Powell today endorsed Obama for President. I think this will hold sway with some moderates who are fiscal, but not social, conservatives. If nothing else, it gives some voters a reason to pause, and reconsider if they want to vote with their party or not.
-
Powell for Obama
michael
Prose Before Hos 9:14 pm on 19 October 2008 Permalink
The Powell Endorsement…
Transcript of the endorsement on Meet The Press:
I know both of these individuals very well now. I’ve known John for 25 years, as your setup said. And I’ve gotten to know Mr. Obama quite well over the past two years.
Both of them are disti…
Michael Saunders 10:36 pm on 19 October 2008 Permalink
Being removed from the front lines of the pres. race gives me a totally different respective as to those in the running. I have been a long time Rep.(I lived in the USA from 1950 til 1980) and until Bush entered the picture strongly supported the party. It came as no surprise that Powell came to his sences and jumped ranks.
When McCain entered the picture…..along with his “Pit Bull” from Up North I also was forced to change stripes.
I do and can NOT believe what is happening with those two %&*&^###$%^%$ dead #$#$%$#$#@#$% Their attack ads….their inability to give ANY constructive comments….Their outright character assassination and collective disregard for truth and honesty…
I bought a mongrel dog for company a few years back…. it was a good dog and kept me company but it’s behavior started to show. After numerous attacks on neighbors I found out that he was “RABID” Without any forethought I had the dog put down….McCain should, for the good of the country, do the same with the “RABIT DOG” that he took on as a running mate.
Major Michael Saunders US Army Retired
JC 6:33 am on 20 October 2008 Permalink
Thanks for that illuminating perspective Michael. I always find it interesting when people claim to be “lifelong Republicans” who have come to their senses and are now voting for Obama. Does that mean you are no longer a fiscal conservative or pro-life, that you believe in a more socialist approach to health care and that those pesky “wealthy” people and corporations are just making too much money and should ante up more taxes than they already pay? And even if you have changed your position on all those meaty topics, it is interesting that all you did in your post is attack the Republican ticket without one convincing argument for the Democratic ticket. Hmmmmm….
aly 12:17 pm on 20 October 2008 Permalink
When someone on the other team says something crazy (“He’s a Arab,” for example), it confirms my worst suspicions. When someone on my team says something crazy (“McCain should, for the good of the country, do the same with the ‘RABIT DOG’ that he took on as a running mate,” for example), I think, He doesn’t really mean that. Sigh. I hope someday I’ll be grown-up enough to hold everyone to the same standard.
I was glad about the Powell endorsement. Not sure it will make much difference election-wise, but good to know that he will be offering his insight to an Obama administration (if such an animal is born).
harmonicminer 1:05 pm on 20 October 2008 Permalink
Uncle Colin’s Cabin, the next great movie by Oliver Stone
Colin is not supporting Obama because he’s black (it is not mostly about race in THAT sense), he’s supporting Obama to keep the good opinion of the largely WHITE Wash/NY corridor liberal elite and improve his press coverage. He is a perfect example of a general who acted in good faith on bad intelligence, and can’t take the heat. Good generals get (and accept) the blame when they act on bad intelligence and results are not as hoped. You learn about their character by seeing how they cope with the inevitably unpredictable results of war in uncertain times. The “Powell doctrine” was really about how to play it utterly safe… a distinctly un-general like attitude.
Powell wants to rescue his rep with the elites, and maybe get a job. But if he’d endorsed months back, he might have rescued his rep with the elites, but not gotten a job in a McCain administration.
If he was serious about this ideologically, as opposed to acting mostly of self-interest, the endorsement would have come many months ago.
One quibble: would he have endorsed Hillary, with whom he surely agrees as much as Obama, if his statements recently are to be believed?
Gotta wonder
aly hawkins 7:13 pm on 20 October 2008 Permalink
Or we could take Uncle Colin at his word and believe that it really took him this long to decide between two strong candidates.
But we probably won’t.
michael lee 8:02 pm on 20 October 2008 Permalink
I find his reasons very credible. The tactics of the McCain / Palin campaign in the last few weeks have left a very sour taste in my mouth.
JC 9:45 pm on 20 October 2008 Permalink
Michael: I consider you to be a very reasonable person. I also find Phil to be very credible, even though I know his comments don’t always sit well with our more liberal friends…and I consider all of the “regulars” here as “friends” as in, I honestly respect their opinions because it appears that they take this seriously and actually consider a candidate’s principles and positions not just the rhetoric. What has the McCain/Palin campaign (not others on their behalf) really done to leave a sour taste in your mouth?
harmonicminer 10:12 pm on 20 October 2008 Permalink
I have same question as JC re: “sour taste” tactics. I would have thought the treatment of Palin would make anything else “pale” in comparison. (See? I made a punny!)
