More red vs. red
Leon H. Wolf writes:
This year, the predetermined attack on Walker as insufficiently ideologically pure converges with a critical mass of voter resentment over Republican failures of leadership in Congress. Scott Walker and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)82%, the only two candidates with obvious chances of taking down the admittedly much worse Jeb Bush…are both especially vulnerable to this impulse because they depend for their electoral success in this primary on the very people who are most susceptible to the siren call of “REJECT ANY CANDIDATE WHO IS LESS THAN 100% PURE ON ALL ISSUES.”
I wonder how long it will take us, as a movement, to learn from the strategic mistakes of our past. A major reason why we keep nominating moderates for the Presidency is that these kinds of attacks on viable conservative alternatives leave the moderate as the only plausible alternative standing. While conservatives are dividing their support into increasingly narrow slices, the moderate voters unify early behind a single candidate and don’t go to pieces over one or two differences of opinion.
I have noticed this and noticed this and noticed this over and over. As I wrote yesterday, the red-on-red war usually takes one of two forms:
One is nit-picking about each Republican candidate””even conservative ones””to see if he or she diverges in any way from the position the person would like the candidate to take, or has made any decisions with which the person disagrees. The other is at the Republican “establishment” in general and especially in Congress for betrayals previous and current, or perceived betrayals.
The quote from Wolf is of the first variety, with a quick reference to the second.
You can be mad at that “establishment” all you want, but it’s also obvious that the conservative vote usually gets split in the primaries among all the candidates. That’s normal, of course, but somehow conservatives have to be able to coalesce behind one early enough to make it count, and the vetting of candidates that must of course continue to go on (and is very important) has to be done in a less destructive and unrealistically perfectionist way.
I’m not sure how, or if, that can be accomplished. But I know it’s very important, despite the fact that conservatives tend to pride themselves on their rugged individualism and their devotion to principle, and are especially prickly about anything that smacks of being told what to do.
As for frontrunners and alternatives to Bush, Walker was starting to be that guy. I understand all the Democratic attacks on him through distortions of his record or focusing on trivia. But does the right have to help them quite so much?
I’m not sure I agree with this. The Dems did exactly that – purge itself of anyone who doesn’t follow the party line to a tee (Joe Lieberman for example), and it helped them win even more. Why is it that if the GOP does this, they won’t also see more success?
Limbaugh said it best – conservatism works every time it’s tried. When candidates act like conservatives, and speak like conservatives, they win elections. Why is it that we have to put up with politicians who swear they’re conservatives, but when it’s time to act like one, they act like moderates?
And also – I’m not seeing GOP voters leaving Scott Walker in droves at all, so I think Mr. Wolf may be overreacting a bit.
I Callahan:
But conservatives are trying to purge people who actually are conservatives. For instance, being angry at Walker because of his dismissal of Mair seems to me to be trivial inside-baseball stuff.
And I don’t think Democrats won more often because of their purges, they won more because of their campaign tactics of destruction against Republicans coupled with ends-justify-means approaches, as well as fostering more big-government dependency combined with changing demographics that favor some of the special interest groups to whom they appeal.
Let’s hear a little more outrage about the GOP establishment using bait and switch tactics. They should be treated harshly for lying to the base.
Neo – regarding your first paragraph – it’s one or two people talking about Walker. I don’t think GOP voters are going to throw Walker under the bus because he hired some spokeswoman then fired her. That’s like you said – inside baseball – and the average voter doesn’t really care about that. I think Mr. Wolf is overreacting here.
Regarding your second paragraph – I don’t disagree necessarily, but Dems acting like that was the effect of their rallying around one set of beliefs; they were emboldened to use the tactics they did. In other words, if the Dems were all over the map like the GOP is today, they’d never have been able to politic and campaign like they do.
I Callahan:
I agree that the Mair thing isn’t enough by itself. But it is important because (as I believe Wolf indicates) quite a few conservative pundits now seem to have turned against Walker. They are starting to write more and more negatively about him, and they have a lot of readers who do listen to them. Movements for and against candidates can build. And it’s not just about Walker. I’ve seen it happen before to other candidates, and I think in the end it’s destructive in general to the conservative candidates as a whole, and fosters the selection of the “establishment” candidate.
Steve:
NO, let’s not.
I’ve already heard more than enough about it. I said my piece on it yesterday, here, not to mention many many other times.
