“America’s path to the gallows”
Commenter “Geoffrey Britain” had the following to say:
How many more H.W. Bush’s must we support before it is acknowledged that America’s path to the gallows is merely delayed under such men? It is not purity we seek but an understanding that, “if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything”.
My first response is that George H. W. Bush stood for quite a few things, although they might not be the things that Geoffrey Britain—or many others—would have liked to see. And I’m assuming the reference is primarily to his compromise with the Democratic-controlled Congress on fiscal matters, although I’m not certain.
But my point is not to defend George H. W. Bush, a decent man but certainly not high on my presidential list. It’s about that phrase, “America’s path to the gallows is merely delayed.”
A saying like that sounds clever, but what does it actually mean? Let’s suppose for a moment that it’s true, although we don’t necessarily know that. Let’s suppose the election of people such as Bush I—or fill in the blank with any other RINO or “establishment Republican” of your choice—is merely delaying the inevitable demise of America, either fiscally or otherwise. But is postponing a bad thing so meaningless?
Postponing a bad thing buys time. And with time, other things could be accomplished (perhaps; there’s certainly no guarantee). For example: with time, something might be done about changing the leftward takeover of the educational system, entertainment, and the media; something to stop or reverse or counter the brainwashing that’s been going on for quite some time through those sources.
That’s just one example. Another is grass roots organizing at the local level to take over local governments and work from the bottom up. Electing Republicans also helps to ensure that more conservatives rather than none are appointed as judges, by which mechanism it could be possible to delay or even reverse some of the more liberal decisions that have come down through the judicial route.
And what’s so “mere” about delay, anyway? You could just as easily say to someone with a disease such as cancer, “Don’t treat it; your path to death is merely delayed by such action.” In fact, death of the individual is far more inevitable than “America’s path to the gallows,” since all people die. Yes, all countries eventually die, too (and the earth itself will probably be obliterated in time, as well). But there’s nothing absolutely inevitable about American’s “path to the gallows” in our lifetimes, or even for quite a while after. Even though we may see America’s demise as very likely given the circumstances, that doesn’t mean we are correct, and it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be fought with the tools at hand, including delay. And voting for a RINO or “establishment Republican” or imperfectly conservative candidate or whatever you want to call them, if that person is the nominee and is facing a liberal, hardly precludes working for the nomination of more conservative candidates for other offices. The two are not mutually exclusive; they can be worked on simultaneously.
Quite a few people on the right decided in 2012 that there was no difference between between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, and so either did not vote for Romney or voted third party. This idea persists among those frustrated with the lack of conservatism and backbone they perceive in many Republican politicians. Each person of course is free to vote for whomever he/she pleases, but this idea that there is no difference—or at least, no meaningful difference—seems wrong to me. It may not be exactly the difference you’re looking for—and I admit that it may not be difference enough in the end to change a very bad outcome to a better one—but it buys time and it opens up at least the possibility of a change for the better.
But that change must be worked for. After the 60s were over and didn’t quite end up as the left wanted, the left was very patient in its Gramscian march. Has the right no patience? And to those of you who say “let it burn,” do you think you have enough foresight and brilliance to know that liberal policies will lead so clearly to a big enough disaster that people will blame it on the left? Are you sure that a financial catastrophe in this country, if you see such an event as inevitable, will cause people to tack to the right rather than further to the left as they did during the Great Depression?
When the forces of disaster and chaos are unleashed, good luck controlling them.
[NOTE: I’m not saying Geoffrey Britain subscribes to the sentiments I’m criticizing here. In fact, it’s my impression that he does not. I’m just using his sentence as a springboard to talk about those who do subscribe to these sentiments.]
Neoneocon: C’est une bouffée de fraé®cheur dans la canicule
As for me, I don’t see the glass half empty or full. Instead I go with “America is at that awkward stage; it’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.” — Claire Wolfe
I think conservatives tend to have a problem of the month just like they had flavors of the month during the last primaries. This tendency ignores many other problems and eliminates the need to set priorities. But in real life you do have to make choices and you have to have a good overview of issues so you can make the best choices. The name calling is counterproductive to what we all want, which is smaller and better government.
Delay has both legitimate and malevolent uses. To use it propitiously is one thing. To use it ostensibly is, well… self serving.