I suppose the only tactics that leave me with a sour taste are lies about a candidate’s background, character, record or policies (both negative lies about an opponent, and positive, self-serving lies about yourself as candidate). Has McCain/Palin done that more than Obama/Biden? Or do you refer to something else? Or is it that you simply expect better behavior from the Right than the Left on that point? Or?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Chad 1:08 pm on 21 October 2008 Permalink
2 thoughts:
1. I think that Obama’s camp has been pretty mild to Sarah. The media has been ridiculous, and of course there’s the possibility that he’s really the one back there pulling the strings, but at least publicly, I think they’ve shown restraint towards her.
2. As one example of “sour taste,” I find the whole, “Real America,” routine that McCain and Palin are on now to be pretty silly and off-putting. We have people from L.A. serving and dying in Iraq just like they do in Iowa and Arkansas. We pay our taxes, vote, obey traffic laws, and put our hands over our hearts when we see Old Glory, too.
Oh, and last time I heard, the first lady of California (a Kennedy none-the-less) wasn’t a longstanding member of a political party that wanted our state to secede from the union.
PortcullisChain 3:41 pm on 21 October 2008 Permalink
Chad,
To your point one, I give you. http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/04/hey-obama-fight-the-smears/
Is Obama astute enough not to get into a smear contest against a very popular politician? Yes. Did major donors of his (and democratic big-wigs) smear her. Yes. Are the media (sans Fox) completely in the tank for Obama/Biden? Yes.
To your point two, I give you. http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/18/attention-joe-biden-meet-anti-america-america/
Was she pandering? Yes. Is she a politician and do they generally pander for votes? Yes. Is there an anti-america? Yes.
Also, to your point 2.5 on being a member of the Alaska Independent Party, the first link above states it pretty well but it bears repeating. Palin was never a member of the AKIP. As Governor she had some ceremonial contact with them but she has been a member of the Republican party for a quarter century. Her husband is not running for Vice-President. Also, I don’t believe the official AKIP platform (http://www.akip.org/platform.html) advocates secession. There are just some committed radicals who espouse it. It’s kinda like Pat Buchanan being a member of the Republican Party and Cindy Sheehan being a member of the Democratic Party.
-PC
harmonicminer 3:44 pm on 21 October 2008 Permalink
Chad, you haven’t bought the Palin secession canard, have you? Come on… do a little research somewhere besides HuffPo and DailyKos.
Obama doesn’t have to directly do a lot, precisely because the NYTimes and NBC are defacto campaign staff. What would have been appropriate would be for him to condemn the kind of treatment Palin got (that he didn’t from the same news outlets).
As a percentage of our forces, huge numbers come from “the heartland” in comparison to the coastal Lefty cities. It’s just a fact. Of course, some enlist from the cities. But it is not anywhere like “the norm” in camparison to “the heartland”. You can speculate as to why, but the fact is the fact.
Read this: Imperial Grunts: Robert D. Kaplan
You aren’t really claiming the media and Obama/Biden have been “nicer” than McCain/Palin have, are you? Because that’s really the contest, isn’t it? Obama owns every network except FOX, and every major paper except WSJ.
Chad 4:58 pm on 21 October 2008 Permalink
I didn’t say that Palin was AKIP. I said the first husband was. If we’re going to blast the candidates for their affiliations, Todd Palin is fair game, as is Bill Ayers.
I still resent (speaking as a conservative) that the McCain / Palin campaign feels the need to pander to conservatives ONLY in the midwest or south. It’s the broad generalizations that they make that irritate me.
Am I harder on McCain / Palin? You bet! You freaking bet I am. I expect better. I am a conservative person. I believe in the philosophy of the traditional Republican platform of smaller government, lower taxes, avoiding social engineering, etc.
I’m dying for a reason to vote McCain / Palin. I’m practically begging.
PortcullisChain 5:17 pm on 21 October 2008 Permalink
Chad,
Your right, you did reference the “second spouse” or whatever it’s called. My bad. You still didn’t address the fact that AKIP doesn’t support secession. Only the fringe does. Every party has them, that doesn’t make Todd Palin a traitor redneck pig. It just means he has some strong pro-Alaska views. From my point of view he seems just like the kinda guy I would want to “pal” around with. Obama’s relationship with Ayers is another story. This man is an avowed terrorist. He doesn’t feel any remorse with what he did and if given the chance would do it again. If I was running for President and it came out that I served on two charitable boards with an avowed terrorist who advocated the destruction of our nation, wrote a book jacket cover for his book praising him and launched my political career in his living-room I would expect you to ask some questions and I believe are totally different from a fringe third party up in Alaska. You also didn’t answer my anti-america comment. Do you deny that there are some really, f’ing crazy people who hate America who tend to congregate in large urban cities. I showed you the pictures. Do you consider those people pro-american? I don’t. I’m not dying to vote for McCain because I know the alternative is moral suicide. The fact that Obama has said his first act, if given the chance, would be to sign the “freedom of choice” act speaks volumes to me. Does my vote live and die by the “values” issues? No, I’m also a smaller government, lower taxes conservative and my issues with McCain are long. I will not however give my vote to a closet atheist by voting third party or abstaining.
