Well, I’ve been arguing so for years, because I don’t think that taking the party over is a realistic option: a quick look at the GOP presidential nominees since Reagan tells us that, and this primary season — where we watched the “conservative” online mouthpieces consistently pushing the inevitability of Romney, having first dismissed nearly every other candidate as unserious (save for the Texas Romney, a staunch electable conservative, we were told, who having footmouthed his way out of the presidential running is today backing a RINO for Senate instead of the conservative Ted Cruz) — only reinforced that fact; if ever the ground was prepared for the GOP to push a constitutional conservative candidate, this was that year. And they very pointedly and aggressively chose to go another way.
At any rate, it’s heartening to see the question of the GOP’s continued viability, as a conduit for conservatives and classical liberals, being given broader examination and consideration.
And in this regard, Andrew McCarthy really lets loose, using the latest GOP establishment cowardice with respect to bucking political correctness and doing its due diligence, as his jumping off point:
[…] the Obama administration and the Republican establishment work so hard to ignore the Brotherhood’s anthem: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Koran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!” This is why they labor to obscure the connection between the Brotherhood and Hamas, the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch. This is why they are now trying to revise our understanding of Hamas: To borrow not only from Obama officials but from the meanderings of such top Bush administration figures as Condi Rice, you are subtly encouraged to start viewing Hamas as not a terrorist organization but a political “resistance” movement, engaged in some regrettable violence that is vaguely justifiable because Israel is an illegal, oppressive occupier).
Under this delusional view of our threat environment, the Muslim Brotherhood is not an ideological enemy to be feared but a political organization to be negotiated with and accommodated. You know, just like any other political entity. Thus, our security is not furthered by heightened surveillance of Islamic organizations (very much including Brotherhood organizations) that preach supremacist ideology. Islam, you are to understand, is not a problem. Rinse and repeat: The only problem is violent extremism, which has nothing to do with Islam.
Furthermore, in the world according to the Obama Left and the Republican establishment, since our security is not threatened by Islamist organizations, we must “partner” with them. After all, they simply must be innately non-violent; thus, the reasoning goes, if we accommodate them politically (i.e., accede to their calls for incremental acceptance of sharia), they will work with us in good faith and strive to keep young Muslims away from violent extremists. Funny, but it seems that even though Islam has nothing to do with “violent extremism,” young Muslims and violent extremists somehow keep finding each other.
When Senator McCain and his lemmings rebuke House conservatives for purportedly attacking Huma Abedin’s “patriotism,” there are two things at work. First, when the facts are against you — as they usually are against Sen. McCain — demagoguery and character assassination are the most effective response: The compliant, Islamophilic media will help intimidate your opponents into silence. We all are very familiar with this tactic. But we often miss the second tactic, which is more important because it goes directly to our conception of “patriotism.”
That second tactic is this: the Obama Left and the Republican establishment would have you accept the following premise: anti-American Islamic supremacists are not an ideological threat but a mere political movement; therefore, American government officials who want to treat them as a mere political movement — to negotiate with them and accommodate them — are not endangering America; they are strengthening America. Consequently, if you dare suggest that this is a lunatic way of looking at things, you are a McCarthyite demagogue, not a patriot. According to the Obama Left, the Republican establishment and their complicit media, it is for them, not you, to define what “patriotism” means. Thus Huma Abedin becomes the “patriot” exactly because of her connections to Islamists; Michele Bachmann becomes the “demagogue” exactly because she dares suggest that Islamists are an ideological threat.
