Republicans’ Atomic Stupidity
January 8, 2013
Elizabeth Scalia
In his weekly column at the Washington Post, Marc A. Thiessen, a fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, recently offered an interesting appreciation of Barack Obama, surprising in its suggestion that his Republican friends be more like our extremely driven, results-oriented president. He writes:
Obama strong armed the GOP by making clear he was ready to take the country over the fiscal cliff and allow taxes to rise on every single American. He was willing to let the country go into recession if he did not get his way. He knew he had political leverage, and he used it without hesitation—forcing his political opposition to bend to his will. . .
Republicans should take a page from Obama’s playbook. . . . If they learn anything from Obama’s victories, it should be this: Voters reward conviction politicians who fight for what they believe in—even when they disagree with them. Pandering does not work.
I too have come to respect Obama’s tenacity, even as I deplore his illiberality, but I think Thiessen’s recommendation makes a deadly miscalculation: He forgets that Obama’s single-minded pursuits are fully backed and protected by the mainstream press.
Whether in print or broadcast, our increasingly lofty and elitist media are a little like the FDIC to Obama’s commercial bank; they provide insurance and coverage. They differ from the FDIC only in conditions and limits, because where this president is concerned, the media have none. Although he displays little respect for their assistance, Obama’s deposits are always accepted; his withdrawals are penalty-free and he is never asked to fill out a form, repay with interest or show two forms of ID.
The GOP, even if they could figure out exactly what they want and then rouse themselves to something resembling tenacity, has no equivalent support, and would therefore be unable to successfully bring about their policy ideas by using Obama’s methods. As a college professor once informed me in bright red ink, “you cannot do mathematics if you don’t have all the numbers”, and any reconfiguration on the part of the GOP must acknowledge that, currently, the essential component of the press is unavailable to them; hence, their math will not work:
“My Will, Squared, times Digging-in-Heels, divided by [Executive Order] only equals “Glorious Victory” when it contains a cosine “D” and is calculated with a vector + MSM.
The same equation: My Will, Squared, times Digging-in-Heels, divided by [Executive Order] with a cosine “R” and + ALT vector can never, ever equal “Glorious Victory”; it will instead calculate—as we have seen repeatedly since at least 1992—as “Imperialistic Arrogance, Brusque Tone-deaf” with a straggly and useless remainder of “Out of Touch.”
Writes Thiessen:
If the roles were reversed, Obama would not hesitate to use the threat of default to break his political opposition . . . Obama uses every ounce of political power at his disposal to get what he wants. It’s admirable, really. He has core beliefs and is willing to put everything on the line for them . . . If the GOP wants a path out of the political wilderness, they should start acting more like the current occupant of the Oval Office.
I hope Thiessen can step back from the blackboard, see what is missing from his calculation and redo it. The work he is showing contains some essential parts, but absent the necessary cosine and vector, I believe his advice could be dangerous, even deadly.
And the GOP is already in extremis; they can’t afford to continue acting out at the chalkboard, erasing each other’s math in mid-problem to insert their preferred configurations, all while calling each other names and attempting to narrow their numbers down to the purest common denominator—or to force a perfect number where it will not fit.
Thiessen is an intelligent man, but the calculation he offers is so fundamentally flawed that were it a cartoon it might be called Atomic Stupidity. Picture Huey, Dewey, and Louie fighting at the chalkboard, with Uncle Donald breaking yardsticks in rage, while Pluto and Goofy are using the correct formulation and launching an A-bomb in their direction, even as they squabble.
Post-impact, they stagger around in disorientation, because they are cartoons, and do not realize that they are actually dead.
The GOP has lost the MSM vector. Some, like Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds have proffered that the only way for Republicans to find it is for the wealthier among them to acquire mainstream media outlets, particularly women’s magazines:
Those magazines and Web sites see themselves, pretty consciously, as a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party. So while nine out of 10 articles may be the usual stuff on sex, diet and shopping, the 10th will always be either soft p.r. for the Democrats or soft—or sometimes not-so-soft—hits on Republicans.