How about those who say the GOP has used bait-and-switch tactics explain exactly and precisely what they mean, with quotes? Yesterday I also wrote this:
And we should go along with who the establishment says electable, right? And we should ignore when the establishment goes all out against tea party candidates? And when the establishment says vote for us so that we can repeal Obamacare then passes a doc fix by working with dems? Or passes funding for amnesty again by working with dems? Forget it neo. You can wish for cooperation with this crap, but it’s not happening.
At this time, I have given up on the GOP as a party, but not some of the candidates.
Sam L.:
I guess I was never especially interested in the GOP as a party. That said, I’d like to see the party become more courageous, strategic, and more willing and able to articulate and stand by basic conservative principles (fiscal restraint, preservation of liberty, equal opportunity but not equal outcome, less federal power).
I’m interested mostly in the candidates. But it’s very hard for candidates to succeed without party money, and the way Congress works, parties control things also. I don’t see that changing.
I Callahan: “I’m not sure I agree with this. The Dems did exactly that — purge itself of anyone who doesn’t follow the party line to a tee (Joe Lieberman for example), and it helped them win even more. Why is it that if the GOP does this, they won’t also see more success?”
Don’t cargo cult. Context is essential.
The purge in the Dems was organically constructive within a larger framework, the Left activist social movement taking over the Dems as part of the Left’s larger social cultural/political “Gramscian march”.
Build an equally effective, competitive larger Right activist social movement and a similar organic constructive takeover can be undertaken with the GOP.
But if you are missing the essential activist piece, then Neo’s warning holds.
There are a few things I cannot forgive any conservative candidate for supporting, expressing sympathy with, or holding a “moderate position”.
1. man made global warming
2. in favor of raising taxes. Any of them.
3. amnesty or “immigration reform” which has nothing to do with immigration in general, just allowing Mexicans into the country illegally.
Steve:
I have no idea how you can interpret what I’ve written as “we should just go along with whoever the establishment says is electable.” That’s the sort of thing I was referring to yesterday when I wrote, ” One of the things that makes me angry is when people put words into my mouth and say I’ve said things I haven’t said, or taken positions I haven’t taken.”
Happens all the time. I’ve been down this road before. I will also add that your statement is a good example of what I wrote in the present post: that a lot of conservatives “are especially prickly about anything that smacks of being told what to do.”
By the way, I don’t tend to use the word “electable” myself. I think the very few times I’ve used it is when I’ve been quoting other people. I have claimed from about 2 years ago that my leading candidate is Scott Walker. Not an “establishment” candidate—and in particular not an establishment candidate two years ago.
And note that the subject of this entire post is a way to avoid nominating someone like Jeb Bush, the supposed “establishment” candidate. How you manage to twist that into “we should go along with whoever the establishment says is electable” represents a feat of really impressive gymnastics.
This is just more of Romney ‘war on women binders’ bullshit with a dog on the car top cherry on top. Until the right stands up to this bs it will lose the propaganda war. F%ck them with a sh*tty end of the stick.
neo, I must be missing something. Your view is don’t pick Jeb but don’t attack the establishment wing? Remember Jeb openly chides conservatives for being against amnesty. He pointedly refuses to rule out tax increases. He supports common core. He has to be attacked for his positions. No way around it. There is also no denying that his positions are those of the establishment wing. Boehner abandoned the Hastert rule in order to include funding for amnesty and to raise taxes. He didn’t have to do that. He actually had to go against public opinion and the majority of GOP reps to do it.
I haven’t followed the criticism of Walker closely. Is it only because he fired someone at the behest of the establishment GOP in Iowa? That is probably a shot across the bow. Conservatives are saying don’t bow to the establishment if you know what is good for you.
I am reminded of Mark Levin saying we’d love to take on the dems but the GOP establishment keeps on getting in the way. So true.
“I am reminded of Mark Levin saying we’d love to take on the dems but the GOP establishment keeps on getting in the way. So true.”
Well, so not true. Who is getting in the way of taking on the Dems (effectively and not just symbolically) are those that the Dems drive mad. That would be the KrazyKons for whom it is much more important to be right than to win.
Once more….. without the votes….. you. can’t. win. Hence nothing can be accomplished in the world of real politick in DC. If you don’t have the votes to pass an act it doesn’t pass. If you have the votes to pass and it is vetoed and you don’t have the votes to override the veto, it doesn’t pass.
This is legislative politics in America 1A. I don’t see why it is so hard to understand. I can only think that it is willful not to understand it.
vanderleun,
Extending the benefit of the doubt, you are truly kidding yourself that if not for the “KrazyKons” the GOP would be vigorously fighting Obama and the democrats.
