More about that video and conservative infighting
I was on the road most of yesterday and didn’t have time to respond to the comments at the thread with the Monty Python video till just now. Seems to me that the misunderstandings of what I was attempting to say with the post are big enough that the subject deserves a post of its own.
I’m completely aware that the scene in the video is meant to mock the Left. But it also mocks the sort of infighting—especially on smaller details when in the larger sense there is basic agreement—that weakens or destroys a movement or a cause.
And of course I’m aware that “Republican” does not equal “conservative.” We’ve certainly discussed that here, over and over.
My point, however, was that infighting among conservatives, and especially nit-picky objections to conservative candidates, makes it possible for a weaker, “establishment” candidate to be nominated.
To those who write that there have been no conservative candidates for president since Reagan, my response is that there have been plenty of them. None of them have won the Republican nomination, though, in part because of splits in the conservative wing of the party, but also because they’ve just not been very good candidates.
I wrote about that in this 2012 post, in which I said:
A while back I ran a post with a list of every Republican who has run in the primaries since 1976 (at least all those who stayed in for any length of time, and even some who didn’t). Let’s take another look at it, and please tell me what available winner-conservative candidate should have been nominated instead of loser-RINO candidates Bush I (1992), Dole (1996), and McCain (2008).
Because I don’t see it. Really, what you’ve got there for conservative candidates after 1980 is Pat Buchanan (several times), Alan Keyes, Steve Forbes, Mike Huckabee””and (drum roll, please) Mitt Romney in 2008, when Romney was considered a conservative alternative to McCain…
You can find that more complete list of candidates here. In addition, of course, in 2012 you had Gingrich, Bachmann, and Santorum on the conservative side (not sure where to put Rick Perry, but I’m pretty sure Ron Paul doesn’t qualify as conservative). They all had huge drawbacks in terms of the ability to draw votes in the general election (especially in that hard-to-define quality, likeability, which Reagan had in spades), and at any rate they split the conservative vote in the primaries and did not win.
So I don’t agree that there’s been some sort of suppression of conservative candidates who otherwise would have done well in the general. That’s a myth conservatives like to tell themselves, IMHO, to cover up the fact that the conservative candidates in the last few decades have been weak and unappealing in various ways.
This year, however, is a very different story. The Republicans are blessed with a crop of young, smart, conservative candidates, in particular Walker, Cruz, and Rubio. Note that two are Hispanic, and two are actually “likeable” in the sense I mean: Rubio and Walker (sorry, Cruz; I like you, but you don’t have that “it” factor). I also like Carson and Fiorina—and they have the advantages of being black and being a woman, respectively—but both lack experience in political office, which makes them vulnerable to attack on that score. As for Rand Paul, he takes up the space formerly occupied by his father, only a kinder, gentler, smarter, less flaky version. And Rick Perry is, once again, Rick Perry (whom I also like but he just doesn’t seem to be able to get traction).
Let me be clear: I think this year is the year a conservative has a very good chance of winning the Republican nomination. And I think if it’s the right conservative (who to me at this point seems to be Walker or Rubio, although that’s subject to change) he could actually win the presidency, even against tough Electoral College odds.
Conservative voters have to be smart, though, and not start nit-picking on every little thing. Most importantly of all, I suggest they not stay home if their favored conservative doesn’t win the nomination. If you’re a Cruz supporter, for example (Cruz to my way of thinking being the “purest” and most “principled” conservative in the race), not voting for Rubio or Walker in the general if either wins the nomination would be an extraordinarily self-destructive thing to do, although I have no doubt the people doing it would argue that it’s principled.
I know I’m being hopelessly reductive here, but I think the Python clip describes [1] the Right as they always are because that side of the political spectrum seems to mostly attract people who hate feeling like they’re being pushed around, and [2] the Left as they are right now because they’re running out of people to push around.
Based upon turnout and numbers, it is quite apparent that Obama’s 2012 margin of victory was provided by conservatives and libertarians who decided not to vote (Obama received fewer votes in 2012 than McCain received in 2008).
McCain was not my first choice in2008, nor was Romney in 2012. Since I’m not running, that means that every candidate will be flawed. [grin] Each, especially McCain, had some significant negatives. Each was head, shoulders, torso, and a good portion of the legs above Obama.
There are a number of stay-homes or third-party people who won’t admit that their actions helped re-elect Obama. That’s fine: the don’t have to admit it. They just shouldn’t make that same mistake again.
I think you mean “carson & fiorina”
Listen disgruntled non Republicans, SCOTUS appointment will be coming up !
Molly NH:
I sure do, thanks! I’ll fix it.