This is the crossroads at which we now find ourselves. On one side are national security conservatives, myself included, who reluctantly accept the stubborn fact that Islamic supremacist ideology is incorrigibly hostile to America and the West. We take the Muslim Brotherhood at its word that it is seeking to destroy the West and destroy Israel, and that it is doing so based on a divine injunction that is easily traceable to Islamic scripture. We understand that there are other ways of interpreting Islam, and we wish those other ways were predominant. But we believe American national security requires grasping that Islamic supremacism is the predominant Islam of the Middle East; it is the Islam of the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the world, very much including its organizations operating in our own country. We understand that Islamic supremacist ideology inspires not only violent jihad but also non-violent campaigns to supplant Western culture with Islamic culture — such as, for example, the campaign waged by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the Brotherhood to restrict free speech; their campaign to have sharia-compliant finance broadly accepted in the West; and their campaign to delegitimize Israel as a “racist occupier” while recasting Hamas, the Brotherhood, and even Hezbollah (a Shiite terrorist organization) as “political parties” and “resistance” movements.
On the other side of the divide are the Obama administration and the Republican establishment. They insist that there is nothing inherently supremacist about Islam, which is an ur-tolerant “religion of peace.” Violence, they maintain, not only has nothing to do with Islam but is, in fact, “anti-Islamic.” They see the Muslim Brotherhood not as a threat but as a political organization. You are to understand that the Brotherhood has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. To the extent it supports Hamas, that is because Hamas is engaged in resistance, not terrorism. To the extent Brotherhood leaders unabashedly proclaim that they will “conquer Europe” and “eliminate and destroy” America by “sabotage,” in what they brazenly call a “civilization jihad,” such rhetoric is to be expected and excused because Islamic culture is steeped in hyperbole and religious imagery. They don’t really mean it the way it sounds, you see, and, once we all understand each other better, that unfortunate rhetoric will fade away.
At a time not long ago, before the hard Left took over the Democratic Party, there was a style of strong national-security Democrat (in the mold of Scoop Jackson or even Jack Kennedy) who would have seen the position to which the Obama administration and the Republican establishment adhere as dangerously delusional. Unfortunately, there are no longer enough of those Democrats in government to appeal to.
On the other hand, there remain many national security conservatives in the Republican Party. They are alarmed and extremely worried about the threat the ascendancy of Islamic supremacism poses to our liberty and security. They also see this threat magnified, to an intolerable degree, by the inroads the Muslim Brotherhood has made in the Republican establishment and in our government. As to the latter, we are not just talking about the State Department — not by a long shot. So profound is the influence of the Obama/Republican-establishment philosophy over the Defense Department, for example, that the Pentagon could not bring itself to refer to any aspect of Islamic supremacist ideology in a lengthy report on the attack at Fort Hood — a jihadist atrocity that killed 13 Americans, twice as many as were killed in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
If the Republican Party has decided to take its cues from establishment proponents of this reckless philosophy, if GOP leaders can no longer tell the difference between hostile anti-American operatives and benign political actors, then the Republican Party has become an obstacle to liberty and security, not a vehicle for their preservation. As is the case with crushing government debt and out-of-control government spending, it appears that the GOP is choosing to be part of the problem, rather than the solution, when it comes to the threat of Islamic supremacism. Certainly, that is a choice party leaders are entitled to make. But if it is the one they have made, why should conservatives concerned about liberty and security bother with the Republican Party?
Well, because what are you gonna do, vote for Obama?
Tell me: does getting screwed by your “own” side make your wee Hobbit asshole hurt any less?
(h/t nr)
#AbandonTheGOP sounds like an idea who’s time is come.
Release it now, to beat the after-November Romney defeat rush.
Look here at all the fucks I do not give about the Republican Party. Infinite fucks not given, passing by as we speak.
Not giving a fuck about the existing organization is nice, but insufficient. Mindbogglingly vast fucks given to establish an alternative organization are in order. I still think the winning bet is taking over the GOP at the state level and pushing reforms up to Washington, but I’d totally get behind efforts to establish a legitimate contender outside the existing structures. Who’s heading up those efforts?
Nixon gave us the EPA, OSHA and pure fiat money via the end of Bretton-Woods.
Bush 41 gave us the Americans with Disabilities Act, John McCain’s S&L bailout, and “read my lips, no new taxes.”