-PC
p.s. I also don’t get mad when politicians pander for votes. I don’t kick a dog when he pisses on a fire hydrant. He’s just being a dog. I do get mad when politicians lie. So far I haven’t seen it yet from McCain (granted my research hasn’t been exhaustive), but Obama’s response to the charges on the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” qualifies as a lie to me and once again speaks volumes on his character. If your (Obama) pro-abortion, don’t quibble about it. Don’t pander to the center that you are somehow a moderate when the record shows your left of NARAL
Chad 9:03 pm on 21 October 2008 Permalink
My point isn’t that Todd Palin is a kook. My point isn’t that it’s even necessarily bad that there are Alaskans who think they’d do better on their own. I don’t live there. I don’t know. Perhaps they have a point.
My point is that I think it’s lame that they’re painting a picture of rural America as the center of goodness and “Americanism” and urban centers are the hotbed of evil and “Anti-Americanism.” I have some extensive experience in the South and midwest. I can say with no degree of uncertainty that this idea, that McCain and Palin are currently pitching, is just a flat falsehood. I, personally, resent it. Not just because it’s pandering and appeals to the lowest common denominator of the American intellect, but because it’s just patently false. New York City is the center of anti-Americanism? Bin Laden didn’t seem to think so.
Do I deny that there are anti-American sentiments in urban centers? No. But, there are plenty of anti-American sentiments spread all over this country. What does anti-American even mean? Can someone define it for me? I could play devil’s advocate here and say that since you and I don’t agree with the majority of Americans who think abortion should be legal that WE’RE anti-American.
One of the main reasons I would consider voting for Obama, and I haven’t made up my mind yet, (I’m one of those that the folks on The Daily Show are mocking) is because I believe he will raise the perception of America in the eyes of the world. Yes, I deeply care what citizens of foreign nations think about my country, correct or not. I care because we’re supposed to be a city on a hill. I care because we need to do trade, and our economy depends on it. I care because I’m tired of American families sacrificing their kids in foreign conflicts, and I think that other civilized nations should share in those burdens.
Does this make me unpatriotic? Does this make me anti-American? I don’t think so. I think it makes me very patriotic. I want our country to do well in the world. I don’t want us to be mocked, shunned, and marginalized. I want our flag to represent freedom, peace, strength, justice, and courage. That’s what our flag means to me. I want it to mean that to someone in Paris, or Baghdad.
What is passing for patriotism on the right these days just strikes me as borderline pathetic jingoism. I admit freely that I am harsher on conservatives than liberals right now. Why? Well, as you so eloquently stated, you shouldn’t get angry at a dog for pooping on the floor. Getting pissed at liberals for being liberal just seems counterproductive. They’re gonna do what they do.
I am deeply angry at conservatives right now, for surrendering a position of political shrewdness. Phil has pointed out several times that the media is in the tank for the left (BTW, I take my news from a variety of sources, among them Drudge, Little Green Footballs, WSJ, FoxNews) but I will restate this… GET OVER IT. So times are tough for conservatism. So the eff what? You wanna lead? You want my vote? Get smarter and stop pandering to stupidity. Raise the bar. A leader leads, period. A leader is ahead of the curve, and has his big boy pants on all the time. Bush just straight up quit even trying to justify himself somewhere in 2005. I voted for him twice, by the way, the 2nd time was because I personally did not relish the idea of changing commander in chief during a war.
One of the “Sour Tastes” I have over McCain and Palin is that they seem more committed to slamming the Ayers thing than pitching their own ideas. I think it’s wrong, personally, but America has vetoed the Ayers argument. It ain’t stickin’. I am frustrated that they seem unwilling to beat Obama at his own game. If they cannot, then they don’t deserve to lead, even if they get my vote.
Chad 9:13 pm on 21 October 2008 Permalink
For the record – lemme restate something here. I don’t think I know everything. I don’t think I’m smarter than the next guy. I don’t believe, in my heart of hearts, that because I live in California that I am somehow inherently smarter than someone who lives in Missouri. I step in it, intellectually speaking, all the time. I say and do dumb things.
But… I know how to lead. I am a leader. People of all ages and shapes regularly entrust themselves to me in various capacities, mostly musical, but not always. Sometimes I think they’d be better off if they didn’t, but it is what it is.
I know leadership when I see it, and I don’t see it in McCain right now. I wish I did, but I don’t.
