“Outlawry,” August 7 of this year:
Again, as with most of what the GOP establishment peddles as “complicated” and difficult to explain, the “revenue” trap is easy to overcome. Boehner holds a press conference and says “everyone from both parties believes in raising revenues. Republicans do it through a promotion of prosperity and growth: when more people are working, and businesses are burdened less, revenues always increase, as [historical example X and historical example Y] clearly show, and with no room for debate. Conversely, Democrats believe in raising revenue by pushing for ever more confiscatory tax rates on those left in the private sector with capital; and while they will tell you such a program raises revenue, it does no such thing: it merely confiscates existing revenue from the private sector, shrinking it — and in so doing, shrinking the employment pool, and throwing up ever new impediments to the kind of growth that would raise real and, most importantly, additional revenue.
“All ‘revenue’ is not the same.”
That the establishment GOP seems feckless in its attempts to get its message across is part of the Big Government kabuki dance: neither Republicans or Democrats who have become part of the career ruling class have any real desire to shrink government. The Republicans are willing to slow its growth occasionally — and they do believe in lower taxes; but as the Bush years should have taught us, they’re just as willing to spend as the Democrats, because giving gifts with other people’s money — and being praised for it — is the absolute easiest form of cheap grace on earth.
The entire establishment political class is corrupt. And it has declared open war against those Americans still left who believe in fiscal responsibility and a constitutional check on federal powers. Both the establishment Republicans and the Democrats (and their ancillary and parasitic attendants in the media and the inside-the-beltway political machinery) have shown themselves immediately willing to scapegoat the one anti-big government faction willing to insist on making the difficult choices necessary to save the country from the bloated, cynical, complacent pig class who presumes to run it in our name — though never in the way we wish. And that’s because party doesn’t really matter any longer, as I’ve been saying for years now.
What we are witnessing is the ruling class vs. the governed — a fight we among the governed are only really taking up after the ruling class has already gobbled up the allegiance of a huge swath of its quarry by turning them into either clients or dependents (something that would likely never happen with, say, a flat or fair tax, incidentally, which is one of the reasons no serious push for one ever comes out of DC).
The TEA Party is an impediment, one that the professional political class needs to see weakened, if not entirely marginalized. And that’s because the TEA Party is threatening the mechanism of cheap grace, power, and perks these politicians live on.
But what they don’t seem to understand about the TEA Party is that it isn’t an actual party. Instead, it is a mindset, a counter-revolutionary impulse to the counter-revolutionary coup of Big Centralized Government against the founding and framing of this country.
They can’t kill the TEA Party. Because the TEA Party can disband only as a descriptor. The attitude and beliefs that give it its most visible shapes, from time to time — be it as the revolutionaries who broke from a King, or as the Reagan Revolution, or as teh TEA Party — cannot be disgraced or marginalized. Because the attitude and beliefs that give rise to iterations like the TEA Party are the attitudes and beliefs that in a very real sense are this country and, insofar as we really do believe in the words of our own Declaration of Independence, are the beliefs and attitudes shared by all men and women who wish to break free of tyranny and live their lives not as subjects, but rather under a set of natural rights that governments exist solely to protect.
The TEA Party the establishment ruling class is hoping to marginalize and destroy here is a kind of mist: it can disperse and then reappear in new forms, under new names and descriptions, but it is always the same, and it always has the same goals and desires. It is, in that sense, the very atmosphere of this country.
The establishment politicians are now battling a climate. And if they can’t sense the very real dangers of the storm clouds on the horizon, they’re in for an awakening of stunning proportions.
“Outlaw Speak”, November 2008 [slightly edited]:
In response to my (evidently controversial) post yesterday on the dangers of what I take to be false nobility — and [the] many responses to said post — Cranky Conservative writes:
"In light of what's happened and, more importantly, in light of the important issues we'll be facing in the near future, can we just say that a full-bore, nasty, intramural debate over whether or not we should say that Obama is a nice guy is probably damned near the bottom of the list of priorities?"
Respectfully — and forcefully — I am going to disagree.
[…]
[…] I want to talk more generally about why I believe, pace Cranky Conservative, that “whether or not we should say that Obama is a nice guy” is vitally important — and that, far from being “damned near the bottom of the list of priorities,” it speaks to something classical liberals need to put at the top of their priority list: namely, a refusal to allow that tactics of progressives to pass unchallenged or even to be celebrated.
