-
What Obama Should Have Done During Subsequent Debates
October 29, 2012 | 6 comments
-
Just Another Casual Conversation About Voter Fraud
October 26, 2012 | 0 comments
-
CNN: Obama’s plan not “significantly new,” just same old stuff repackaged
October 23, 2012 | 6 comments
-
Acts of Terror, etc.
October 16, 2012 | 15 comments
-
Devastating RNC ad captures Biden laughing at the issues
October 11, 2012 | 9 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Filmer, a commenter on this post, writes:
Part of the reason it is a PR minefield is because we allow it to be. We play by their PC rules. How does that change until someone takes the first step to buck those rigged rules?
The “Magic Negro” guy was Saltsman, not Dawson.
I’ve heard this argument before Filmer — lots of our commenters say it. The basic point that we should be arguing “X” conservative principle, but we’re too afraid to because it’s not politically correct and the liberal establishment prohibits us. If only we could get a little braver, we could make these arguments, and do so in a way that will resonate with most Americans.
This is absurd. Does the person on welfare suddenly realize how terrible welfare is when you explain to him that the Constitution didn’t explicitly allow Congress to do this? Did black people suddenly repudiate Martin Luther King, Jr. when others criticized him for being a socialist?
Media, whether liberal or not, has become a world of identity politics and a need for bullet points. When conservatives respond to this by puffing on pipes and adjusting suspenders and bowties, they send the message that they are unwilling to modernize. You don’t get people on your side by being a fuddy-duddy, and you don’t bludgeon the other side by becoming a caricature of yourself. Of course principle should lead the way, but what battles should you fight? Picking your battles is a necessity in war — should everything be a Pickett’s charge?
UPDATE: Actually, come to think of it, it’s sort of like that old definition of insanity. When the battlefield changes, tactics need to change too. And sometimes, leadership needs changing too.
View all comments (18) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by J.P. Freire
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/01/27/standing-athwart
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case
Robert Stacy McCain | 5.25.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
J.A. Davis| 1.27.09 @ 1:40PM
I'll say it again. Mr. Freire really does seem to get it. The idea that the American people secretly desire the same size and scope of government that Rush espouses is absurd. It's not a question of being a moderate, or a RINO, it's a question of being a realist. Conservatives can win on many issues, but battles must be chosen, or conservatives will lose a whole lot more.
Filmer| 1.27.09 @ 3:35PM
Hey, what's wrong with suspenders and bowties? Although I'm more likely to adjust my cowboy boots. And if you get the Filmer reference, you will know that I'm rather proud of my unwillingness to modernize.
But that said, I'm not unaware of what you are saying. Realistically, the public does not want constitutional sized government at this time. I counseled my fellow Ron Paul supporters on this often. When they would say "we could win if only we could get our message out", I said "we are doing as well as we are because the people don't really understand the implications of the message." I am not naive. I know we are not going to restore the Old Republic any time soon.
My point is how do we ever get back there from here? You have essentially thrown up your hands and settled on a strategy of mitigating the bad. I am temperamentally unable to do that. I am probably temperamentally ill-suited for politics per se. More suited for pontificating and lobbing rhetorical bombs from the sidelines.
So if others have given up on restoring the Constitution and think that mitigating the bad is the best we are going to do, then I’m OK with that. It’s not me, but fine.
But what I really hate is when people who identify themselves as conservatives take up the mantle of the enemy. When they defend the programs they used to denounce. When they act as if the people who are remaining faithful are “extreme” or “wackos” or whatever. This is not realism. This is pandering to the enemy. It is preening. “I’m a conservative, but I’m not one of those conservatives.”
For example, a conservative can accept federal welfare programs as here to stay. They can refuse to joist at that particular windmill. But they can NEVER be OK with them. It is a concession. They most certainly can not defend said program and act aggrieved that anyone would dare say they want to cut it. (The “conservative” who wants to “protect” Social Security.) And most of all, they can not call those who have refused to drift bad names – fringe, extreme, wing-nuts, wacko, etc. etc. etc.
Pkane| 1.27.09 @ 3:44PM
Thank you Mr. Freire.
Like I said in my original comment, I fully agree that there is a strict constructionist case against much of what the mainstream has accepted - but that's all academic right now. And this is a party that makes these cases - Libertarians. How successful have they been?