JC 10:02 pm on 21 October 2008 Permalink
Good rant Chad…and I know you know that I mean that. I agree that McCain/Palin hasn’t made the best case, but honestly, that doesn’t mean someone who believes in Conservative principles should abandon them. While Obama’s talking points may not be offensive to many Americans, they are offensive to me because in my Conservative beliefs (the same ones you cited) it is BS. He is pandering to the “middle-class” and telling them he can do things for them that are not sustainable. Higher taxation is not sustainable even though redistributing the wealth sounds pretty good to everyone except the “wealthy”, but it fundamentally flies in the face of what motivates people in a capitalistic society…which is what we are. Socialized medicine (or the next thing to it) is not the solution, as many Western European countries have discovered. Talking to terrorist nations is a nice idea, but doesn’t work because we don’t have anything they want….except our lives. The reason the Obama message resonates with many people today is that the country is hurting economically, our reputation has taken a hit internationally, and GW hasn’t done the best job of being inclusive. On top of all that, Obama seems like a man we would be proud to call our President because he looks good and speaks well and says comforting things. I admit that he is a better public persona than McCain. However, that does not make him a better leader. He has absolutely no record of notable leadership…in anything. And yet this country is poised to put him in the most important job in the world, based on the thinnest resume in the history of the Presidency. If I were running the McCain campaign, negative or not, THAT is what I would be focussing on. “Nothing against you personally Mr. Obama (although I do not agree with many of your party’s principles), but you have not demonstrated anywhere near the kind of leadership that would lead me to believe you can lead this country at one of the most critical moments in it’s history”. PERIOD. I am sorry that the McCain/Palin ticket keeps smart people like you (who are already predisposed) from making what should be a no-brainer choice. Hey, I offered them my marketing expertise, but nobody returned my calls!
P.S. By the way, I think you already promised me that you were going to vote for McCain! I still have the iChat file!!!!
Daniel Semsen 10:07 pm on 21 October 2008 Permalink
>>>Chad, you haven’t bought the Palin secession canard, have you? Come on… do a little research somewhere besides HuffPo and DailyKos.
ohhhhh Chad…
You just got SHACK’D!!!!
BURN!!!!
HAHA!
michael lee 10:43 pm on 21 October 2008 Permalink
Dan Semsen, bringing class to heated political dialog, since 1979.
Brandy Ruscica 11:27 pm on 21 October 2008 Permalink
Don’t hold this against me…but I was born in Alaska! And way up in those Eskimo parts…Nome!
harmonicminer 11:28 pm on 21 October 2008 Permalink
Chad you said so much I don’t know where to start, and don’t plan to finish, so a few comments:
The “world” does not hate America. The Left hates America, whether we’re talking the American Left or the off-shore Left, wherever it may be. I don’t know what to call radical Islam on the Left/Right axis, but it also hates America. The Right, around the world, LOVES America.
It is not hard to define America, or “American values”. America is the only nation on earth founded around a set of ideas, and those ideas are definable because they have an intellectual history. The Left disagrees with those values, but can’t win the argument without lying about what those values ARE. America is the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, and the Declaration, more or less in reverse order. That’s the core. It includes a process for changing the Constitution, and that process does not include judges pretending it says something else, another preferred strategy of the Left.
The Left sneers at about one/third of those values, and to that extent, they are anti-American. Proof: they are allied, historically and currently, with America haters off shore. What else do you need? America haters in Europe loved Obama. It’s pretty simple. Hamas endorses Obama. So does the Communist Party USA.
Chad: not everyone is a smooth talker. Good leaders often aren’t. And you and I both know (I hope) that the complete in-the-tank-for-Obama nature of nearly all the media is the only reason why McCain’s failures on that point matter. If the Left had fielded a verbally challenged candidate, he would be protected by the press, and it would become a virtue to be simple and straightforward, while the slick candidate on the Right would be accused of being a good actor. It has happened before. Remember Reagan?
That whole slick/nonslick thing is a smokescreen, which is used by the media whichever way benefits their annointed candidate. Don’t fall for it. Listen to the words. And encourage everyone else to do the same, instead of bagging on McCain for speaking straightforward English.
“We will look at nuclear power, if the safety issues can be resolved.” “There is evil on the streets of American cities.” “The middle class needs a government that thinks about them first.”
Anyone who falls for this garbage deserves to be taken to the cleaners the next time they buy a used car.
He’ll look at nuclear power, all right. That’s all he’ll do, look, because the safety issues will never be resolved to the satisfaction of the eco-panic Left. “Evil on American streets” means one thing to a black person suspicious of cops, and another to a person who was just mugged, and another to a person whose neighborhood is overrun by drug dealers and hookers, and the beauty of it is that everyone thinks the ONE is talking to THEM. And sure, he’ll give you a middle class “tax cut”, but it won’t be as much money as you lose when prices go up, your employer cuts back, you lose hours or don’t get a raise, gas prices go back up because the clown won’t drill (but he’ll LOOK at it), etc.
Bluntly, this election is an intelligence test for America. If all the people who actually understand just a little bit of reality get out and vote, we might survive it. But Obama with a filibuster proof Senate and House dominance will change so much in two years you won’t believe it. Nearly all the damage caused by Clinton to our national defense and economy was done in those first two years, when he had a Democrat congress, and that was without a filibuster proof Senate.