Bush 43 gave us two mismanaged wars, No Child Left Behind, the first auto bailout in late 2008, TARP, and Medicare Part D.
I’ll predict it again: We will have single-payer socialized medicine within twelve years or less. It will be signed into law by a Republican president.
How do you abandon a ship from which you’ve already been thrown overboard?
The sad, simple truth is that it doesn’t matter which party wins at any given time. So long as voters in a democracy demand money out of their neighbors’ pockets and a society like a Panopticon (We must keep our children safe, our food pure and our water clean!! We can’t be too careful!! Let us monitor and license everything!!), Leviathan will only grow.
If you think this shit’s bad, you should be paying attention to money these days. Orwellian doesn’t begin to describe it.
I’d totally get behind efforts to establish a legitimate contender outside the existing structures
I’ve been thinking about that, and wondering about a movement to split California into multiple states. The idea of splitting into 2 states has percolated up from time to time, and immediately killed because the Left knows a new state would elect 2 republican Senators. Here’s a jokey two-state division. I wonder if a 3 state solution would be any more politically viable.
There is a constitutional framework for this rebellious activity. It would clearly pit both parties against the wills of their people. California will be the first off the cliff regardless of who wins in Nov. It is about a movement, an idea, and not subject to the peccadilloes of any individual.
In California, the Left wants a high tax, high benefit state? The Right is stopping them. Let us go and you can do whatever you want. The non-Left can articulate a vision of a modern classical liberal state, with all of what we have learned incorporated into the new State Constitution, while opponents are left defending the high-tax welfare state. No public employee unions. Surplus budgeting from the get-go. Voter ID. Everything we think State government should be doing, and nothing else.
Now’s definitely the time to give up the dream that “it’ll remain this way for another ten years” but I’m not sure what can be done outside of making as much a difference you can locally and prepping for the Wild West days we’re rapidly coming to. The college set, old set, and racial set are all going to cling to their fantasies fiercely.
Washington is irredeemably corrupt. Getting good people into national office is like pouring clear water into the sewer in the hopes of cleansing it.
The States have to tell Washington to step off, and then go it alone.
di,
You brought to mind an illustration I’ve heard (albeit in a different context):
Take a barrel full of sewage, and add a teaspoon of wine. Result: One barrel of sewage.
Take a barrel full of wine, and add a teaspoon of sewage. Result: One barrel of sewage.
So, if Washington is the barrel of sewage . . .
Well, I’m all for voting Johnson. Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth re: “wasting my vote” commence.
Well, I’m all for voting Johnson.
You are wasting your vote.
Same as if you voted for anyone else.
This Bachmann thing is turning into a bright line for me.
breaking news
Officials Concerned After Goat Man Spotted in Utah Mountains (Video)
the orange man must go
Boehner criticizes Bachmann’s comments about Clinton aide
the orange man must go
Roger that.
From nr’s link:
This is not fundamentally different than, “I don’t know Boehner well, but from everything that I know of him he’d look good in a prison jumpsuit. He wouldn’t clash, at least.”
This Bachmann thing is turning into a bright line for me.
It’s down to Steyn, McCarthy, VDH, and Peter Robinson, as far as NR pundits go. Everyone else has disappointed me.
Not sure where to find it but Anthony Downs did a pretty good job of arguing that voting in large elections is inherently irrational regardless.
Large as in number of votes cast, not as in importance.
dicentra-
I assume that your comment that voting for “anyone else” is a wasted vote includes Romney. So if my vote’s a waste wherever I toss it, at least I can vote my conscience.
Here’s an interesting discussion if anyone wants to give it a listen some time. Summary:
Bryan Caplan’s book is linked there in bh’s EconTalk link as well.
B Moe told me yesterday that “none of the above” as also a choice. I agree.
At some point, we have to stop encouraging the GOP’s behavior.
Any good poly sci professor will tell you the same, leigh.
Sure. I didn’t get to tell you that I agreed yesterday so, I was doing it now.