When a flier about getting away with rape was found in a college men’s bathroom, the women’s site YourTango (“Your Best Love Life”) led with the fact that the college was Paul Ryan’s alma mater in a transparent effort to advance the Democrats’ War on Women claim that Republicans are somehow pro-rape. A companion article was “12 Hot Older Men Who Endorse President Obama.” . . . this theme, repeated over and over again, sends a message: Democrats are cool, and Republicans are uncool—and if you vote for them, you’re uncool, too.
Reynolds might be right. A steady ten-percent solution of soft-media counter-spin dripped into the subconscious of low-info voters—pointing out, perhaps, that since November 2012 Lily Ledbetter’s equal-pay story and the “War on Women” have suddenly gone away—might be more effective than alternative media conservatives shouting endlessly to their overwrought choirs.
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here.
RESOURCES
Marc Thiessen in WaPo
US Press selective in its coverage and emphasis.
Instapundit.com
Glenn Reynolds: Republicans should buy media outlets
War on Women Rhetoric
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
1.8.2013 | 9:49am
Thomas Martin Cothran says:
"He forgets that Obama’s single-minded pursuits are fully backed and protected by the mainstream press."
And important sectors of the public. Very little Obama has done is unequivocally unpopular, and it is usually done to gain a tactical advantage. Obama came out in favor of gay marriage when it was advantageous for him to do so. Even the Affordable Care Act, which polls poorly when labelled Obamacare, has majority support when the questions list the specific provisions. (Except the individual mandate, of course.)
And it is silly to talk about the mainstream press being unequivocally left-wing now that the most popular cable news channel and many of the most popular online outlets reflect a right wing point of view. The reality is that people can new choose to insulate themselves with media outlets that reflect their own opinions back at them and rarely be called to question the accuracy of their convictions.
And important sectors of the public. Very little Obama has done is unequivocally unpopular, and it is usually done to gain a tactical advantage. Obama came out in favor of gay marriage when it was advantageous for him to do so. Even the Affordable Care Act, which polls poorly when labelled Obamacare, has majority support when the questions list the specific provisions. (Except the individual mandate, of course.)
And it is silly to talk about the mainstream press being unequivocally left-wing now that the most popular cable news channel and many of the most popular online outlets reflect a right wing point of view. The reality is that people can new choose to insulate themselves with media outlets that reflect their own opinions back at them and rarely be called to question the accuracy of their convictions.
1.8.2013 | 10:15am
Guest says:
Sadly, maineman is correct. The battle is over;the war, not yet. Unless the R party is seen as the party of the little guy struggling against urban and hollywood elites, it will be ignored. Look at what the Conservative party in Canada was able to do. It is the party of the little guy, the party of humble work, traditional values and fiscal responsibility. The parties on the left are cast as out of touch urban elites obssessed with sexual rights, partying and shopping. It worked there it can work here. But, yes the MSM is 100% in the bag for O. America is in a weird place right now. Sometimes it looks to me to be more socialist in its aspirations than even Europe. Very strange days indeed.
1.8.2013 | 11:28am
Luke T. Harrington says:
Correct me if I'm wrong, Ms. Scalia, but you seem to be arguing that while internal squabbles and a total lack of vision plague the GOP, their real problem is a dearth of media support.
Isn't it possible there's a cause-and-effect relationship here -- that the GOP lacks media support *because* they're so incompetent and tone-deaf?
Isn't it possible there's a cause-and-effect relationship here -- that the GOP lacks media support *because* they're so incompetent and tone-deaf?
1.8.2013 | 11:47am
paul says:
First, I hate the term "mainstream media" because people use it but it is rarely defined. So, when anyone reads it, they just insert whatever THEY think represents the mainstream media.
Assuming that by the term MSM you mean print and broadcast outlets that started before the age of the internet, you have to also admit that their influence is plummeting like Wile E Coyote off a cliff. Traditional print and broadcast media have been shedding workers for a decade or longer. Even more importantly, there is a new voting generation, and one on the verge of voting, who get almost no news from ancient media sources but almost completely through various types of electronic and old fashioned social media.
I don't think either the American Right or Left, or the religious or irreligious, can be said to have control of electronic social media, if for no other reason than people tend to gravitate to the social media that reflects what they like.