“If Obamacare is allowed to stand, and Congress is allowed to make the purchase of government-endorsed health insurance compulsory — there will be no meaningful limit on Washington’s reach into the lives of the American people. That is certainly not what the Founders intended.”
– Senator John Cornyn (R-Tx)
Under the circumstances, more than delay is called for.
Talk like Patton, operate like Quisling.
To stand, to obstruct, to undermine, to fight, all frighten the GOP. They will be blamed for having brought down a teetering economy that every day puts to greater risk the wealth of the middle class. They will be blamed for denying ‘healthcare’ to millions. They will be labeled, for their contention, racists. We can’t have any of that. Nothing matters more now than to be blameless.
Most revealing of the GOP’s attitude – it indicts the Party and almost all it’s members as having no constituency but themselves — their own interest, their own reputations, and their own sinecures. It’s one thing to avoid run of the mill political petulance. It’s one thing to pick one’s fights judiciously, paying attention to weight and class — no-one wants to get clobbered for someone else’s entertainment. It’s quite another to make concessions to Obama’s resolute socialism; to embrace, however many protestations of reluctance accompany it, the fundamental transformation of the country.
To witness a Republican take a stand is to be reminded, by contrast, of the Founders. How wonderful it must have been to live in the time, and in the place in which these men cast their formidable shadows. Think of these men, with so small a measure — relaltively* – of complaint, risking wealth, reputation, and their lives, for so great an enterprise as freedom, against so great an entity as the greatest Empire the world had ever known. And it was not in the defense of freedom but the pursuit of it.
And our conservative Clowns face not sticks or stones but tremble at being called names and shake at the prospect of having to work rather than just vote for a living.
*Patrick Henry spoke treason for so little as the Stamp Act
According to historian H.W. Crocker III, Patrick Henry:
… used the Stamp Act to declare that as Caesar had his Brutus and King Charles I his Cromwell so too would “some good American stand up in favor of his country.” When the burgesses interrupted Henry with calls of “Treason!” he replied, “If this be treason, make the most of it.”
God how I love those men.
In the midst of a fundamental transformation of the country one does not delay, one fights — even if it costs a plump ass a plush seat.
George Pal:
Of course more than delay is called for.
As I said, the two courses are not mutually exclusive. Delay buys time for other things.
You posit a false either/or dichotomy. That was the point of this post.
George Pal–I agree.
This seems to me to be a good prescription for conservatives, to keep us from going mad:
“As with lives, so with republics. Freedom is a living thing. It dies. Conservatives are like doctors. They can only win for the moment, the day, the year, the election cycle. And no matter the victory, time only goes one way. The republic grows older every day, the people travel further from their founding values and nothing lasts forever.
“There are many responses to that situation. Only one of them is wise: good cheer and defiance. Keep laughing; fight back; fear nothing. Mortality makes time too precious for despondency and death makes a fool of fear. There’s nothing to worry about: disaster is certain. And nothing can be that serious since, whatever it is, it’s guaranteed to end.” Andrew Klavan
Wolla Dalbo:
I refer you to my comment above.
I’m surprised that this false dichotomy persists.
You know, just to make it even clearer, I’m going to add the phrase, “They can be worked on simultaneously” to the post.
Since the Left controls the MSM, the Academy, and the Entertainment industry, and more and more of our electorate has become increasingly dumbed down, propagandized, and bought off–pacified with various varieties of government cheese–it is very hard for Republicans to get their message across to the electorate, an electorate capable of understanding and recognizing the merit of Republican/Conservative principles and proposals, and to get them to vote Republican, and doubly so when their supposed Republican “representatives” seem mostly to be representing themselves and their parochial interests as members of the extremely exclusive Congressional “club,” and those like Cruz, who try to stand for Conservative principles, (apparently not only enemies of the Left but also of the Congressional club) are all too easily demonized.
Neo–The problem for me is that clawing my way through layer after layer of almost impenetrable and obscuring “blather,” it is hard for me to see the real state of play, and to determine if the recent “shutdown theater” was a victory–and to what degree–for Obama & Co. or for Cruz and the apparently small number of real Conservative Republicans in Congress.
Wolla Dalbo:
I agree about the blather. Much commentary and prediction and punditry is blather.
