|Mr. President: It's All of The Above||If Conservatives are Social Darwinists, then...|
by Christopher Chantrill
April 24, 2012 at 12:00 am
WHAT A JOY it was to watch the Romney campaign executing on the Hilary Rosen flap, launching Ann Romney on Twitter in a heartbeat. And then the Romney war room followed up with the dog-meat play. Liberals thought that the dog-on-the-roof scandal had legs. But it turned out that the legs were Indonesian roast pooch.
Of course, as Bill Kristol insists, the candidate himself needs to be presidential and stick to Big Think presidential speeches about Big Issues. Thats especially important in 2012 because the community-organizer-in-chief has left the role of national uniter up for grabs while he shamelessly descended into the gutter, dividing the nation up into the Balkan States of America. Let the president be shrill; let him be petty, writes Bill.
Romney can give serious speeches about the Constitution and the Supreme Court, the case for limited government and the threat of bankruptcy and penury, about undoing Obamacare and what will replace it.
But lets not get too good-government about this. Government is force, and politics is intimidation. While every campaign needs a great candidate that rises above it all, campaigns are mostly won in the trenches by the side that doesnt give up first. Thats where intimidation comes in. You need your troops to see the opposition taking hits.
The name of the game in political intimidation is to delegitimize the agenda of the other side and shut them up. The last national Republican that knew how to play the intimidation game was Ronald Reagan. Liberals tried to intimidate him and read him out of the mainstream as a mad bomber and an extremist, but they never quite managed to pull it off. Once Reagan had got liberals on the floor he never let them back in the game. George W. Bush, bless his heart, tried to appease the liberals by running as a compassionate conservative. That worked about as well as hope and change.
Today the task of conservatives is to toughen up, and figure out how to intimidate the liberals defending what they believe to be the impregnable fortresses of Race, Class War, and Gender Gap. The job of the Romneys is to find the weak spots in the walls and start to demolish them.
Only when these liberal fortresses have been reduced can America resume its journey to the Promised Land.
The liberal fortresses are a lot more vulnerable to attack than liberals believe, for liberals have been on the attack for the last decade and havent really thought much about defense. They imagined in 2008, after eight years of Bush stupidity, that their policies would deliver them a permanent Democratic majority. In other words, they believed their own propaganda.
But suppose that the Romney team decided to exploit its tactical victories on moms and dogs. Suppose they went for the big play and decided to end decades of liberal intimidation on race and class?
There is a big opening on race. For half a century white America has hoped that one day, perhaps the day that America declared itself ready for a black president, they would gratefully receive racial absolution. But we now know that isnt going to happen. So maybe we are getting close to a Rhett Butler moment, when Rhett tells Scarlett Obama: frankly my dear, I dont give a damn. That will be the day that the race hustle hits the wall.
On the welfare state the liberals have two ways of intimidating reformers. One is the mean-spirited argument, that any cuts are made on the backs of the poor. The other method is the threat of civil disorder. One day conservatives will simply respond like Dirty Harry: make my day.
Turning the tables means putting the liberals on the moral defensive. On race the liberals have not just tolerated but encouraged moral monsters like Reverends Jackson, Sharpton, and Wright. On class, liberals have demolished the authentic working class culture, as the robber barons failed to do, and they have demolished the black community, as the slaveholders failed to do. We are not just talking about hypocrisy, we are talking about a betrayal of everything liberals said they believed on race and the poor. In the 1930s liberals stood on the picket lines with working stiffs. In the 1960s liberals gave their lives for civil rights. Today well-paid liberals make money, big money, out of urban pathologies, ruthlessly profiting from the sufferings of the poor. This must not stand.
Maybe its asking too much to expect the Romney people to turn around the intimidation game all in one year. But someone has to make a start, because in politics if your people arent out intimidating the opposition, then the oppositions people are intimidating you.
When we began first to preach these things, the people appeared as awakened from the sleep of agesthey seemed to see for the first time that they were responsible beings, and that a refusal to use the means appointed was a damning sin.
Finke, Stark, The Churching of America, 1776-1990
In 1911... at least nine million of the 12 million covered by national insurance were already members of voluntary sick pay schemes. A similar proportion were also eligible for medical care.
Green, Reinventing Civil Society
We have met with families in which for weeks together, not an article of sustenance but potatoes had been used; yet for every child the hard-earned sum was provided to send them to school.
E. G. West, Education and the State
Law being too tenuous to rely upon in [Ulster and the Scottish borderlands], people developed patterns of settling differences by personal fighting and family feuds.
Thomas Sowell, Conquests and Cultures
The primary thing to keep in mind about German and Russian thought since
1800 is that it takes for granted that the Cartesian, Lockean or Humean scientific and
philosophical conception of man and nature... has been shown by indisputable evidence to be
F.S.C. Northrop, The Meeting of East and West
Inquiry does not start unless there is a problem... It is the problem and its
characteristics revealed by analysis which guides one first to the relevant facts and then,
once the relevant facts are known, to the relevant hypotheses.
F.S.C. Northrop, The Logic of the Sciences and the Humanities
But I saw a man yesterday who knows a fellow who had it from a chappie
that said that Urquhart had been dipping himself a bit recklessly off the deep end.
Dorothy L. Sayers, Strong Poison
I mean three systems in one: a predominantly market economy; a polity respectful of the rights of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and a system of cultural institutions moved by ideals of liberty and justice for all.
In short, three dynamic and converging systems functioning as one: a democratic polity, an economy based on markets and incentives, and a moral-cultural system which is plural and, in the largest sense, liberal.
Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism
The incentive that impels a man to act is always some uneasiness...
But to make a man act [he must have]
the expectation that purposeful behavior has the power to remove
or at least to alleviate the felt uneasiness.
Ludwig von Mises, Human Action
[In the] higher Christian churches... they saunter through the liturgy like Mohawks along a string of scaffolding who have long since forgotten their danger. If God were to blast such a service to bits, the congregation would be, I believe, genuinely shocked. But in the low churches you expect it every minute.
Annie Dillard, Holy the Firm
When we received Christ, Phil added, all of a sudden we now had a rule book to go by, and when we had problems the preacher was right there to give us the answers.
James M. Ault, Jr., Spirit and Flesh
The recognition and integration of extralegal property rights [in the Homestead Act] was a key element in the United States becoming the most important market economy and producer of capital in the world.
Hernando de Soto, The Mystery of Capital