In an political environment wherein the left has managed to turn the introduction of inconvenient facts into “smears” or “racism,” this willingness, on the part of some conservatives, to believe themselves capable of seizing the moral high ground by essentially giving cover to the demonstrably bad by allowing that it is merely “misguided,” is yet another step toward the very kind of partisan pragmatism that has cost Republicans so dearly, and that, even more troubling, has served to devalue language and further institutionalize a dangerous idea of how interpretation works.
When Bill Bennett was attacked as a racist, many conservatives were quick to get out in front of the issue and suggest that, while they didn’t believe Bennett to be a racist, he was reckless nevertheless in allowing himself to be depicted that way by opportunistic progressives. And it was at that point that they ceded greater control of language to those who seek to use it dishonestly and cynically as a bludgeon, and in doing so, sent the signal that such was an effective way to control conservative speech. Bennett, you’ll recall, went out of his way to make clear his intent. But we were told that others might misinterpret that intent, and so Bennett was to blame for putting himself in that position.
The proper answer, of course, was to point out the entirety of Bennett’s comments, note that there was nothing racist about them, and to insist that those who might be offended by those comments learn to read for comprehension and in context. Period. No excuses, no concessions. Bennett meant what he meant, and what he meant was clear to anyone who bothered to work through his argument.
Don’t want to be offended? Learn to interpret properly.
Here, similarly, progressives — who ran a thuggish campaign that consisted of truth squads, attempts to have advertising removed, the personal and very public destruction of private citizens (from Joe the Plumber to Trig Palin) — can take from “high minded” posts like [some pragmatic and amiable conservatives and timid Republicans] the message that they can always count on conservative self-righteousness to protect them from recrimination, that their pragmatism and cynicism will always prove successful strategically so long as conservatives maintain a desire to appear above the fray.
[At least one pragmatic Republican] accused me of “demonizing” all Democrats, which is patently absurd. In fact, I dealt specifically with denying the appellation “good man” to someone who, through his actions, has proven to be anything but.
It matters who gets called a “good man.” It matters who we say has this country’s best interests at heart. And yes, it’s possible Obama does, to a certain extent — though what is important to recognize is that, at least so far as his governing principles to this point suggest, he doesn’t hold that view from the perspective of the country as it was founded, and as it was intended to be governed.
Which means that Obama’s best interests for the country are really the best interests for a country he’d like to see this one become — a new text that he’d like us to believe will be but an re-interpretation of the original text.
As someone who believes in the principles upon which this country was founded, I refuse to allow that someone whose ideological predispositions compel him to radically redefine that “imperfect document” that is the Constitution, has this country’s best interests at heart.
And I likewise refuse to allow that a man whose thuggish deeds and unsavory associations have defined him be granted the honor of “good man.” Because to do so is to make a mockery of good men, and to cede yet another bit of our ability to evaluate and describe and conclude in good faith into a bit of “hate speech” that won’t help the GOP regain power.
To which I say, outlaws ain’t team players. And it’s time to be outlaws.
The truth was always there in front of us, folks. The rise of the TEA Party was nothing more than a natural and predictable reaction to “fundamental transformation” by Americanism itself, duly awakened.
Which makes me wonder why some on “our” side were then — and remain today — so keen on keeping it dormant and, if that fails, marginalized.
When you’re playing high stakes pinocle, ya gotta call a spade a spade…
It’s radical!
And indeed it is. Never tried before or since, and dissolved to the extent the progressives could dissolve it in the meantime.
This, while a commentary on the UK situation(h/t monty at Ace of Spades), kinda illustrates the problem with the word “good” in “good man”.
Some think it “good” to remove negative consequences from negative actions, believing it compassionate. Actually, it’s rewarding bad behavior, which is the opposite of good.
Jeff – Excellent piece. I have to agree there is a significant difference between assigning dastardly motives to someone or refusing to label them a “nice guy”.
’tis a puzzlement.
Wow. I hardly participated in that discussion. My loss. So I’ll say what I prolly should have said then.
Not everyone is motivated by a desire to do the right thing.
