-
Curl is Right: Don’t Dismiss Benghazi
May 22, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Good New Book: ‘Precipice’
May 19, 2013 | 1 comment
-
A Long Record of Obamite Thuggery
May 16, 2013 | 4 comments
-
DeMint Supports Defense
May 14, 2013 | 5 comments
The Spectacle Blog
As Joe said below, Fred Barnes’ article today at the Weekly Standard is great reporting on a very important topic, and a great service to the cause. It highlights the tremendous strides for pro-lifers made under the leadership of people like Marjorie Dannensfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List and Charmaine Yoest at Americans United for Life.
There is a point Barnes touches on several times, though, that should be instructive for conservatives well beyond the pro-life movement [my emphases added].
The incremental strategy pursued by most pro-life groups is based on the idea that antiabortion laws, even if narrow, build on one another. Fetal pain laws focus on the suffering of the baby, an asset in opposing a woman’s right to choose. And who in the pro-choice lobby is eager to gainsay the pain experienced by an unborn child? Dispute it and you’ll come across as cruel. The ultimate goal of pro-lifers remains what it’s always been: overturning Roe v. Wade. They’re reconciled to jumping through as many hoops as necessary to get there.
This is very important. Far too many conservatives these days demand immediate, comprehensive results. They want everything done NOW! Despite claiming to be constitutionalists, they do not respect the very Madisonian and Roger Shermanesque part of the constitutional design that is deliberately intended to ensure that most political/governmental change is gradual and difficult to achieve. Such difficulties promote stability — the “ordered” part of “ordered liberty.”
History has proved again and again the incrementalism works. Incrementalism allows gain to be built on top of gain, without scaring people or causing a major backlash. People get accustomed to one change, see that it works without major drawbacks, and are then willing to take the next step — and so on. The key thing is to win a consistent string of victories, even if small — and then IMMEDIATELY to set to work both to consolidate those gains and to build on them, pushing for further gains, calmly and reasonably but still insistently.
Except in times of crisis, that is the way that long-lasting improvements are most effectively realized.
This is not to say that conservatives should “settle” for merely incremental gains when bigger gains are clearly acheivable. When conservatives hold the presidency and both chambers of Congress, larger gains are possible than when they barely control one House while the left controls the other chamber and the presidency.
The key is to match means with ends, and to perfect the art of the possible, while never losing track of, or energy for, the ultimate goals and the long, hard slog that is required to accomplish most goals that are truly worthwhile.
View all comments (4) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/11/03/ditto-what-joe-said-about-barn
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Solo| 11.3.11 @ 1:40PM
"The key is to match means with ends, and to perfect the art of the possible, while never losing track of, or energy for, the ultimate goals and the long, hard slog that is required to accomplish most goals that are truly worthwhile."
AMEN!, Mr. Hillyer!
Thus....the problem with the Ron Paul campaign.
Almost every conservative agrees with Paul's domestic platform (if only to varying degrees). It's the "possible" part to which some of us remain incredulous.
I'm not in total agreement with ALL of Paul's domestic politics, but, if he were able to get everything he wants, I'd be willing to tolerate the details where we disagree.
The problem is: What is going to be politically "Possible"? And it is THAT which leaves the Paul campaign wanting and, frankly, un-viable.
"When conservatives hold the presidency and both chambers of Congress, larger gains are possible than when they barely control one House while the left controls the other chamber and the presidency."
The problem is greater than that!
So long as democrats control 41 seats in the Senate, you'll never see any large gains towards the conservative agenda.
For example:
Despite the obvious need to disband the Department Of Education, such an action will be impossible without control of the House, the Presidency AND.. at least 60 seats in the
Senate. Otherwise, the democrats will simply refuse to allow a vote.
The dems are nothing if not united in the socialist agenda. They are willing to die on that hill if necessary. Just as they were with the Obamacare vote.
If the republican party were to ever gain a similar advantage within the Federal government and not act on it to reflect major Party Platform gains, then it will be time for all true conservatives to leave the party. Not until then!
c. j. acworth| 11.3.11 @ 5:46PM
"History has proved again and again that incrementalism works."
Not always. The gun-ban lobby tried for years to achieve their goals by passing what they always refered to as "a few commonsense regulations." For years they appeared to be winning, but where are they now? The abortion lobby has learned from the NRA to fight tooth and nail against any attempt to restrict what they see as a constitutional right. The difference, of course, is that gun ownership is explicitly protected in the Constitution, while abortionists have to depend on "penumbras and emanations." I'm afraid we need to get more strict constuctionists appointed to the bench to make serious inroads against R v W.
mzk1| 11.4.11 @ 7:57AM
I agree with all of this, except the pat about constitutionalism. We are dealing with mass-murder here, and I think that rather overrides such considerations.
Otherwise, we should take what we can get, and save what lives we can. Here I agree. Otherwise we are like those establishment people, who refused to do anything about the holocaust because they said, "but what will we do with all of these Jews".
P.S. I agree with the c.j.'s analogy, about the similarity in approach between the NRA and it's evil twin, NARAL. If something is a right, then any compromise demies the very premise.
mzk1| 11.4.11 @ 7:57AM
its