Perhaps this blog, too :-). But for what it’s worth, I don’t think the winners were “any of the above.” I think people are fed up and confused, blame all sides, and it will become background noise to the next brouhaha, which will happen soon enough.
Good post, Neo.
Hanging in there is good advice.
I’m also hopeful that the Obama phenomenon is a one-off, and that the Democrats are going to have to work much harder with their next presidential candidate, and that the MSM will not treat that person anything like the way they’ve treated Obama.
Ann,
The next person will have to work harder. But in my opinion, now that the MSM sees how well their shameless shilling for Obama has succeeded, they will continue it for all future Democratic candidates.
Particularly for Hillary, whom I continue to believe will be the next candidate. First woman!!! Any attack on her is part of the WAR ON WOMEN!!!
You get the idea.
Here is a link to a story out today, detailing various Lefty website’s calls for Senator Cruz to be charged with “sedition” (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/10/far-left-wants-senator-ted-cruz-charged-with-sedition/), and who could forget the declassified 2009 Department of Homeland Security Intelligence & Analysis bureau generated report (see http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/the-gestapo-at-obamas-dhs/ and http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4949431-503544.html), written by one Darryl Johnson, that talked about the “terrorist threats” posed by various groups of “rightwing extremists,” characterizing those interested in gun rights, the issue of abortion, concerned about illegal immigration, homecoming war veterans, and groups worried about increased Federal power and pushing for state’s rights as among them.
This report is out there now, is an “official government document,” and it can always be referred back to in the future as a justification for this or that policy or action.
It seems to me that there is a very bad pattern forming here.
I like that “shameless shilling,” Neo.
The MSM, though, isn’t invested in Hillary the way they are in Obama. And some, like Maureen Dowd, are even on record as fairly loathing her. Plus, she’s got a very clear track record. So they’ll shill for her, but perhaps not with much heartfelt enthusiasm, which should render it less effective.
Well, its really an embarrassment of riches today. Here is a link to a new New York Times Op-Ed likening the members of the Tea Party to Islamic fanatics (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/20/opinion/sunday/from-beirut-to-washington.html?ref=opinion&_r=0)
Neo-neocon,
Wolla Dalbo does the digging, I provide the summary.
Mine is absolutely a false dichotomy — if you apply it to the context you seem to believe remains extant — that the country you and I grew up remains – at least as a remnant significant enough to construct an argument and an influence. I am not of that sanguine opinion. We are not the same country – the polity, the culture, the moral base, the Judeo/Christian ethic, are all pphhhtttt! Buying time is whistling past the graveyard — the dead are dead are dead. I have no quarrel with anything you propose -your examples – but they would be the work of future generations. As for now I should like the embers fanned into a blaze. I see Republicans only blowing smoke up their constituents’ kazoos.
What better way of rousing the remnant than to establish that there are things worth fighting for – and losing if that be result of a half century somnolence.
“As I said, the two courses are not mutually exclusive. Delay buys time for other things.” neo
Delay buys time for other things, if the will to do ‘other things’ exists, that is things of merit. Conversely, if that will does not exist, then nothing of consequence is likely to be accomplished.
As example, I choose H.W. Bush purposely and that despite his, IMO great personal decency. I choose him because of the clear example he set with “read my lips, no new taxes” and his subsequent betrayal of his pledge. Bush had given his word publicly and then revealed his word to be ‘malleable’. He had drawn a line in the sand and then revealed that for the right price (legislation he desired) he would step over that line. Such men stand for things, until surrendering those stands is a requisite for what they see as of greater value.
And therein lies the rub. Men such as McCain, Rubio, Ryan, Boehner and Christie do NOT have a vision of America to which they are dedicated and from which they will not turn. Delay is perfectly acceptable as a tactic but not as a strategy. In order for delay to be a tactic and part of a strategy, rather than a tactic being the strategy itself, it must be in service of an overall goal which the delay assists rather than hinders.
RINO’s use the delay of compromised principles as a strategy to hinder the left’s advancement and that is why they have continually given ground since FDR with the brief respite of Reagan.
Reagan understood the necessity for the compromise of interests and the necessity to stand firm on principle.
When asked what his strategy was for dealing with the Soviets, reportedly he replied, “we win, they lose”. How they should be brought low was open to compromise, that they should be brought low was never open to compromise. Reagan did not hesitate to identify the Soviets as evil and he never retreated from that principle. But he was willing to “trust… but verify”.