It will be RADICAL. I know you think things will just kind of go along, with minor adjustments… but you need to go back to 1932, or 1964-65, and consider how radically two Democrat presidents with Democrat congresses were able to completely change the nation, in ways we cannot now recover from without great pain. What Obama has in mind is more radical than either of those years, by about a factor of 5, I think. And the pure hell of it is this: what he has in mind isn’t as bad as what will happen if he gets even half of his way.
Social Security is going to be THE issue, along with Medicare, that will economically destroy or radically stress our nation, in about 15 years, even without any new entitlement commitments from the feds. Can you say 30% tax just for social security? I will be collecting money from you, my good man, and I want my bit, because I’ll have paid for your parents and grandparents.
FDR and LBJ both underestimated the cost of their programs by about a factor of 15, and them’s hard numbers. No kidding. FDR promised 1% to FICA tax. It’s now 15%. And going UP.
Medicare costs just about 12-15 times what LBJ and the CBO said it would, this year.
Whatever Obama SAYS the new national healthcare plan is going to cost, multiply by TEN, within about 10 years… or 20, does it matter?
Sadly, I won’t be around to see the real looming economic disaster… but you will, and so will my kids.
I’d like to avoid it.
That’s assuming, of course, that Iran hasn’t nuked New York and Washington and LA by then, and gone out in a blaze of Mahdi-seeking glory, as we retaliate…. instead of blocking it with the missile defense system Obama will cripple for these next 8 years, and put 15 years behind, because expertise will be lost.
Chad 9:14 am on 22 October 2008 Permalink
John -
Due to my slick verbiage, I am certain that I can explain away my alleged promise to vote for McCain. I think I used the phrase, “I’ll look into it provided that I can assuage my concerns about public safety.” Or, since it’s an iChat file, I can always say it was my wife who said it, or perhaps a hacker.
Phil -
You make outstanding points, as usual. I take issue with only one of them:
“Chad: not everyone is a smooth talker. Good leaders often aren’t.”
Boy, are we gonna have to agree to disagree on that one. Reagan, Lincoln, John Adams. Hell, even Nixon could articulate. I don’t know many great leaders who can’t speak convincingly. You use the pejorative term “Smooth Talker,” but I’m speaking about oration, the ability to rise above circumstances and convincingly present the superiority of your ideas.
We’re not electing a platoon leader, or a construction site foreman, jobs in which sheer competence and knowledge are the issue, and not verbal acuity. We’re electing the leader of the free world. He (or She) had better be a damn good speaker. The American public is not privy to private conversations. We have only what it presented to us, by the leaders themselves in often prepared, rehearsed statements, to make judgements. How else are we to judge?
On this point, you have not addressed one of my fundamental beefs with the right, which is that we (they) can either choose to accept the current state of public opinion, and the state of the media, and modify their tactics to win, or they can continue to cry and whine about it. We had our season of cultural dominance, and then the left decided to win, and now we’re crying about it, rather than learning and evolving. Instead, the Republican party seems hell-bent on appealing to the most conservative and traditional citizens, a citizenry which will continue to shrink and cloister as leftist ideals continue to take hold of the national consciousness.
It’s just a bad tactic. It’s a losing tactic. The right is going to lose in ‘08, and based on their tactical choices, they (we) deserve it.
Chad 9:30 am on 22 October 2008 Permalink
Oh, and anytime you wanna weigh in, Mike, originator of the post and rabble-rouser, feel free.
harmonicminer 12:49 pm on 22 October 2008 Permalink
Chad,
The Left has still had cultural dominance in the years of Republican congressional rule. They own the media, the universities, the teachers unions, the unions (especially every government union), entertainment, virtually every big city, even those in overall more conservative states, you name it. Walk through a grocery store checkout line, see the softcore porn at every counter, and understand what it means. If the Right had “cultural dominance” in the last ten years, it simply wouldn’t be there.
What would make you think otherwise? No much has changed since the 1960s in terms of the power balance, except on the margins. For a short period (early clinton years), some 60s types over-reached a bit, and got a backlash from it. But backlashes are responses, not policies, and we’re back where we started, except this time the congress is pretty much majority hard left and minority moderate right, which is not a balance, of course. It was partly Republican over-reaching that brought about their congressional downfall, including simple profiteering (always much more a problem for the Right than the Left, because everyone expects it on the Left, and the media helps to protect them, but is shocked, I say, shocked when the Right does it). But it was events more than systemic failures that have taken them down, and the media’s willing enthusiasm in blaming Bush and the Republicans for every single thing that didn’t go well.