People with personality disorders such as narcissism (which Obama very clearly suffers from) are motivated by the pursuit of “narcissistic supply,” which is a shallow substitute for what they were cruelly deprived of during childhood. For Obama, his supply consists of adulation and grandiosity, which he keeps trying to get by delivering magnificent speeches that, in his mind, are his magical way to save the world.
(Do notice that he has not responded in the least to real-world feedback that would show that his speeches are either ineffective or make things worse. He’s utterly impervious to that kind of self-evalution.)
When narcissists and others with personality disorders do the right thing, it’s only because the right thing happened to coincide with their pursuit of narcissistic supply. Sometimes you can manipulate narcissists this way. Mostly you can’t.
In the case of power-hungry sociopaths and psychopaths, they are not motivated in the least by the desire to do the right thing but want what they want and they don’t care what they have to do to get it. They may or may not have the capacity to be patient during their pursuit of power (which provides a huge head-rush), and the really clever ones know how to cloak their desires in morality (hello Mr. Alinsky!) to persuade lesser suckers to go along with their plans.
These people have exceptional social skills and are often engaging and pleasant, which is why so many people are taken in by them, why it’s hard to call them “evil.” Like an actor who is not emotionally affected by the fictional situation he’s portraying, narcissists, sociopaths, and psychopaths are likewise indifferent to the emotional reality that surrounds them and so can affect any emotional state they wish. If they have to pretend to be in love with you to get what they want, they’ll make a convincing show of it until the farce is no longer useful to them. At that point, they’ll cruelly toss you aside as the mere prop you always were to them.
Politics attracts these awful people like manure attracts flies. We’d do well to assume that politicians are morally defective until proven otherwise, rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt, as we do with the normal people around us.
Failure to recognize or name evil is not a virtue. Failure to call out power-hungry narcissism, sociopathy, or psychopathy when we see it is like prairie dogs not screaming “HAWK” or “COYOTE” when one approaches. One of the primary signs that we are in an advanced state of decline is that we’ve lost the power to identify and defeat the predators among us.
We are even now being devoured by them, and we’re enjoined to not make a fuss lest we appear absurd.
Human society sucks. Always has, always will.
“Don’t want to be offended? Learn to interpret properly.”
Unfortunately, there are many who want to be offended. They shall purposely deceive/misinterpret. THey are the ones we need to fight hardest, yes?
Unfortunately, there are many who want to be offended.
Actually, they’re not even offended; they’re just eager to find something — anything — to use against their enemies. They affect “being offended” to engage in moral preening, which makes it harder for people to object.
And yes, they need to be fought against hard: “The only way you could take those words to mean X is if you’re stupid or malicious. Which is it?”
Jeff, I expect you, in very short order, to comment on this:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/is-this-the-best-picture-of-rep-michele-bachmann-eating-a-corn-dog-the-telegraph-could-find/
That ought to be a simple matter of turning the lights on and watching them scurry away. Sadly, it’s not. We are dumb all over.
That Debbie Waterhead-Schlitz can appear on camera and not have the questioner pointing and laughing within 30 seconds is a national shame. The number of people who think she’s doing a good job is astounding. Then there’s the Obama thing and that 39% of us who still haven’t figured it out.
Oy.
s8churc1:
Rule number one: Never eat a corndog during a campaign.
Evar.
Also, I wonder what Obama-fan Lisa is up to? Long time no see.
You have me confused with someone else, dicentra. I’m a long-time fan of Jeff’s, first-time poster.
If you want more of something, reward or subsidize it. If you want less of something, punish it or tax it (thought that is perhaps redundant).
It’s not really that hard.
I think it lacks the je ne sais quois of the Obama hot-dog picture. Perhaps if her husband had been in the background like Michelle was….
You have me confused with someone else, dicentra.
Oh, I wasn’t funnin’ on ya; I was just commenting on Bachmann’s naïveté in permitting such a photo to be taken.
Super telephoto lenses means such shots are going to be taken whether the candidate wants them to or not. You either pick and choose your fairfood more carefully, or you get on stage with a popsicle and invite them to comment on your salacious (and hypocritical to boot!) inuendo.
Or maybe you politely decline to eat. Although no doubt they’ll go after you for your snobbery and awkwardness around the little folk.
15. That was epic historical foolishness. Life is hard running for POTUS; you have advance and political staff to brief you on such things, no need to make it harder for yourself.