I see NO evidence that Boehner, McCain, Rubio, Ryan or Christie hold as principle the goal of the defeat of the left in America, I see a plethora of evidence that they view compromise of principle as a strategy to delay the triumph of the left.
IMO that is a formula for defeat.
My position is not the result of frustration with the lack of conservatism and backbone that is undeniably evident in many Republican politicians. Nor have I ever subscribed to the notion that there is no difference between the Romney’s and the Obamas. There is a great difference and if there were no radical leftist agenda at play, I would be content with a Romney who would have IMO, made a fine ‘manager’.
I am not advocating for a social conservative, I am advocating a fiscal conservative whose moderate social positions are rooted in principle, rather than the convenience of the moment.
My position is the result of analyzing why we lost in 2012. We lost and are losing because enough Americans have been indoctrinated into the memes of the left as to tip the political balance. Demographics, entrenched leftist academia and a leftist MSM make certain that, that disparity will grow.
And because that is a reality and predictable outcome, when liberal policies lead to a big enough disaster, a majority of Americans will blame that disaster on the right and America will tack much further to the left, just as they did during the Great Depression.
But a major part of the reason why the public will reject conservative arguments will be because we supported the RINO’s that the GOP promotes. It is NOT a case of Republican “representatives” seeming to be representing themselves and their parochial (big donor) interests, they do solely represent themselves and their big donor interests.
Despite liberal failure to appreciate the difference between the GOP and its conservative base, they are correct as to what the Republican establishment values and that is NOT small government, constitutional principles.
Continually compromising on principle is IMO, the single greatest argument in favor of the leftist proposition that neither the GOP nor its conservative base are sincere. Why would a future angry public accept argument from groups that have apparently proven through long behavior that they only pay lip service to the positions they advocate?
Which leaves us with what to do and the answer is, I believe the Republican primaries, Tea Party candidates and the House in 2014 and 2016. Given the conditions we face, IMO the only thing that can stop the left is the power of the purse wielded by a House that forces the Federal government and the American people to live within their means. Only cutting and pruning the entitlement and regulatory state can prevent the gutting of the Constitution.
It looks like a few of my comments above should more properly have been made in the thread just below, on “Dick Cheney’s Heart.”
Geoffrey Britain:
As I believe I made clear in the “NOTE” at the end of my post, I was not saying you yourself held those views. I was using that sentence as an interesting point to riff off of, and to discuss the views of others.
However, I will add that, although I agree with some of what you say in your most recent comment, I do not agree with this part, “But a major part of the reason why the public will reject conservative arguments will be because we supported the RINO’s that the GOP promotes. ”
I very much disagree. Oh, no doubt some small number of people will feel that way. But that is not the way the vast majority parses politics, in my opinion.
Conservative arguments have an uphill climb because they are less “compassionate” on the surface, less likely to appeal to those who want to perceive themselves as caring. They take a bit more brainpower to follow, and appeal less to the emotions. But they will be heard if there is an appealing candidate who can articulate them well, and can fight off the powerful forces in the MSM trying to distort and smear the speaker and other conservatives, and discredit and distort the arguments. If a candidate can do that (and admittedly it’s not easy), the public couldn’t care less how many RINOs the GOP has supported in the past.
neo,
You did indeed make clear that you were not assigning to me those views. I did not intend to imply otherwise. Please forgive my lack of clarity.
Your disagreement with “a major part of the reason why the public will reject conservative arguments will be because we supported the RINO’s that the GOP promotes” is based I fear on an underestimation on just how entrenched and popular that view among liberals (leftists know the actual score) is and how it enables liberals to easily ignore ‘inconvenient’ conservative arguments, which are indeed less appealing to the emotions.
Based on abundant experience and the horrendous polls exposing the ignorance of the public, it’s obvious that the vast majority parse politics little, if at all.
I agree, conservative arguments will be heard if there is an “appealing candidate who can articulate them well, and can fight off the powerful forces in the MSM trying to distort and smear the speaker and other conservatives, and discredit and distort the arguments”. I even agree that if a candidate can do that (and it’s not easy), the less indoctrinated the individual, the less likely they are to care how many RINOs the GOP has supported in the past.