Whose cue do we take? Should James Madison have stormed out of the Constitutional Convention when his carefully crafted federalist vision was slowly whittled and compromised? How about the 3/5ths compromise? Should the core founders, who opposed slavery in principle, have scrapped the whole deal?
No. They were savvy enough to get the system in place, even if it was imperfect.
In dark times the goal is to strategically keep the flame alive, ideally by finding ways to make your principles relevant to as wide a group of people as possible.
The Democrats understand this game - and if will win if we don't figure it out.
danby| 1.27.09 @ 4:35PM
Actually, the Democrats have ALREADY won. They won it by sticking to their principles, such as they are.
Conservatism has ALREADY lost in this country. As Filmer says, if you wan to mitigate the bad, by all means do so. Just don't call those of us who haven't abandoned the cause extremist whackos. That's what galls. Maybe we'll fail. Hell, we have failed. But by keeping the arguments alive we keep a space for another generation to see the damage done and to understand what we're trying to do. Smearing us with labels like racist, anti-semite, extremist, whatever, only one thing is accomplished. Discrediting us ensures that there will never be a credible challenge to the leftist establishment. "Not as liberal" is not conservative.
Pkane| 1.27.09 @ 5:32PM
I don't see anyone dismissing other conservatives as wackos or racist for their beliefs. This discussion began regarding who should represent the party as the head of the RNC. We're just acknowledging the facts on the ground - where, among the general population, perception is everything.
danby, you're dead on when you say we need passionate people to keep these ideas alive. I've been thinking about that recently as I listen to Atlas Shrugged being referenced more and more in conservative media. Thank God (excuse the irony) that this woman decided to so passionately articulate he views as a lonely voice during one of liberty's darkest times. Rand was certainly an extremist. But for, and for many, that passion and extremist drew me towards conservativism as a student. Limbaugh was another important gateway for me.
There is a crucial role within this movement for principled, provocative extremism. However, from a practical standpoint, a Rush Limbaugh or Ayn Rand as the PR face of the party would be wacko.
Filmer| 1.27.09 @ 5:33PM
Very well said Danby. The neocons have actually made it a point to intentionally smear those to their right. Just ask Paul Gottfried among many others. For some rank-and-file conservatives, it is more of a herd mentality. It is all they know. (I have had people who think they are conservatives drop the commerce clause and necessary and proper clause arguments with me.) But sincere conservatives (even if pragmatists) should know better.
J. Peter Freire | 1.27.09 @ 5:56PM
If only I could just make this whole thread an entire website.
I do want to clarify a point made about me though (because it is, after all, all about me):
"You have essentially thrown up your hands and settled on a strategy of mitigating the bad. I am temperamentally unable to do that."
I never thought a conservatarian who's playing an editorial role at a conservative magazine inside the beltway would ever be called that. The entire reason I like my job is that I don't feel like I've thrown up my hands. I'm fighting fairly regularly in a variety of arenas. Just one of them is print.
I'm not the least bit inclined to give up, it's more like I'm looking at where you can make real change, have a real impact. Hence I've written about how it'd be better to do things at the local level, or to do better work with mentorship. Those areas are important.
Red Phillips | 1.27.09 @ 8:42PM
I didn't mean to suggest you had thrown up your hands generally, just in regards to restoring the Constitution. You are almost certainly right that the Constitution is never going to be restored as a practical matter. The whole system is more likely to come crashing down on itself under a mound of debt and overextension and we all end up starting from scratch than we are to restore the Constitution. But I don't see how it helps us to concede the rhetorical high ground.
Political pragmatism is supposed to be a strategy. A strategy to get to a certain end. But political pragmatism often leads to philosophical pragmatism. I don't necessarily mean Dewey. I mean that the pragmatism becomes a goal unto itself. A desirable thing unto itself.
This is especially true these days. The system makes a fetish of centrism. To not be a centrist suggests some sort of moral taint or personal failing. If you are not a centrist there is something wrong with you.
In this climate, there is a virtue in extremism for extremism's sake. As danby suggests it creates space for our ideas. The system is awash in pragmatists. There is no shortage of them. But there is a desperate shortage of us extremists. I say leave the pragmatism to the political nose counters. Idea people should be about defending and advancing our ideas.
Dylan Hales | 1.27.09 @ 9:12PM
This is a side point but one I make whenever the issue comes up.
Mr. Madison was a nationalist and centralist. He was never a federalist.
sidnee| 12.12.09 @ 12:56PM
jack wills
ugg new arrivals