Ernst, if only we’d been thrown overboard instead of being chained in the galley with an oar in our hands listening to our betters bang the drum ever more quickly.
How not to write an Op-Ed.
That might be the better analogy charles. At least it explains the establicans view of why they lose: the galley slaves wouldn’t row fast enough.
Your conscience is never a wasted vote.
Never vote for somebody who despises you. It’s just asking for trouble.
I’m not sure Romney despises me, but I think he thinks I’m not worth bothering about.
So *that’s* what thor is up to these days…
I would write that in but I can never remember how to spell it.
B Moe, think of global warming == con science.
Thanks, McGehee, now I feel better about “throwing away” my vote. I’ve had several otherwise well-functioning adults tell me that a vote for anyone other than Romney was an act of sheer insanity. I’m not sure that the opposite isn’t true.
I feel the same way about voting for Romney.
I will say this though — I’m glad I live in a state whose result in November is all but a foregone conclusion.
Same here, McGehee.
Lucky bastards! I’m in PA, so I’m more-or-less obligated to vote for the Mittster whether I like it or not.
Best reason I can come up with is schadenfreund-based: sure, I’ll hate having a President Romney, but they’ll go absolutely apeshit. Moreso. So at least it’ll be entertaining.
“I didn’t leave the GOP, rather, the GOP left me.” (with apologies to the Gipper)
There’s throwing away your vote and then there’s throwing up when you vote.
Personally, I’d much rather throw away my vote.
YMMV.
Heh. I posted a tweet some months back that some people liked, something along the lines of, One advantage of the touchscreen voting machines is, they make it easy to hold your nose when you vote.
serr8d wrote in the first comment: #AbandonTheGOP sounds like an idea who’s time is come.
I and some others call it OPERATION: WHIG.
Make the GOP go the way of the Whig Party. There are similarities between what we face now regarding the Party and what was faced in the 1850’s. The Whigs had become like Democrats and the old cliche held sway: if the choice is between a Democrat and a ‘Democrat’, the people will vote for the Democrat every time.
Those who formed the Republican Party began by taking over the state, county, and town Whig organizations and then reincorporating them as GOP entities. Why can’t we do this after November?
The GOP has to go if we are to have any chance of mounting a successful political opposition to the Leftist Establishment and their Useful Idiots in the Republican Establishment.
This Restoration of our freedom and liberties we seek will only avoid violence if we can launch a viable opposition to the Establishment.
Isn’t it a goddamn shame that the republican party is in possession of the very name of the principled position we demand in government, in our political order, yet eschews those same principles for a heap of rot and power, thus corrupting not only themselves but the language through which alone politics can be conducted? Yer dern right it is. But hey, if Tea Party it must be, then Tea Party it is.
Little as we like to have to ask it, there is a further question of preservation — beyond the question regarding the dissolute Republican party — firmly planted on our horizon of view, one aspect of which is intimated by the ongoing attacks on those House members seeking answers to their own specific questions of the manner of review and inquiry regarding national security clearances for people who are in line to take positions of the highest trust with our government.
Such attacks — attacks by Sen. McCain, Speaker Boehner and others — practically force us to ask whether the nation these men and women are charged to protect has, any longer, the compelling necessity which would otherwise preclude even the possibility of such attacks in the light of the overriding duty for men like McCain and Boehner to be certain no harm comes to the country on account of a failure to take care no improper persons are allowed access to potentially damaging information in time of war.
Forgot we are at war, have we? Yet too often, this is precisely what we see: a people; a leadership; individuals entrusted with the greatest powers, behaving as though there is simple nothing of value at stake. Nothing they need take the trouble to consult the nation about. Nothing they need take the trouble to arouse the nation to support. Nothing they need take the trouble to review in policy so as to ascertain its effectiveness.
So. Which nothing is that? What nothings are these?
And if this were so? That these signs are signs of resignation to an end?
Again, which nothing? That would be the nation itself.