Where we may part company is in the ability of a RINO to persuasively articulate conservative arguments, “fight off powerful forces in the MSM trying to distort and smear the speaker and other conservatives, and discredit and distort the arguments”. I strongly doubt that ability because to persuasively argue for a proposition one of two conditions must apply, either sincerity demonstrating that they are in fact a conservative or the ability of the conman, to persuasively pretend to believe in conservative propositions. A conman however can be counted upon to betray conservative positions.
The only honest salesman is one who believes in their product because the facts support that belief.
The dishonest salesman will always disappoint.
Geoffrey Britain:
I do not think a RINO can persuasively argue conservative principles. At least, it would take a very unusual RINO.
So I don’t disagree there, either. What we may disagree about is who is a RINO and who is not. I also think there are part-RINOs. For example, I think Christie could very persuasively argue conservative economic principles.
If there’s advantage in delay, it only comes with the assumption that there will one day be an actual reversal of policy.
Since our system of government is designed for incrementalism, any reversal of policy that’s constitutional will be incremental. That means it will be incomplete.
So, one administration that’s conservative might be able to redress the problems of one or two previous administrations.
There will come a point however, where incrementalism won’t cut it. That would probably involve financial collapse. In that case, only extreme measures will suffice. Delay inches us closer to that point-of-no-return since “delay” doesn’t really mean “arresting” of the process, just “slowing.”
Replacing RINOs with conservatives is itself an incremental process since only one-third of the Senate is up for reelection at any time.
So we’re in a race: can we get conservatives in power faster than the US reaches insolvency?
Based on his performance against union interests, I think it likely that Christie could persuasively argue conservative economic principles. And he certainly can stand the heat. Were he sincere in supporting small government, constitutional principles, I would be much more supportive of him.
Nor do I require social conservatism from him.
I do require principled resistance to immoral leftist propositions that reason cannot support, like the left’s proposition that individual’s behavior must be controlled for their own good.
But I do not believe that he sincerely supports those propositions and without that principled support, it is IMO far too insufficient. Fiscal sanity is certainly needed but alone is inadequate to stop the left and, if they are not stopped, America will be led to the gallows because we are being led to the gallows as we speak. That we are not yet being led up the gallows steps, does not change the intended destination.
When Obama and the left speak of “fundamentally transforming” America they do NOT mean rehabilitating American society. They mean destroying America, tearing it right down to the bedrock and, constructing a new society that bears no resemblance whatsoever to the founding fathers vision of America.
The left does NOT believe in the individual’s right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Nor do they believe in inalienable rights. They believe in human rights as defined by the current collective. They believe in the power of the mob and that power grows out of the barrel of a gun. A ‘gun’ that they intend to reside strictly within their own hands.
Note also that this race may be a moot point.
–Obamacare will destroy (Destroy!) the insurance industry. Maybe that was the goal all along, given the hatred and demonization of that industry by the left. I’m not sure that you can reconstruct such an industry from scratch after it’s gone. If you can, it won’t be overnight.
–$17 Trillion is a huge amount of debt. Paying that down will be uncomfortable (at the least) for a very long time…even if we’re trying to only get it back to “manageable” levels.
–Inflation or hyperinflation are the eventual results of the Fed’s money-printing. OTOH, if they stop printing (or even hint of stopping the presses) there will be a stock market crash. The market is in a gigantic over-valuation bubble right now. When it corrects, it will be disastrous for the already-anemic economy. The longer the printing goes on, the worse the correction will be.
If Obama does nothing, not ONE THING from now on we may still be screwed.
What I just described at 8:42 above is why “delay” isn’t good enough anymore. If these problems aren’t corrected soon, it will be too late to fix them without draconian measures if they are fixable at all.
The current D.C. crowd either doesn’t have the will for tough choices, or denies they are even necessary.
vanderleun,
Chaque fois confronté é un obstical, se déplacer derrié¨re elle et la poignarder dans le dos.
“only one-third of the Senate is up for reelection at any time.
So we’re in a race: can we get conservatives in power faster than the US reaches insolvency?”
That is why I have focused upon the House. There lies the power of the purse. As 1/3 of the House is up for election every two years and running for a House seat requires much less money than a Senate seat. Again, we don’t even have to have a majority, just enough votes in the House to prevent raising taxes and the debt ceiling.
