Category: Politics

Truer words have never been said:

While it is certainly true that Buckley ousted the John Birch society from the conservative movement, it is also important to note that you’re not William F. Buckley. My point is that there is no single conservative leader today who has earned the respect and credibility required to take such bold action. This is especially true of young conservatives who are the future leaders. Still, it’s important to realize that of all the great conservative leaders and voices of his generation, only Buckley — and possibly Reagan — had the gravitas to have made such a pronouncement — and have it generally honored.

This kind of reflects on something I mentioned last night after watching Jon Henke on MSNBC.  Matt Lewis goes on to say:

Lastly, I would argue that conservatives are, by nature, resistant to taking orders and following others blindly. Conservatives — especially those with libertarian instincts — are skeptical, rugged individualists who question authority. And bloggers — regardless of ideology — are notoriously difficult to manage (if they wanted to take orders and behave themselves, they would have become operatives or politicians). Bloggers are ornery and argumentative by nature, so it’s probably to be expected that many conservative bloggers would not fall in line easily. It’s essentially like herding cats.

That’s an understatement if I ever heard one, but that’s why we’re stuck using persuasion. I think even more than suffering from a lack of intellect, as Henke notes, the Republica Party also suffers from a lack of talented coalition builders, who can take all the various Republican interests and get them all moving in a similar enough direction that everyone is relatively happy.

Matt Lewis goes on to offer ways that this kind of problem can be mitigated so people can work together to accomplish things.  It’s worth a read.

I just watched Henke on Rachel Maddow a few minutes ago.  While I share Jon’s concern about building a broad movement that not only can win, but have a mandate to actually govern, I don’t know if I can really join him in desiring a return to a movement governed by elites.  Given the interconnectedness in today’s world, I don’t think it’s really possible or desirable to return to that.  We do need to make an intellectual case for the movement, and I agree that the Birthers and other extremists fringe views get in the way of that, but in a world where anyone with an internet connection can have their own soap box, you’re stuck having to use persuasion.   I think it’s important for people to speak out against bad ideas, but this movement ain’t ever going back to the days of Buckley.  But the same is true for the left.

Rick Moran has some useful thoughts on the conservative movement, many of which have played out in the Second Amendment community for quite some time:

What we should take away from that extraordinary exchange of ideas between two brilliant men is that it was done amicably, with great respect for each other, and the debate was carried out with the recognition that both were working toward a common goal.

I don’t see that being possible today. With the absolute refusal of the ideologues to abandon their purge of who they consider less than ideologically pure conservatives, and with the pragmatists fighting what amounts to a rear guard action to marginalize the crazies who are, if not embraced then certainly tolerated by the revanchists, there is no “common purpose” that could lead to any amicability or respect.

Indeed, the revanchists look with askance upon most attempts to criticize conservatism at all, believing that “intellectual elites” are simply playing into the hands of the enemy by taking fellow conservatives to task for their idiocy, or paranoia. Relatedly, any criticism of conservatism coming from the left is automatically dismissed – usually without even reading it – because that would be allowing your enemy to define you.

Read the whole thing.  I’m not sure I buy into the whole “Burkean” vs. “revanchist” dichotomy spoken about here.  I probably exist somewhere between the two, in that I favor dismantling a large part of the New Deal, but don’t think such a thing is likely to be achieved in a revolutionary manner, short of a total collapse of the people’s faith government (which is not out of the realm of possibility).   Conservatives can’t just stand for conserving societal structures, and institutions.  But nor can they stand for laying waste to them either, without offering a constructive vision of what they want America to be.  Whether we want like it or not, the New Deal institutions are part of our society, and unlikely to be swept away in one fell swoop.  Some of them we may never get rid of.

Conservatism has to stand for something, not just against the left, if it wants to attract enough adherents to be able to govern for long enough and effectively enough to make a difference.  You see that played out in the Second Amendment debate too, time and time again.  How often does NRA take heat for offering a solution to the anti-gun challenge of “locking up violent criminals who use guns” or “use the laws already on the books to go after criminals.”   That stuff gets pooh poohed, but by offering the public an alternative to more gun control, we’ve managed to stop it long enough to make real advances, and after Heller, we’ve managed to destroy a lot of the most draconian existing laws.

Watching the brouhaha over Obama’s school speech, I developed a theory for why people (rightfully) assumed the worst – an indoctrination speech. During the campaign, Obama won because he stuck to vague and inspiring speeches. He avoided detailed policy issues as much as possible, and that allowed voters to see him as whatever they imagined. The Communist Party could see him as a stepping stone toward their agenda while moderate Americans could focus on him as an alternative to Bush & the Beltway insiders who seemed to be bickering while the economy collapsed. That’s the nice thing about Hope & Change – you can hope for one kind of change that’s not at all like the change your neighbor hopes for while casting the ballot for the same candidate.