In another ten years, just about the only people paying attention to mainstream, ancient media will be over 60-- still politically and religiously active, but not as plugged into the way most of the rest of the country is getting its news.
Assuming that by the term MSM you mean print and broadcast outlets that started before the age of the internet, you have to also admit that their influence is plummeting like Wile E Coyote off a cliff. Traditional print and broadcast media have been shedding workers for a decade or longer. Even more importantly, there is a new voting generation, and one on the verge of voting, who get almost no news from ancient media sources but almost completely through various types of electronic and old fashioned social media.
I don't think either the American Right or Left, or the religious or irreligious, can be said to have control of electronic social media, if for no other reason than people tend to gravitate to the social media that reflects what they like.
In another ten years, just about the only people paying attention to mainstream, ancient media will be over 60-- still politically and religiously active, but not as plugged into the way most of the rest of the country is getting its news.
1.8.2013 | 11:58am
nobody.really says:
“If the roles were reversed, Obama would not hesitate to use the threat of default to break his political opposition . . . Obama uses every ounce of political power at his disposal to get what he wants. It’s admirable, really. He has core beliefs and is willing to put everything on the line for them….”
Please remind me --
When did we close the detention facilities in Guantanamo? How are those civil trials going?
When did we adopt a single-payer national health care system?
When did Susan Rice get confirmed as Secretary of State?
When did the tax rate on people earning $250K get increased?
When did the Senate confirm the backlog of judicial nominations?
When did Congress adopt climate-control legislation?
When did Obama’s smog/ozone rule take effect?
When did the Senate Republicans capitulate on their 139 filibusters filed during the 110th Congress alone?
Republicans are free to embrace Thiessen’s ideal of pursuing their agenda even at the expense of US government default. Indeed, the US credit rating was downgraded precisely because Speaker Boener made such threats during the last debt ceiling crisis. In case you’ve forgotten, we only resolved that crisis by creating the Fiscal Cliff.
As far as I can tell, all politicians pursue advantages when they find them. (“Oh, that naughty Lincoln -- exploiting military and electoral victories to push his anti-slavery agenda!”) And all politicians have to compromise eventually.
Moral: If I focus exclusively on the rightness of MY causes and remain oblivious to OTHER people’s causes, I’ll overlook the compromises that others make and obsess solely on the compromises I’ve had to make. And if I CAN overlook the compromises made by the party favored by the media, then I have to question the strength of the media – or of the thesis.
Please remind me --
When did we close the detention facilities in Guantanamo? How are those civil trials going?
When did we adopt a single-payer national health care system?
When did Susan Rice get confirmed as Secretary of State?
When did the tax rate on people earning $250K get increased?
When did the Senate confirm the backlog of judicial nominations?
When did Congress adopt climate-control legislation?
When did Obama’s smog/ozone rule take effect?
When did the Senate Republicans capitulate on their 139 filibusters filed during the 110th Congress alone?
Republicans are free to embrace Thiessen’s ideal of pursuing their agenda even at the expense of US government default. Indeed, the US credit rating was downgraded precisely because Speaker Boener made such threats during the last debt ceiling crisis. In case you’ve forgotten, we only resolved that crisis by creating the Fiscal Cliff.
As far as I can tell, all politicians pursue advantages when they find them. (“Oh, that naughty Lincoln -- exploiting military and electoral victories to push his anti-slavery agenda!”) And all politicians have to compromise eventually.
Moral: If I focus exclusively on the rightness of MY causes and remain oblivious to OTHER people’s causes, I’ll overlook the compromises that others make and obsess solely on the compromises I’ve had to make. And if I CAN overlook the compromises made by the party favored by the media, then I have to question the strength of the media – or of the thesis.