That forces both the President and the Congress to prioritize spending and function within a balanced budget. Which also makes them accountable for the choices they make within that budget. Let them try to explain to the public why Obama’s military golf course, the EPA, ATF, Dept of Energy and Edu are more important than food stamps, Soc. Sec., Medicare, our military and the border patrol.
A balanced budget will force spending cuts, thus reducing the entitlement and regulatory state. Which are indispensable elements in the left’s strategy to remake America. All that is required is a united front that gets in the face of Obama, the dems and the republican congressional establishment, ala Ted Cruz. Knowingly or not, he’s shown the way.
When the screaming starts, claim the moral high ground by insisting that no generation has the right to steal from future generations. That continueing to rob our children is an indefensible obscenity.
Live your life, become as independent as possible from the shackles of the tax master slavery. Vote to select the least evil (which I do) but never believe you are voting for someone who really wants DC or the state house to respect your innate right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of whatever you damn well desire.
For many years, dating back to 1791, we have been a nation that allows DC to run rough shod over life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When a society does not abide by the rule of law, but instead meekly submits to the arbitrary rule of messiahs, it is FUBAR.
Wolla Dalbo, 4:04 pm —
(1) I do concur, for what *that*’s worth, and
(2) I do believe you have broken my record for long run-on sentence in a neo-neocon comment. Cheers!
Thank you, Neo. This column gives hope a chance and it feels nice to feel hopeful.
“The fat lady has not sung.”
“After the 60s were over and didn’t quite end up as the left wanted, the left was very patient in its Gramscian march. Has the right no patience?”
The left could be patient because they saw continual incremental change in their desired direction. Conservatives, however, have had no incremental desired changes, despite the electoral success of the GOP for more than 2 decades. Moreover, conservatives have no reason to believe that their patience will be rewarded by the te GOP which can barely hide its disdain and embarrasment of conservatives. Had the GOP occasionally delivered something when it controlled more than 1/2 of 1/3 of the government, conservatives might now be more patient.
Geoffrey Britain: “That is why I have focused upon the House. There lies the power of the purse.”
Funny about that. The House passed one CR after another and they were all ignored by Harry Reid. IMO, Reid is acting in violation of his oath when he refuses, strictly for partisan reasons, to deal with bills sent up from the House. But without enough votes in the Senate, what can be done to remedy that? Not much, except to elect more R Senators. I believe Obamacare has handed the Rs a huge gift. This is a pocket book issue as well as an issue that affects huge numbers of LIVs. The Rs, whether RINOs or conservatives, need to point out all the shortcomings and be ready with answers when they’re asked, “What would you do?”
I agree with neo. There are two things that make me hopeful.
1. That Obamacare is the Frankenstein monster that we predicted it would be.
2. That this country has become the world’s #1 oil producer.
Obamacare is an issue on which Rs can win in both the House and Senate. Who knew such an opportunity would present itself?
Increasing oil and gas production can go a long way toward solving our fiscal problems, if we can get more Rs elected to the House and Senate. Five years ago such a windfall seemed improbable.
Randy:
This is my take on why conservatives haven’t accomplished more over the years—
Since the 60s, Republicans have only controlled the 3 branches of government once: during George Bush’s first term. Democrats controlled the 3 branches more often than that (including and especially during Roosevelt’s many terms, prior to the 60s, when a lot of the current situation was set up). See the chart here and you’ll see how lopsided it has been.
During the Gingrich years, Clinton was president so he had veto power. And yet a few conservative things were accomplished, including some welfare reform.
During Bush’s first term, the tax cuts were passed. However, Medicare Part D was also passed, which I think rankles with conservatives a lot. Perhaps that’s especially where the perception of betrayal comes in?
In addition, the Supreme Court, because of several appointments by Republican presidents, is more to the right than it has been at several other times since the 1960s. You can complain that it should have been even more to the right (Roberts has been somewhat of a disappointment, as was Souter), but Thomas and the other conservative justices have definitely been a plus, and sometimes the majority vote has been conservative for certain important SCOTUS decisions. I don’t have time to go into the legal history, but there has been a fair amount of turning back the clock to more conservative rulings on certain issues, which would never have happened without Republican presidential appointments to the Court.