Bush’s single biggest failure, in my judgment, was in not sending enough troops to Iraq, and dragging his feet when that became apparent. ( I don’t count going in the first place as a failure of judgment… everyone in the world, pretty much, thought Saddam had WMD. But once committed, it needed to be finished ASAP.) He was, of course, trying to make the war not seem worse than it was, and “let’s double the troops” sounds scary to people, but when you fail to do right for fear of public reaction, the cost is usually high, at least if you’re on the Right. And it may be that even with more troops, it would have taken some time for the Sunni awakening to happen, for them to realize that Al Qaeda was not their friend. So it’s possible that the process, once begun, just had to run its course.
Essentially, the calculus is this: because the battle is between the Right on one side, and the Left PLUS the media on the left, it is like a game where the ref is biased, and never gives one side an even break. It’s not impossible to win, but it is MUCH harder, you must be clearly superior in nearly every way to your ref-supported opponent, and you must keep your cool.
So since we are split Left/Right country, it’s amazing that with the biased ref that we EVER win. It takes no great, complex, sociological explanation.
Be essentially perfect, or lose.
BTW… Most of the names you listed would not have won election in modern times. They were good writers, but not good speech makers, or they looked funny, or sounded funny. They never had to think on their feet against hostile questioning from a biased press on national television.
And our very best at this, Reagan, was routinely called stupid and a mere actor because he could pull it off.
Bluntly, we can’t expect some charismatic leader to come and rescue us. If we don’t, as a movement, make the case ourselves, instead of whining at the imperfections of the people on our side, we are lost. Simple as that. We’ve had the only messiah we’re going to get. So we have to get busy and make our case, everywhere and everywhen we can.
BTW…. we are moving in a French Revolution sort of direction, where equality matters more than liberty/freedom (not news, of course). I doubt we’ll start lopping off heads (other than financial ones), but the thing these sorts of groundswell revolutions (equality for ALL!!!) seem to have in common is this: after the Revolution fails (and it DOES, always, because it fails to deal with economic laws as sure as gravity), the only way to get a population up and moving, when they couldn’t be bought off with government largess (because the largess is gone, and no one else will loan money), is well-known to us all: WAR. BIG, BIG WAR. Not petty little war. Not “let’s send a few troops somewhere to shoot people” war. HUGE, culture enveloping and national priority re-orienting war. War where instead of a few thousand, tens or hundreds of thousands of our soldiers are killed.
French Revolution -> War
Russian Revolution -> WAR
Rooseveltian/Wilsonian progressivism -> WAR
New Deal -> appeasement -> WAR
Great Society -> War
Can we agree that as wrenching as Iraq/Afghanistan have been, they are not close in terms of loss of life, cultural and financial cost, etc., percentage wise, to the Napoleonic wars, WW I, WW II and Vietnam?
Of course, I understand that it’s possible to make charts like the one above relating other factors to war, and that those wars had various causes. But some commonality: each involved a move toward “equality”, each involved inward self-absorption combined with failed policy that required WAR to mobilize a population, at least for a time.
I’m trying to think of a time when a nation moved strongly in the direction of individual liberty (as opposed to equality) that was followed in a decade or so by all out war (the revolution that created the nation doesn’t count here… nor does simply being invaded from outside, a la Georgia, by a nation trying to reoccupy you). We’re talking about external wars after a nation has moved from socialism to greater individual freedom…. which doesn’t happen often, I admit, and which is why I hate what’s happening here, because the genie won’t go back in the bottle without a lot of suffering.
Can’t think of one right off, not since the Peloponnesian Wars, anyway.
Chad 2:03 pm on 22 October 2008 Permalink
Phil -
To clarify one thing, I should have been more specific, when I was talking about the right having its time of cultural dominance, I was speaking more about the broader history of the 20th century, not just the past 10 years.
I wish I could have lived through the 60s. I would like to understand, firsthand, how we arrived at the culture we have. Perhaps it’s just always going to be there, this generational gap, but I have spoken with a lot of people in their 30s, raising young families, who feel utterly ungrounded and set adrift by our parent’s generation.
Now, my folks are conservative, so understand that I’m speaking about a cultural phenomenon rather than some sort of specific indictment. However, I’ve personally felt like Boomers on the right have their heels dug in pretty far, and the dirt trail they’ve kicked up seems to lead right back in time to when the Beatles stepped off that plane. The Boomers on the left seem to be attempting to use their elder years to somehow validate the dangerous insanity of their youth.
Nowhere do we feel like we’re getting some straight talk… (hey… that’s catchy!) It’s all vitriol and rhetoric, as best we can tell, and we’re just so tired of it from both sides. I think Obama is so appealing to my generation because he seems committed to a new style of communication.
So, yes, I will continue to demand conservative leaders to step up to the plate and figure out a way to reframe the argument. I sincerely don’t think it’s too much to ask, in fact I think it’s mandatory.
harmonicminer 4:14 pm on 22 October 2008 Permalink
Don’t get me wrong. I would LOVE to be able to follow a really charismatic right-leaning leader, who talked the talk, walked the walk, knew how to beat the media at their own game, was philosophically well-grounded with a common touch, etc.