1.8.2013 | 12:06pm
Elizabeth Scalia says:
Why no, Luke. I'm sure if the GOP could get its act together the media still would do all it could to work in opposition to them. The same calculation I offered above was true when Reagan ("unintelligent, cowboy, arrogant, imperialist") was in office (being a Democrat, at the time, I totally believed it), and of course Bushes I&II ("unintelligent, cowboy, arrogant imperialists, out of touch"). That IS the GOP equation with the press, and has been for a quite a while. But when it comes to this president in particular, there is an absoluteness -- a tendency toward unconditional acceptance and incuriosity -- that I have never seen before, and I've been watching the news media closely for nearly 50 years. Newsweek may have wished to spike the Lewinsky story for Clinton, but when it broke, the press covered it, even though they clearly didn't want to. With this president, the press simply doesn't cover those stories they don't like ("Fast and Furious", Benghazi, the disaster at Camp Bastion (have you ever even heard of the story of Camp Bastion and the absolute disaster that occured there, affection our marine aviation capabilities? Under a Republican president it would have been huge story, as would Benghazi, F&F etc). They somehow missed it when Sr. Carol Keehan walked back her support of the HHS Mandate (or the 41 lawsuits brought against the mandate from various Catholic entities, including Univ. Notre Dame) and they are unapologetic about their disinterest. My goodness, they sent teams of lawyers to look through Sarah Palin's trash, and track down George W. Bush's dentist who filled his teeth while he was in the TANG. They have zero curiosity about Obama, though. Never a follow-up, question and quick to the memory hole. Which is why today the NY Times is shocked, shocked to discover that Obamacare has resulted in huge increases in insurance premiums for many. Matt Lewis writes more about the incurious press and the aid they give Obama here: http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/07/the-truth-hurts. I have no doubt that were the GOP to suddenly become competent again, the press would still sneer at them, ignore them and call them, um, "imperialist, stupid, arrogant..." etc.
1.8.2013 | 12:15pm
Dan says:
I am a conservative, but independent, voter. I don't know which is worse - a party that has no principles whatsoever - and they live up to them very well , or a party that has principles, but doesn't live up to them. In terms of results, as measured by the size of government, I see little difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. Though the republican politicians spout compelling rhetoric about the scope and purpose of government, put them together in congress and they reduce to the LCD - Least Conservative Denominator.
1.8.2013 | 12:47pm
Mr. Patton says:
The mathematics is correct. Work equals force times the distance (W=Fs). Republicans have expended a great deal of force to move no distance at all. Hence, Work accomplished is equal to zero. It isn't a matter of money or advertising as far as the media outlets are concerned. Find the "product" that Americans wants then you won't have to over sell it in the first place...
1.8.2013 | 12:55pm
JERD says:
Media outlets are commercial enterprises. They publish and broadcast information that people want to consume, and generate advertising revenue when they successfully attract readers and viewers. Media thus delivers what we want. A viewer tunes to CBS news because there is something there he wants to see and hear. He sees something that attracts him; something that entices him; something that draws him close.
Media outlets portray Obama favorably because most consumers of these media outlets want to see him favorably - they are attracted by his affability, enticed by his "every man's man" persona, and drawn to his charm.
Conservative ownership of a media outlet will not change the product. In true conservative fashion profits will be paramount and the consumer will be given what he wants - an Obama portrayed the way a majority of the people in this country want to see him.
Media outlets portray Obama favorably because most consumers of these media outlets want to see him favorably - they are attracted by his affability, enticed by his "every man's man" persona, and drawn to his charm.
Conservative ownership of a media outlet will not change the product. In true conservative fashion profits will be paramount and the consumer will be given what he wants - an Obama portrayed the way a majority of the people in this country want to see him.
1.8.2013 | 1:11pm
JERD says:
If I could make one more comment: There has emerged a trinity of influence in this country - media, academia and politics.
If I might press the analogy to the extreme - just as an understanding of three persons in one God will always be a mystery, so too will be an understanding of how these three pillars of secular influence (acting in an almost coordinated fashion and as one) interact with each other, influence one another, and infuse our society with their beliefs.
If I might press the analogy to the extreme - just as an understanding of three persons in one God will always be a mystery, so too will be an understanding of how these three pillars of secular influence (acting in an almost coordinated fashion and as one) interact with each other, influence one another, and infuse our society with their beliefs.