I have made that error before, though—seems to be crossed wires.
The problems of the candidates, as the candidates themselves, speak for themselves. There is a larger issue, there are several, but dealing hear only with candidates/voting there is a reason to stay at home.
The problem, in our present circumstances, is the two Party system. The two Parties are too big and too powerful, each Party dense, powerful, moneyed, exclusionary, autocratic. Both subscribe to the maxim ‘winning isn’t everything, winning is the only thing’. The maxim, from the world of professional sporting contests has become axiomatic, there where it can have no place – the polity, i.e., the compositions, arrangements, incorporations, principles, affinities, harmonies, and organization of a nation.
Now, of the differences of the two Parties:
One burns Evangelical , the other tests tepid
One is Audacious — the other pragmatic (1)
One is offensive/attacking — the other Defensive/Explaining
One is Demanding — the other Appeasing
One, in its turn, propels — the other, in its turn, is placeholder*
One is in ascendancy — the other in subjection… and facing… what to call it?… Gé¶pperdé¤mmerung — the twilight of the GOP.
Absent particulars, i.e., matters of concern, i.e., knowledge of the espousals of Column A and those of Column B, to which horse (column) would you hitch your wagon (wherewithal, time, hopes, votes)?
Question: Who would not choose column A?
Answer: The faint-hearted, the geldings — those who would not fight – not for life, nor freedom; the cheerleaders, band-members, waterboys, keepers of statistics, scoreboard operators, and back of the bench second-guessers. Anything but roughhouse — could get hurt, lose a seat – for naught.
I choose to stay at home not because the candidate is not pure, but because his Party is corrupt, without spine, because it jellies at the sight of a clenched fist, because it’s first and only principle is ‘winning is the only thing’. Karl Rove and the movers and shakers and money makers of GOP Inc. are more to blame than any candidate. Given the redeeming values (listed above) of the atrocious Party — the Democratic Party — I would not hesitate to forego my mid-afternoon libation and would stroll to the polls and cast a vote for any one of the ‘conservatives’ mentioned. Well… okay… NOT Rubio… I don’t drink that much.
(1) This distinction is the most disturbing and cannot be dealt with within the scope of the comment. To be so audacious as to counsel Gnostic urges against all tradition, reason, nature, the nature of things, laws of nature; economics, … and get away with it, is a matter of introducing and inculcating such to children. i.e., present day public education. But that’s another installment of What’s Wrong With America.
* anyone in the snowbelt will appreciate the metaphor of an empty old chair (or other item ordinarily designated ‘junk’) reserving a parking spot for the owner/driver
Voting for the GOP candidate, even if not totally in agreement with his/her positions, is a principled choice, the principle being: support the party that has the only possibility of stopping Democrat’s destruction of America.
Refraining from voting for the GOP candidate, because not totally in agreement, is also a principled choice: refuse to support the party that has failed to act effectively to stop the Democrat’s destruction of America.
Both choices are principled, but they differ in the principles themselves.
The unspoken connotation of “principled” is that of being in accordance with traditional values of integrity, honesty, and so forth.
Both of the political “principles” for voting meet that criterion.
However, supporters of each side view the other side as “unprincipled” when what they really mean is “stupid” — that is, claiming that only their own principle will deliver the desired result (stopping the Democrats’ etc. etc.)
So far, neither side has actually proven their claims, and probably never will, because they mutually undercut each other.
To not vote for the gop candidate over the issue of lacking perfection is a political form of suicide. GWB was not my idea of a ‘perfect’ Republican president, but there was never any doubt that he loved America as the most perfect nation in history and that he would not flinch to do what he considered best to protect her.
My view is that both sides have valid arguments; if we don’t vote it may hand the democrats the Presidency and then of course there’s the SCOTUS issue. But if we vote for a RINO it “will simply mean going over the cliff at a slightly slower rate of speed and having to share blame for the resulting damages.” AMartel
Sharing the blame actually means taking the blame because that’s how the MSM will portray it to the LIVs and they will determine the nation’s reaction to disaster.
I’ve been making that argument for some time now. I still believe that to be true. Neo among others have pointed out that electing a RINO will give us more time for a change in momentum. Were we farther from the cliff’s edge I’d agree but IMO, given where we are, we’re headed over that cliff with a RINO and we will get the blame.
However, I’ve come to realize that a RINO will do less damage in the aftermath. Which is a serious consideration.
The best outcome is the election of a actual conservative. The far less desirable outcome is a RINO but the most disastrous outcome is a ‘progressive’ democrat.
So, if necessary I’ll vote for Rubio, knowing it will be ruinous. I’ll do so to avoid the catastrophe of a Warren or Clinton.