Republicans have been in the driver’s seat very, very rarely. When they were, they were a mixed bag (Bush’s first term)—some good things, some disappointments. But at the time you must remember there was a tremendous emphasis on foreign affairs. I don’t think the mindset was anything like today. The economy seemed to be okay. Yes, they should have done more when they had the chance. And of course, they are politicians, with all the failings of politicians. But it’s not as though Republicans had power for such a long long time and failed to do anything.
That doesn’t mean I don’t wish they had been able to do more. The prevailing feeling was that if they cut spending or curtailed entitlements, they’d be voted out of office. And I think that was for the most part correct. It just was not something most people wanted. It’s only in the last couple of years (probably since 2009 and Obamacare) that it’s become more popular. And even now, people say they want to cut spending, but if you threaten to cut particular programs, they tend to squeal.
(I know I’m barging in a little late in the game. Having perused the comments — and I think the comments and the commentERS here are outstanding — I went back to neo’s initial blog entry.) She wrote,
“Quite a few people on the right decided in 2012 that there was no difference between between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, . . . .”
It seems to me that this is so only in more or less isolated instances, particularly at the far-far right end of the spectrum. But more generally, I think it was more a case of one careening us over a cliff at 60 miles per hour, and the other careening us over the cliff at 120 miles per hour. Personally, I’d thought that with Romney at 60 MPH we still had a chance, albeit small, of slowing the locomotive, so I was not among those refusing to vote for Romney.
Continuing the analogy, I even figured Romney’s *direction* was different from that of the incumbent: Romney, towards a Wall Street – dominated regulated capitalist economy, the incumbent, towards a fascist economy — where I use “fascist” as an economic term, not related *in* *this* *context* to Nazism or genocide, but a command economy where the government commands but the ownership remains in private hands. (In socialism, the government commands *and* owns.)
(Yes, the end result of what we’re now careening towards, may well ultimate in genocide of some sort or another, but that’s a conversation for another day.) As it is, with the incumbent now safely reelected, we’re now careening in the fascist direction at 180 MPH, and it’s not looking good for the good guys.
I myself would prefer an economy less dominated by the big corporations, because like big government, the big corporations are an unhealthy concentration of power. I’d like smaller businesses — Main Street instead of Wall Street — with concomitant *dispersion* of power, but I don’t know how to go about realizing that, without a heavy hand of big government doing it and most likely screwing it up and concentrating more power.
Anyway, that’s pretty moot right now, at 180 MPH. At this point, neo and many of us are reduced to being “[t]he voice of one crying in the wilderness,” (Mark 1:3, KJV) rallying the remnant to rise from the ashes, perhaps to fully rise only many generations hence. But as John Kennedy exhorted us in his inaugural address, “let us begin” . . .
“All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.”
Geoffrey Britain: “That is why I have focused upon the House. There lies the power of the purse.”
“Funny about that. The House passed one CR after another and they were all ignored by Harry Reid.” JJ
That’s very true JJ. There is however a great difference between a CR and a refusal by the House to either raise taxes or raise the debt ceiling.
IMO, it’s clear that the Federal gov, that is the President and Congress will only cut spending if they are literally forced to and the House has it in their power to do exactly that.
The House can pass a budget that holds taxation at current levels and which does not raise the debt ceiling, one that allocates funding for the various federal agencies etc. Then send it to the Senate.
The Senate and any democrat President will scream of course. The MSM will foam at the mouth. So what? The House can respond by stating that they are amenable to negotiating where the cuts occur (compromise of interest) and simply offered in their bill initial suggestions. But that whatever the counter offer by the Senate, it had best work within current revenues which are NOT going to change (refusal to compromise on principle).
Stating that since the President and far too many in Congress refuse to act responsibly, the adults in the House have decided that their constitutional obligations leave them no to her choice but to end ‘the party’ and that the government’s credit card is now rescinded.
Since impeachment must begin in the House, if the block of Tea Party conservatives refuse to budge, the Senate cannot impeach House members.
I’m suggesting a form of political jujitsu. Let Obama and Reid experience the helplessness they have enjoyed imposing on others for a change.
To work, it needs a sufficient number of Tea Party House members and the unified will to endure the outrage and fallout that will surely occur. How bad that fallout will be however is up to the choices that Obama and the dems make, let them stand accountable for the choices they make.