1.8.2013 | 1:52pm
JDD says:
While I think maineman is correct about the culture's slant towards moral relativism, and see some promise (albeit slim) in Mr. Reynolds's magazine purchasing plan, I personally submit that the surest way out is for the Catholic Church to evangelize and continue to catechize an additional 10% of its population.
1.8.2013 | 2:14pm
Douglas Johnson says:
I forgot to add in my last comment that Elizabeth Scalia's post here is the single most important idea the American Right needs to get through its head. I'm hesitant to endorse Glenn Reynolds idea, however, because buying a group of magazines seems like doing something into the wind.
My friends think I'm laying down my arms when I say we should stop offering ourselves up as useful foils for the Left. On the contrary, I want a much hotter war than this malaise that Tocqueville promised would happen. I don't know the answer, but I think we'd be much better off if we started thinking in terms of an underground movement rather than as a player with some kind of equal footing with regards to the media.
My friends think I'm laying down my arms when I say we should stop offering ourselves up as useful foils for the Left. On the contrary, I want a much hotter war than this malaise that Tocqueville promised would happen. I don't know the answer, but I think we'd be much better off if we started thinking in terms of an underground movement rather than as a player with some kind of equal footing with regards to the media.
1.8.2013 | 3:14pm
Mark says:
Really, JERD?
Then tell me why is viewership of CBS, NBC, and ABC plummetting? It would seem to me that they are not very interested in giving viewers what they want.
Then tell me why is viewership of CBS, NBC, and ABC plummetting? It would seem to me that they are not very interested in giving viewers what they want.
1.8.2013 | 3:57pm
bonaventure says:
Elizabeth Scalia's observation is correct. The MSM will ever side with the Republicans on an issue, let alone help them to drive an agenda, as they are helping Obama and the Democrats.
But here's a solution: to create and fuel controversy, without lying.
For example, drill the pro-life and traditional marriage issue; drill the low taxes issue; drill the issue that a Palestinian state would be a haven for terrorists, etc. In fact, drill any topic that makes liberals very angry.
Democrats strive on lies (ignored or perpetuated by the MSM), but the Republicans could strive on controversy. But only if they drill it incessantly. To use Obama's own advice from his 2008 campaign: "I want you to argue with them and get in their face."
Of course, the other question is: are there enough courageous Republicans? Or are they arleady all hopelessly sold-out to their government job's comfort and security?
But here's a solution: to create and fuel controversy, without lying.
For example, drill the pro-life and traditional marriage issue; drill the low taxes issue; drill the issue that a Palestinian state would be a haven for terrorists, etc. In fact, drill any topic that makes liberals very angry.
Democrats strive on lies (ignored or perpetuated by the MSM), but the Republicans could strive on controversy. But only if they drill it incessantly. To use Obama's own advice from his 2008 campaign: "I want you to argue with them and get in their face."
Of course, the other question is: are there enough courageous Republicans? Or are they arleady all hopelessly sold-out to their government job's comfort and security?
1.8.2013 | 3:59pm
John LaVoy says:
I suggest preaching to the choir will always be a losing strategy. You will always find affirmation for your position and you will always be steered away from uncomfortable realities. A large number of conservative positions, most conservative rhetorical strategies, and a significant number of conservative personalities repel a majority of Americans: failing to recognize that is a prescription for stasis. Oddly, the conservative infotainment complex makes the situation worse. Instead of offering a more honest alternative, it offers a parody of a news system. In terms of public perception, the only hope of the conservative movement is to offer a truly objective, honest, caring, and inclusive alternative.
1.8.2013 | 4:00pm
bonaventure says:
Elizabeth Scalia's observation is correct. The MSM will never side with the Republicans on an issue, let alone help them to drive an agenda, as they are helping Obama and the Democrats.
But here's a solution: to create and fuel controversy, without lying.
For example, drill the pro-life and traditional marriage issue; drill the low taxes issue; drill the issue that a Palestinian state would be a haven for terrorists, etc. In fact, drill any topic that makes liberals very angry.
Democrats strive on lies (ignored or perpetuated by the MSM), but the Republicans could strive on controversy. But only if they drill it incessantly. To use Obama's own advice from his 2008 campaign: "I want you to argue with them and get in their face."