I won’t waste a lot of space by elaborating on what Neo, CBI, Molly,Aesop, parker, and Geoff have said (I can call you by your first names, can’t I?), except to repeat an old engineering expression — “The best is the enemy of the good.”
Whoever the presidential candidate is, we must have Carson on the ticket. Not just because he’s a good man, a smart man, a wise man, a conservative man, who has actually done something in his life — (don’t tell me about his lack of governmental or political experience — after Barry, that is no longer a consideration) but because, to be frank, black and millennial voters will stay home in their usual numbers and not come out of the woodwork as they did for Barry O — they won’t vote for a Republican, but most won’t vote against a black man. And that will give us the margin to win.
And as I’ve quoteed before, “Winning isn’t everything, winning is the ONLY thing!”
In this perceptive ordering of candidate’s prospects, and the minor alternatives, I completely agree with your assessments.
However, it is possible that Cruz could improve in terms of warmth and projection over time.
At a recent university meeting of (mostly mature) adults, where economist Stephen Moore spoke, the announced presidential candidate field was polled. Walker won, and Rand Paul came in last.
I think this is probably pretty close to representative. We’ll all know better by next January and Feruary, of course.
The Republican party is made up of more people who are individualistic in nature. People who think for themselves and have principles are more likely to be Republicans. Thus, the large number of differing opinions over a broad spectrum of issues. Some, unfortunately, tend to be focused like a laser on one or two issues such as abortion and gun control. Unfortunately, they tend to be deal breakers for many of those voters. But there are other issues, that, IMO, are more important. Much more important. Such as national defense, fiscal policy, and Supreme Court judges. Without proper attention to those issues, as we are seeing, things can go to pieces rather abruptly.
Reagan had it right when he adopted his eleventh Commandment – Speak no ill of another Republican. Differ vigorously on the issues, but when the debating is over, come together and support the candidate who won the primary. Do not make the perfect the enemy of the good. McCain may not have been a great President, but it is my opinion that there would be NO Affordable Care Act had he been elected. He might even have reined in the EPA such that our oil industry would be even more vigorous than it has been. I’m pretty sure the Keystone XL Pipeline would already be in place. He probably would not have pulled out of Iraq and he wouldn’t have been busy emptying Gitmo. I’m also pretty sure our military would not be as hollowed out as it is. Well, I could go on, but those examples should suffice to show how things would have been different under a RINO like President McCain.
The Leftists (rot them) have figured out the art of successive approximations, each one closer to their goal. And the strategy of “always be pushin’….”
We could do with some of that mindset.
Also, absent a Winston Churchill reborn (and hell, even Winnie needed a lot of help and Chamberlain’s collapse) one leader isn’t going to be able to save us. But it’s tough to shift the mindset from “this country runs pretty well without my direct intervention, reckon I’ll watch the game/hit the links this weekend,” to “Oh, my God, the bastards really Are at the gates! better get the musket, powder, and shot!”
Most of my Republican friends/family, even the stout ones, are worried but not on the barricades yet.
I hope Cruz can get past whatever it is that keeps him from being magnetic in a crowd. He’s a very nice man (I’ve met him); he’s sharp as a whip, and, somewhat surprisingly to me, he’s not actually a fire-breathing radical. He addressed our crowd of Republicans with some thought and, dare I say it, nuance.
He’s also a definite Churchill fan.
I love Sarah Palin. She almost always represents my views most accurately both in substance and expression. But she cannot be elected president, and it is not merely a function of the successful palinization.
I love Ted Cruz. If I were given the power to select the next president, he would be the one. Alas, as neo (once more) astutely observes, he does not have “it.” Maybe, I hope, he will acquire it in the coming months.
I want to respectfully disagree with some comments.
My own perception of things today is not optimistic for the many reasons discussed on this site over time by everybody here.
The chief pessimistic perception is that the GOP will not be transformed. If there were realistic hope for that, there would be grounds for optimism.
Nonetheless, I do not consider it principled or merely dumb to not vote. I consider it immoral.
Voting is the one thing we can do to gain time while other things happen. We cannot despair or indulge our finer feelings.
We don’t know what the future holds.
Please examine this statement: electing RINOS “will simply mean going over the cliff at a slightly slower rate of speed and having to share blame for the resulting damages.”
Yes. Yes. Yes. It does mean going over the cliff at a slightly slower rate. That is the precise reason why it is immoral not to vote.
When so much is at stake, it is immoral not to do what you have the absolute power to do, and that is to contribute to circumstances which give us time to sort things out, to educate, to hope for help from somewhere.
Not voting means you are voting for immediate destruction, by your own terms.