The means to maintain that stand, in the face of the predictable outrage is to claim the moral high ground, as I’ve previously expressed.
Think Kasserine Pass…
Think Tolkien’s (and Paul Farmer’s) “the long defeat”.
P.S. to Neo and all: Excellent post and comments.
Well said. If in forty years, if we’re still alive, I’ll admit I was wrong and buy you a bottle of Ensure.
Pingback:Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove
Neo, you asked:
“During Bush’s first term, the tax cuts were passed. However, Medicare Part D was also passed, which I think rankles with conservatives a lot. Perhaps that’s especially where the perception of betrayal comes in?”
It’s odd that, since the 60s and before Obamacare, the biggest steps to the left were delivered by the GOP or with substantial GOP support: ADA, NCLB, Medicare Part D, and, had the conservative grass roots not been vigilant, de facto open borders immigration policy. Why did this happen? Look at NCLB, conservatives were always quite clear in wanting to get the Feds out of state education. Conservatives wanted to eliminate the Dept of Education, not hand it greater power.
Conservatives have to find some way to let the GOP know that they won’t be taken for granted any longer. Why should conservatives help hand the GOP power, when the first thing the GOP does when they get power is prove to the beltway dinner party circuit that they are compassionate and modern and not backward hillbillies?
Neo wrote:
“That doesn’t mean I don’t wish they had been able to do more. The prevailing feeling was that if they cut spending or curtailed entitlements, they’d be voted out of office. And I think that was for the most part correct.”
In 2009, after the dems took over, the prevailing feeling was that lots of democrats would be voted out of office if they voted for Obamacare. Still, the president called for them to “take one for the team” and do what they were in DC for, even if it meant getting voted out.
So “take one for the team” they did, and many of them were voted out. But look at what they accomlished. I can’t imagine the current GOP doing this. GOP congressional members move quickly from “I can’t accomplish anything if I get voted out” to “my presence in congress is a political end in and of itself.” This is why, when they get a once in a generation chance to make a structural change in government, they do nothing more than tinker with tax rates.
I lived in Europe During three years of Bush’s presidency and about Europeans on the question of Bush – They are about as dumb and bigoted as it is possible to be.
I give no credence to what any European says about Bush. They are simply mad and insane on the issue. There are legit critiques to make. No European will ever make them.
Bush is a great and good man. He, like everyone, had flaws, some of them really big.
But the space between him and Obama in repsect of being a good President not to mention a decent person is almsot infinite. They are in different categories almost.
But note the Euro-mind simply cannot not rattle on hypnotically the mantra Bush! Bush!
As I said, a rule of thumb is that a more ignorant creature than a European saying or writing the word “Bush” you will not meet.There are exceptions (Like Melanie Phillips) but they are exceedingly rare.
The latest corporate diversity statements I’ve seen urge “nondiscrimination” for “every race, nationality, sexuality, and gender” (I paraphrase a longer statement).
Catch what’s missing?
If you’re in the category that’s missing, prepare yourself: hell is about to rain down on you.
With unlimited or near unlimited time, it is a proven strategy to buy time, wait, and let the enemy’s energy run out.
However, the US does not have unlimited time nor will the enemy run out of energy, given their parasitical and vampiric nature. They only run out, when we are gotten rid of as a slave species.
As for the aspect of time, with more time the greater Islamic Jihad grows in strength and power, such that if the US is caught in a weakened state due to the unsuccessful conclusion of the fight against the Left, Islam will merely conquer both sides. Currently Islam is allied with the Left, both thinking they will duke it out to see who will enjoy the sex slaves after they have overthrown the ruling regimes. Once Islam takes over Europe’s nuclear production and delivery system, the balance of power will change. And this is within the next 50 years, no more.
$17 trillion. Who pays this while the RINOs get there fair share of the loot? Both the Dems and the RINOs are stealing from my grandchildren. Your argument is that we should let them steal a little longer and slower. Hogwash.
Perhaps if the Republican Party hadn’t spent the past thirty years substituting ‘symbolic’ votes for actual action and expecting their voters to tolerate betrayal after betrayal, we the Conservative voters would have more patience with them. As it is, “delay” in RNCSpeak means “Another symbolic vote, because our donors and the Democrats want it that way”.
Come on, this year we had to scream at them to keep a Republican-supported gun control bill from being advanced…