It’s not hard to understand. But your argument boils down to ‘what can we do?’ You wouldn’t even hold an override vote because ‘we’d lose it anyway’. Your attitude is, ‘so why bother submitting legislation to a vote in the first place that Obama’s just going to veto?’ Which means that by your ‘logic’ the ONLY legislation that will be voted upon will be ones that both Reid and Obama will support. So by your calculus, other than blocking democrat legislation, the GOP majority is impotent. What good a majority that the minority effectively controls?
What we need is some outside-the-box thinking, which of course assumes that the GOP actually does oppose the left’s agenda, rather than acting in collaboration with that agenda.
One example of another approach is one I offered in the prior “Red vs Red” post and thread;
Vanderlun, you think the only way to control spending is by passing a bill that Obama will sign? Really? First, Boehner passed a bill to increase taxes and spending and the debt for the medicare doc fix. No one forced him to do this. He had to turn to dems to pass it. Second, why is it that the GOP passes omnibus spending bills? That is a choice. Remember the GOP is supposed to be the party of small government. But are they really? I’d suggest not. That is a lie. Legislative reality 101.
Addendum and further clarification. In a response to neo on her post, “Republicans playing hardball?”
“So you think that Republicans should use the nuclear option (or whatever it’s called)
merelyto put bills on Obama’s desk that he will veto, and that are unlikely to be overridden because the Republicans usually can’t wring enough votes from Democrats?” neo (my strike)Steve:
My view is if you’re going to “attack” the “establishment wing” make sure you don’t destroy your own cause in the process by making the attacks (1) destructive of the success of the entire conservative enterprise and empowering to the left; and (2) stupid in that they do not take into account the actual realities and rules by which government and the MSM work today.
In other word, smarten up and stop shooting yourself in the foot.
Oh, and also—stop misinterpreting my words.
I have spoken out against Jeb Bush repeatedly, and also gone so far as to say (several times, I believe), that I don’t think he’ll be the nominee. The entire point of this post was to say that conservative infighting among themselves and attacks on conservative candidates (like Walker) will make it easier for Bush to be nominated.
Geoffrey Britain: “What we need is some outside-the-box thinking, which of course assumes that the GOP actually does oppose the left’s agenda, rather than acting in collaboration with that agenda.”
The fundamental flaw is displayed in this paragraph.
First, that’s not “outside-the-box thinking”. That’s just another part of the box.
Second, it’s up to the Republicans to counter the Democrats. It’s up to the Right to counter the Left.
Yes, the Democrats have been taken over by the Left, but it’s a matter of scope. The Left operates in larger scope than the Dems’ elected-office scope, ie, the social-activist scope, which is beyond the scope of the GOP.
In order for the GOP to effectively counter the Democratic wing of the larger Left, the Right must effectively counter the Left across the broader spectrum of the social cultural/political arena, and by the same token, develop the leverage to hold the GOP accountable, if not take over the GOP like the Left has taken over the Dems.
Listen up those that will not hear:
“Mainstream conservativism is more obsessed with fighting petty political battles than with looking for a means of rebuilding society. Dean Abbott (@DeanAbbott) “
Or you can, if you can, listen to my pal Matthew:
“15He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
16But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows, 17And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented. ”
And thus we shall taketh our no-balls and go home to Burkeland.
Eric,
I was talking about the GOP thinking outside-the-box within the context of the GOP’s legislative function.
Of course the Left must be fought by the Right. It is IMO a given that, “the Right must effectively counter the Left across the broader spectrum of the social cultural/political arena”. We disagree somewhat in tactics but agree on the need to do so.
That said, the Congressional GOP has an invaluable opportunity to expose Obama and the Congressional democrats in the eyes of the LIVs. Provided that they repeatedly push popular, obviously needed legislation that is very narrow in its funding and/or issue.
The LIVs are the primary demographic with which the Right should be concerned. As we don’t need to preach to the choir (conservatives) and its useless to try to persuade committed hard core leftists.
vanderleun at 9:33 pm,
A failure to persuade is NOT proof of an inability to comprehend or an unwillingness to listen. That you resort to an argument that basically says ‘how can you be so obtuse as to not see what I see?’ While failing to even address the points I have made indicates a likelihood of an inability to rebut.
Society cannot be ‘rebuilt’ as long as the left controls academia and the mass media. Before society can be rebuilt, academia and the mass media must be discredited in the eyes of the LIVs.
Since that is either a multi-generational process or the result of a very harsh dose of reality, talk of ‘rebuilding society’ is, at best wishful thinking.
“Political ideas that have dominated the public mind for decades cannot be refuted through rational arguments. They must run their course in life and cannot collapse otherwise than in great catastrophe…” Ludwig von Mises