I have my own harsh assessments of some of the candidates. A couple really fill me with dismay.
Other than Cruz, Jindal and Walker, some (to my mind) have discouraging flaws.
But I will vote for grasping as much time as possible, in hopes of what now looks like a miracle. That means I will vote, and for the Republican.
2016 is forever in the future — as national politics goes.
“Events, my boy, events…”
I fully expect to see a repetition of the 2008 crisis before the next national election.
In a break with a century of financial tradition, America is no longer the primary manufacturing engine — nor the primary fount of liquidity for the planet.
That status has gone east — far east: Beijing.
Indeed, if Red China had no capital controls, the ENTIRE planet would be submerged under Beijing’s liquidity wave.
Yes, yes, money creation in Red China has been that EPIC.
She has established more debt/ credit in the last surge than the rest of the planet — many times over!
That’s astounding when you consider that the rest of the planet has been standing on the PRINT button.
Yes, yes, China has been ‘there’ before. By tradition, a fulsome revolution should be at hand… and an implosion of their economy by way of a tsunami of defaults.
The take-away: the calendar of disaster is being scripted in Beijing. When the jig is up — expect collateral lock-ups in Australia, Canada, and every other resource exporter — in all directions.
The scale of the implosion will suck down mining everywhere — and much else.
This massive contraction will recoil straight back into AOPEC — and Russia — as Red Chinese oil consumption will contract. At this time, the entire planet is rolling forward on the basis that Red Chinese commodities consumption will expand, yet again.
AOPEC is no longer in a price control position.
THAT’S what KSA’s new oil pricing ‘strategy’ is all about.
AOPEC is now reduced to being a price TAKER not maker.
Riyadh is praying that its price war will thwart fracking, Russia, Iran, and re-invigorate Red China. We shall see. All bets are off.
Once the epic reversal of trend begins, ayatollah Soetoro will be lost at sea. He will be the first president in a century to be constrained by money markets overseas. All American policy will turn reactive — trying to stabilize a sinking raft of dependants…. sort of the Libyan diaspora, redux.
For, at bottom, Barry’s America is on the dole… itself.
Once Red China is no longer in a position (due to chaos) to trade the real for script ( or digital electrons ) the S&P 400 will take a HAMMERING.
Even as it stands, MOST of the S&P’s ‘profits’ are financial engineering — and MUST evaporate when interest rates normalize.
It’s only during such economic turmoil that you’ll see wholesale political re-alignments.
Just ask Hoover!
Circa 1933 the boom went down on all immigration.
Tonawanda: “The chief pessimistic perception is that the GOP will not be transformed. If there were realistic hope for that, there would be grounds for optimism.”
My take is the fundamental error by the Right conglomerate is the common view that the solution originates in the GOP or electoral politics in general.
Electoral politics are just a lesser included element of the broader social cultural/political activist game, and it’s not the primary element.
Focusing on electoral politics while devaluing or not even recognizing the primal elements of the social competition guarantees you’ll be outflanked, like the French baffled by the Germans running around, over, and through their prized forts at the outset of WW2.
Maybe an exclusive focus on electoral politics was sufficient to win the competition decades ago, but today is a different generation where the other areas of the social cultural/political competition matter more.
In fact, the GOP might even win the Presidency in 2016 and still lose the greater, longer social competition if the other areas are not seized at the same time.
Fixing the GOP is not the start point of the solution. RINOs are symptom, not cause. Making the GOP effective depends on seizing control of vital social cultural/political nodes so that the GOP can then do its part on the correct ground in a correct frame.
To compete against a strong activist adversary, you can’t only do one thing at a time to a comfortable limit at a comfortable pace, but you do need to get the sequence right, like the Left has figured out. Which is to say, transforming the GOP can be undertaken, but it should not be the primal priority.
The goal should be to maximize correlation or consensus of individual interests while minimizing violation of principles. Neither American conservatives nor libertarians will ever achieve popular consensus on diametrically conflicting positions. This implies that American men and women need to be fruitful and multiply, and fill the land and subdue it, and lead in their child’s education/indoctrination into American principles of politics, law, economics, society, and religion (i.e. morality).
RINOs are symptom, not cause….
RINOS on parade…
They’re the cause of the symptom.
I blame the voters ….
}}} although I have no doubt the people doing it would argue that it’s principled.
The best Star Trek episode, EVER.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/In_the_Pale_Moonlight_(episode)
Purists hate it, because it makes the point that, when you’re fighting for your life, you can’t afford to worry about nothing BUT principles. You will die, and your devotion to your principles will mean nothing at all… because they won’t exist any longer.