And
6. Well said. I will add that I think all pols exhibit much of these behaviors, it’s just that the ones we like we often let off the hook. What’s dangerous about BO is that he has this suite of undesirables ported on to a humanities department worldview at a time when the world is, to varying degrees, tectonically shifting. Much hilarity has not ensued.
If I liked that picture of Bachmann eating a corn dog, does that make me a bad man?
18. No, it just makes you a man.
She’d win the POTUS in a minute if she made a joke about it. The voter LOVES a little self-deprecating humor.
This is going to be a classic.
Yup. Jon Stewart will pay his writers extra per BJ double entendre.
It’ll provoke a national conversation on dick-like photos and female candidates.
Nobody looks good eating, Kate Hepburn’s Eleanor of Aquitaine praise of the deceased Rosamund Clifford in The Lion in Winter notwithstanding. The other way of looking at this is: what oes your willingness (or lack thereof) to participate in a communal activity says about you? To my mind it’s less foolish than John Kerry’s asking for provolone on his philly cheesesteak.
plus corn dogs are tasty
I look pretty rad when I’m eating.
Always be sure to do it while riding a motorcycle with Kate Upton firing dual machine guns behind you. Or punching a shark while wearing an eye-patch with a knife in your mouth. I find these things help.
Smiley eyes are the key to good-looking eaters. They happy.
Eating Kate Upton firing two machine guns while riding a motorcycle? That would be pretty rad.
If it wasn’t complete BULLSHIT
The only way it would provoke that conversation Roddy, is if she were a democrat. The way we’d know that any self-deprocating humor on Bachmann’s part was playing well with Peoria would be that Stewart and the rest of the media stopped talking about it.
@ 5.
Seems pretty obvious that they are not part of us. Simply cowards who are caught between the moral high ground and the looters.
When you dress looting up as “compassion” or “social consciousness,” OTT, you move the moral high ground. So maybe they’re just confused instead of cowards. Or then again, maybe they’re just cowards who won’t come out as the
looterswise and beneficient distributers of public largesse that they aspire to be.I think they’re trying to decide if they can beat us or if they’ll have to lick us, because they clearly don’t want to join us.
Hmm.. Does calling you a racist hillbilly mouth-breather from flyover country make you want to vote for their guy, or make you so discouraged that you might stay home on election day? No? Me neither. When someone calls me names, calls me crazy, flings insults left and right, all it does is strengthen my resolve to put a boot in their backside on their way out. I really suspect I’m not alone in that sentiment.
But it’s all they’ve got and they’re not smart enough to know they’re harming their cause and hold their fire. I rather expect that as we get closer to election 2012 and it becomes clear that the TEA Parties aren’t going away they’ll turn it up to eleven, which is actually a good thing when you think about it. Those who make mindless attacks on the TEA Parties are the best get-out-the-vote machine we could hope for.
Swen, that’s true for you and me, but sadly, vast herds of sheeple will run from the TEA party like a pikachu from Sarah Palin if convinced it’s un-hip.
It might be all they got, but it’s very powerful to herd animals.
At this point I’ll vote for Rob Crawford.
I mean really, how bad could he be as POTUS?
birds never look into the sun before the day is done
Moles avoid the sun altogether.
To my mind it’s less foolish than John Kerry’s asking for provolone on his philly cheesesteak.
Not that it matters, but Kerry actually asked for Swiss on his steak. More Europeany and aristocratic. Presumably his advance team briefed him: “For god’s sake, John, whatever you do, don’t ask for fucking brie on your photo-op prole-snack!”
Provolone is one of the three Holy Cheese-Like Substances (*) that are acceptable cheesesteak coverings here in the land of the folks who proudly cheered Michael Irvin’s career-ending injury.
—
* Whiz, American, Provolone.
Mozzarella and sauce is also acceptable, but that’s a Pizza Steak; a whole ‘nother thing entirely.
ProTip: The “sharp provolone cheesesteak” at Tony Luke’s is the “diggity-bomb,” as the kids might say… if the kids were frozen in a block of ice in 1995, and only recently thawed out. But first they’d probably ask for a freakin’ blanket or something equally warm. Perhaps an exceptionally large cat.
Thank You for the correction.
Now, you want yer frakken quarterback back?
No thanks, y’all can keep him. Gots ourselves a more-than-adequate replacement these days, even if he is a bit tough on the puppies…