Of course, the other question is: are there enough courageous Republicans? Or are they all hopelessly sold-out to their government job’s comfort and security?
But here's a solution: to create and fuel controversy, without lying.
For example, drill the pro-life and traditional marriage issue; drill the low taxes issue; drill the issue that a Palestinian state would be a haven for terrorists, etc. In fact, drill any topic that makes liberals very angry.
Democrats strive on lies (ignored or perpetuated by the MSM), but the Republicans could strive on controversy. But only if they drill it incessantly. To use Obama's own advice from his 2008 campaign: "I want you to argue with them and get in their face."
Of course, the other question is: are there enough courageous Republicans? Or are they all hopelessly sold-out to their government job’s comfort and security?
1.8.2013 | 4:05pm
Tristian says:
As Nobodyreally appreciates, this entire discussion rests on patently false suppositions. It was the Republican's blatant willingness to use the economic welfare of the nation as a bargaining chip in the fight over the dept ceiling that led to the most recent impasse in the first place. The so called 'fiscal cliff' was avoided because Obama compromised on the tax rates he wanted to see raised, and still a majority of House Republican's were willing to risk recession rather than see any tax increases at all.
1.8.2013 | 4:55pm
Andrew says:
If articles like "12 Hot Older Men Who Endorse President Obama" actually work in swaying women voters toward the left, what does that sad fact say about women? More importantly, why should anyone play this idiotic game? Goodness.... I can already imagine the headline on the inside cover of romance novels: "12 Hot Older Men Who Endorse Rick Santorum."
1.8.2013 | 5:08pm
Mike D'Virgilio says:
The bottom line is the culture, and despite a bit of right-wing talk radio and Fox News, conservative ideas simply can't compete with public education, academia, the media, including journalism, and entertainment (AKA popular culture). The plausibility of the progressive worldview is inculcated in average apolitical Americans almost from birth. As long as the left has the cultural hegemony, in Antonio Gramsci words, the welfare state will continue to grow and our liberties continue to recede. However we do it, conservatives need to spread their obsession with politics to the culture, and these professions of immense cultural influence. I've founded with some friends a cultural think tank to this end, and others on the right need to join us in fighting the progressive cultural hegemony. It will take more than words.
1.8.2013 | 5:24pm
Paulus Alius says:
I see absolutely no promise in a magazine purchasing plan. Print is dying, and there's enough variety on the Internet that each and every voter can effectively live in an echo chamber of their own creation simply by patronizing only the sources of information that jive with their own preferences. Ever since TV News was subsumed by the entertainment divisions of their respective companies they've been quite successful at making themselves increasingly irrelevant. Personally I subscribe to no magazines (ok, one - Communio) and haven't watched TV news in decades. But I have ready access to the Internet and with my iPad I can be reading my favorite blog in half a second after picking it up. Consequently I think the future of MSM being a useful venue for the conversion of hearts (or voters) is pretty dim. JDD is right - evangelize and catechize. It's the long view but I think it's the only realistic one.
1.8.2013 | 5:25pm
Thomas R says:
Although I have lots of respect for Elizabeth Scalia I do think the "media" thing is a bit overblown. We're in kind of a different age. The influence of CBS or even CNN is largely going to be weaker than it once was not stronger. Part of his victories are that the people dislike the rich more than I think the media does so he's able to win when an issue can be couched as "Obama vs rich people." Also Americans tend to be disinterested in "foreign" issues unless the body count is really high.
Now on the culture issues media-bias is intensely strong because we can also include entertainment media, which I think is much more intensely biased than the news media. I have never, ever, seen a show respect that a character's religious beliefs indicate homosexuality is a sin. So the social issues you really are running against a wall and I'd think a goal for social-conservative billionaires (if they exist) should be more entertainment programs with traditional values. Not yet another Fox-News, Blaze, etc.
Now on the culture issues media-bias is intensely strong because we can also include entertainment media, which I think is much more intensely biased than the news media. I have never, ever, seen a show respect that a character's religious beliefs indicate homosexuality is a sin. So the social issues you really are running against a wall and I'd think a goal for social-conservative billionaires (if they exist) should be more entertainment programs with traditional values. Not yet another Fox-News, Blaze, etc.