But I don’t believe that most people thought he would govern like he campaigned. They assumed he would actually have ideas that weren’t simply rooted in talking points that sounded flowery. Take health care. He demanded that Congress send “health care reform” before August recess. Yet only now, after things have fallen apart, is he actually going to tell Congress what he wants. You can see how various versions of the bill have spurred a public rebuke like most politicians have never seen before.

Back to education, now you’re talking about people’s kids. A parent can go protest at their local Congressman’s office, but kids aren’t likely to feel comfortable speaking up to oppose political arguments made in the classroom by adults with authority. When you look at how Obama’s supporters have tried to define him, especially to influence children, there’s a huge creepiness factor at work.

As far as his school speech, I believe the education guide set many folks off. I know the release of the teaching guide was the first I heard about the planned speech, and the creepiness factor was definitely present.  These are a few of the comments that could be taken out of context:

• Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.  These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.
• Students could discuss their responses to the following questions: What do you think the President wants us to do? Does the speech make you want to do anything? Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?
• Why is it important that we listen to the President and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?

This was released by federal authorities, and was presumably written by a supporter who thought nothing about asking school kids to support the President’s agenda.  If you support his agenda, there’s probably nothing controversial about that thought, especially if you’re paid to advance that agenda as a bureaucrat.  I’m sure the idea of asking teachers to join you in that effort seems hugely innovative.

In Utah, a group of PTA leaders convinced a school principal to show an inspiring Obama video to elementary school students at the beginning of the year. The principal did not feel any obligation to review it before the assembly.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqcPA1ysSbw[/youtube]

Even she realized it was blatantly biased, political, and completely inappropriate to show in school, but not before the children saw the entire video of their favorite celebrities promoting the Obama agenda. Who on earth on a PTA board would imagine that the following pledges would be controversial?

• I pledge to make sure that senior citizens have access to health care;
• I pledge to advance stem cell research;
• I pledge to reduce my use of plastic;
• I pledge to be more green;
• I pledge to consume less;
• I pledge to flush only after a deuce, never after a single;
• I pledge to sell my obnoxious car and buy a hybrid;
• I pledge to be of service to Barack Obama.
• I pledge to be the change.
• I pledge to be a servant to our President.

Gee, there’s nothing controversial there. Not at all, especially not for conservative Utah. Again, Obama’s supporters are promoting a creepiness factor. If my candidate had won the race, I would still never consider for one second to pledge to be a servant to him. I would sure as hell never let a child of mine take a pledge to be his servant.

And of course, who can forget the Obama Youth video that popped up during the campaign? They even have nice camo pants and boots, inspiring a friendly paramilitary feel to their promotion of his health care agenda.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqF19Phn0Og[/youtube]

According to media reports, the school leadership knew it was inappropriate and suspended the teacher once the video was leaked. Only after questions were raised about using tax dollars to promote a political agenda in schools did they put a stop to the program. Again, an Obama supporter is responsible for the huge creepiness factor of Obama’s reach into the public schools.

And though it was not a public school effort, a teacher from LA decided to dress her kids up in little pro-Obama shirts and sing praises to the candidate.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtGrp5MbzAI[/youtube]

The problem Obama faces is that as long he tries to stay the vague, suave, hopey-changey President, the more that the other people’s characterizations will stick. If he does not define himself, others will do it for him. Unfortunately for Obama, the people who get the most attention for him seem to promote a creepiness factor.

… against extremists and the paranoid, suddenly gets you labeled as fearful of losing control over a movement, and fearful of grassroots action?  No one has ever said the tea party movement is a net negative.  No one has said we’re very upset about all this emotional grass roots action in the town halls.  This is all very good for our Republic, if you ask me.  I even recently criticized a talk radio host for speaking out against it.

But I have to assume that if I’m a little uncomfortable walking under a WND/Birther/Threeper banner, that others, who like most Americans, are considerably less serious about their politics, and who don’t have terribly well developed political philosophies, are going to be uncomfortable with it too.  You can’t govern a nation from the fringe.  Bad things have happened historically when that’s been allowed to come to fruition.  In a Republic, you need a majority, or at least a sizable minority, plus acquiescence of the majority, in order to govern.  If conservatives want to enjoy the power to govern, which if you want to dismantle the New Deal State, you need to do for a while, you need a bigger tent than the fringes are going to give you.