I even know of some people like that. But they are not politicians, by and large, they are media figures. Do we really have to live in a world where the primary skill set we value is that of a radio talk-show host and actor?
I don’t think the argument has to be reframed. It simply has to be made, and it hasn’t been, with any consistency and fullness, in the major media. I think it probably CAN’T be made there, because it just isn’t allowed. Make it with fullness, and you’re cut into soundbites that distort meaning. Make it consistently, and you’re accused of “repeating your stump speech again” and the like.
It is only in long form presentations like debates where it can be done, and those are so formalized and dominated by media referees (and deliberately so) that it’s nearly impossible there, too. Anyone who strays far off point to MAKE a better point is accused of “not answering the question”, and there isn’t time to do both.
I have to point out that the slick communicator of change was afraid to sit in townhalls with John McCain and field direct questions from the public, and interact with McCain. McCain offered ten such opportunities, at locations of the wunderkind’s choosing, and was refused. The kinds of skills and knowledge that such events would have allowed McCain to demonstrate are far more related to the day to day work of being president than reading teleprompters and performing at scripted events. Obama’s campaign knew that, of course, and so chose not to participate.
In the meantime, if we can’t get our act together, the Assyrians are waiting just off stage Left. There are a lot of them, and their spears are long. They would love to move in and get cable TV.
The USA won’t last forever. Why would we think it would? Oh, something with that name may be around for quite some time….
Fairness Doctrine, union card check, a little gerrymandering, and maybe a new state of Puerto Rico, a rep or three for DC, a couple young hard Left judges, 20 million new citizens who mostly vote Left, and the stage is set for the USA to become a one party nation. Until it isn’t a nation at all, exactly.
And that’s only the plans they’ve actually announced.
JC 4:42 pm on 22 October 2008 Permalink
Welcome to Western Europe. Been there. Seen it. Have friends there. I will vote “no thanks” because with all of our issues, I still like that we stand up for what we believe to be right in our hearts and it is the same thing we have stood up for over the last 200+ years. I seriously worry about the road that Obama and a Democratic congress will take us down.
harmonicminer 4:52 pm on 22 October 2008 Permalink
I am curious, Chad:
What would feel to you like “reframing the debate”? Can you offer any kind of example?
And what is the distinction between “digging in your heels” and “being consistent with your principles”?
What would you wish had been done by the boomer generation so you would feel less “adrift”?
Trust me: WE felt pretty darn adrift. Our parents just didn’t talk about how they felt as young folk, by and large, so we don’t know how THEY felt…. but I gather the Depression was scary, not to mention WWII.
IMHO, the Left has owned the last century, not the Right. The Right lost its way with the passage of the Sherman anti-trust act, if not sooner. I’m not talking Republican/Democrat purely: for example, on my scale, Teddy Roosevelt was more Left than Right, maybe 70/30.
The USA wasn’t even a hundred years old before the poison of Marxism/socialism began coming across the ocean, in drips and drabs.
Pretty much all the cultural change in the last 100 years has been to the Left, or so it seems to me. The USA has been remarkably resistant to the Sirens, more than any other sizable nation, I think (Hong Kong excepted, until 2047, if the Chinese follow the Basic Law, but Hong Kong is small, of course.) However, the USA as it now exists would be unrecognizable to any 1870’s citizen, and I don’t mean the technology, I mean what the citizens expect their government to do for them, and what benefits they expect to receive that must be paid by others. There have been plateaus where change was slower in the USA, but it has never been reversed, I think. I cannot think of any more or less socialist enterprise in the USA that has ever ended once begun, other than (certain to be temporary) reductions to AFDC under Repub congress in Clinton years. Oh, I left out the fascism reduction in American political life after Wilson left office…. but the change was not permanent, as we have seen, and will see.
What GOES left, STAYS left, until death do you part, unless external events overwhelm those in power.
And maybe sometimes that’s what it takes.
JC 5:55 pm on 22 October 2008 Permalink
Interesting, I had the same thought the other day from a slightly different angle. I believe we have been drifting further and further “left” as a nation. What would it look like to drift “right”? Is that even possible any more? I know what drifting left feels and looks like, but wouldn’t it be more like “returning to the right”? Why does that idea seem almost repulsive to some? I’d like to hear thoughts from some of our more liberal friends, or those that think they understand that view.
Chad 6:12 pm on 22 October 2008 Permalink
Ok:
Reframing the debate…. and I have about 5 min here, so I’ll just throw out one idea… I would say that conservatives need to figure out a way to discuss self-reliance compassionately, without sounding self-righteous.
I have been writing a blog in my head about weight loss, but I have been waiting until I hit the magical 100 number, which should happen in the next two weeks, to post it. In this as of yet unwritten blog, I will lay out hard facts about what it takes to lose weight. I will seek to unpack and circumnavigate the usual excuses I hear from people, because in this strange world I have now become something of a local health guru.
