they have failed to make the case for their values. They haven’t even conveyed conservative values to many of their children. And when they have, the university has often succeeded in undoing what they’ve taught.
It’s alarming, and disheartening, to get into any conversation with an illiberal and have to backtrack to attempt to undo their historical assumptions that are wrong. For example, they have little or no grasp of the role of religion in this country’s founding, or with the abolition of slavery or in the Civil Rights movement. Indeed, Martin Luther King is almost always referred to in contemporary accounts as “Doctor” rather than “Reverend”.
Who the hell cares the melanin content or the genital configuration of the promoters of a particular set of principles? Are those principles worthy or not? Why are they or why are they not?
To accept the Left’s premise of über tribalism over principles is to lose the Republic as founded by a bunch of aging, religious, white men.Tags: american principles, religion, white men