When I talk to people about losing weight, and getting healthy, it’s simple: shortcuts don’t work. They never have, never will. However, having recently been a fat ass myself, I am able to say it in a way that tells them that I understand where their head is at. I say it in a way, or at least try to, that doesn’t make them feel badly about themselves, but rather empowered to do what I myself have done. I say it nicely, not because I am such a sweetheart, but because I actually want them to go for it. I want them to win. I don’t want to just be right. I already know I’m right. I don’t have anything left to prove. I want THEM to succeed.
One of the hallmarks of conservatism, as I understand it, is self-reliance. Self-reliance is the only real pathway to satisfaction (let’s just take theology out of the debate for a sec, for grins, k?). We must coax people out of their addiction to bigger government “help” lovingly and, yes, sacrificially. We must patiently and dispassionately unpack our arguments. We have to let them do the shouting, let them collapse under the weight of their own arguments if any argument is to be truly won. Are “they” unreasonable, shrill, misguided? Maybe. Maybe. Returning in kind is doomed to failure, as they have the bigger bullhorn.
I agree with most of the points that you make, here and elsewhere. You posess a truly formidable mind. The issue I take with you, and McCain and Palin, is HOW it’s being said. I know this sounds loosy-goosy to you. I apologize. I’m a lyricist at heart. It’s all been said… my gig is to try and figure out how to spin the words in a fresh way.
harmonicminer 6:22 pm on 22 October 2008 Permalink
I have a conjecture, for what it’s worth, and it’s quite simple.
The Left, to be true to its results oriented ideology, succeeds only with gaining more and more power to cause results it desires, and having attained those results, uses them to build the power to cause more results, and so on, and so on, and so on.
In other words, the notion of the Left “returning power to the people” in any meaningful way is a farce on its face.
On the other hand, the Right, when true to its ideology, actually defunds much of government, reduces the footprint of government on the citizens, and releases power to the private sector.
Of course, various parts of the private sector are in competition with one another, and if any of those are able to get help from the government to win against the rest, they’ll take it.
The Left says, “OK, let’s pick the ones we want to win, and help them.” And its power base is built, as is that of the private sector groups that cooperate with it.
The Right says, “Sorry folks, you’ll have to duke it out yourselves. May the best, uh, human being or group of human beings win.” The Right only enforces contract law, prevents unjust violence on the part of one private sector group on another, etc. (For example, the Right would prosecute violence committed either by employers OR by unions, equally.)
But nothing in this builds the power base of the Right, and in fact it must constantly resist the temptation to pick winners and losers, and to form inappropriate alliances with the private sector. On the other hand, the Left has no such restraint: that’s what it DOES.
So once the Left has caused large numbers to identify their future welfare with the Left, its pretty much over. The Right can never get people to put long-term societal welfare ahead of their own immediate slice of the communal pie. On the other had, the Right is always and everywhere in danger of taking that additional step of picking a winner or loser. That innocuous step always leads Left, eventually.
The irony: the Left, while claiming to be for freedom and equality, is always limited in its ability to produce results by how much power it has amassed to control people’s lives. The Left never, ever defunds itself, cancels a program (one of Obama’s funnier promises), etc., unless something about that program actually competes with the real goals of the Left.
A government program that competes with the Left is, however, a virtual oxymoron. The only one that comes close is the military, if the military is populated by a majority of Right-leaners, which explains why the Left is always anxious to defund it in the USA and Europe, but is always anxious to FUND it in Russia, China, et. al., where the MOST true-believing Left are likely to be IN the military.
harmonicminer 6:24 pm on 22 October 2008 Permalink
OK, I said it would be simple, and it got long.
The summary: The Left, to win in the light of its ideology, must always increase its power.
The Right, to win in the light of its ideology, must decrease its power to the minimum level necessary to sustain government and provide for the common defense.
This means that, in the end, Left and Right aren’t fighting the same fight, by the same rules, with the same object of the game.
harmonicminer 6:35 pm on 22 October 2008 Permalink
Chad, that was really helpful in understanding what you meant by “reframe the debate”.
Here’s what we need, in all honesty:
We need a black person who was poor, became successful, did it without affirmative action or a rich uncle or a government program or quota, is articulate without seeming too articulate, can show he/she understands the situation for poor blacks, can explain why the perspectives of the Right will benefit them more in the long run, and convince them that they can do it, too.
I don’t think ANY white person, regardless of formidable story and skills, can make that connection, because the Left power base of the activist black “civil rights movement” just has too many ways to blunt the message.
Remember, you had to be the one who was in the less-healthy person’s exact situation, can prove you know exactly where they live, and know a way out?
I think it applies here, too.
But you know, don’t you, what kind of abuse that person would undergo?
A few have tried, and simply been destroyed or marginalized, not least by the WHITE establishment that doesn’t like uppity black folk.