1.8.2013 | 5:35pm
MasterThief says:
Why bother co-opting the media and academia? They are two very vulnerable institutions, which the GOP could, if it was creative, smash.
The media is an arm of the entertainment industry. The entertainment industry, for its revenues, depends on copyright. The copyright system - which guarantees copyright basically in perpetuity nowadays - is a clear example of rent-seeking monopoly that is rightly despised by my generation. An enterprising young GOP staffer recognized this (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/winning-millennials-and-screwing-hollywood-why-the-gop-should-adopt-intellectual-property-reform/), and was booted for it. Cutting back copyright is a win-win - it helps rehabilitate the party's reputation as a friend of free markets and deregulation, appeals to the younger generation, and neuters a key Democratic base of support.
The media is an arm of the entertainment industry. The entertainment industry, for its revenues, depends on copyright. The copyright system - which guarantees copyright basically in perpetuity nowadays - is a clear example of rent-seeking monopoly that is rightly despised by my generation. An enterprising young GOP staffer recognized this (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/winning-millennials-and-screwing-hollywood-why-the-gop-should-adopt-intellectual-property-reform/), and was booted for it. Cutting back copyright is a win-win - it helps rehabilitate the party's reputation as a friend of free markets and deregulation, appeals to the younger generation, and neuters a key Democratic base of support.
1.8.2013 | 5:45pm
MasterThiefEsq says:
Academia, too, is vulnerable. Prof. Reynolds and others have predicted (correctly) a coming "bubble" in higher education - academia depends on student loans that graduated students increasingly cannot pay because of a lack of jobs, and which prevent them from buying houses and starting families. Simple change in the law - making student loan debt dischargeable in bankruptcy, and allowing the government to recapture a significant fraction of the discharged loan balance from the school it was paid to - would, again, put the GOP back on the side of the younger generation, and force a bursting of the higher education bubble, and a corresponding decrease in support to the Democrats.
As they say in the military: amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics. Cut off your opponent's supply lines and bases of production, and their forces wither on the vine.
As they say in the military: amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics. Cut off your opponent's supply lines and bases of production, and their forces wither on the vine.
1.8.2013 | 6:02pm
Patrick says:
I would not credit our current president with "tenacity." In most contexts, that remains a virtue, because it implies a strong work ethic. Let's not forget that President Obama sub-contracts even the things for which a credulous media later applauds him.
Nancy Pelosi had more to do with the "Affordable Care Act" than Barack Obama did, and "Sheriff Joe" Biden carried water for Stimulus and Son of Stimulus. Even the so-called "beer summit" only happened because one slandered officer in the Cambridge, MA police department was gracious enough to sit through a photo op for the president's portfolio.
What Barack Obama has is not "tenacity," it is the monomania of a zealot who grew up on tales of victimhood from people whose life's work was "sticking it to the Man."
Nancy Pelosi had more to do with the "Affordable Care Act" than Barack Obama did, and "Sheriff Joe" Biden carried water for Stimulus and Son of Stimulus. Even the so-called "beer summit" only happened because one slandered officer in the Cambridge, MA police department was gracious enough to sit through a photo op for the president's portfolio.
What Barack Obama has is not "tenacity," it is the monomania of a zealot who grew up on tales of victimhood from people whose life's work was "sticking it to the Man."
1.8.2013 | 7:12pm
Douglas Johnson says:
Thomas R. writes:
" I have never, ever, seen a show respect that a character's religious beliefs indicate homosexuality is a sin. "
It's remarkable isn't it? I'm not sure there's a better test case. But even if I did have $10 billion or so to spend on a media empire, it wouldn't do any good to be reactionary. It's too late for that because we no longer have the taste for what the Bible and tradition says.
Forget "traditional values." We need to go back to manna itself. If I had that $10 billion to kick around I think I'd abandon the values war all together. Instead I think I'd embark on a mission to reconnect philosophy with wonder, and go to war against pride.
" I have never, ever, seen a show respect that a character's religious beliefs indicate homosexuality is a sin. "
It's remarkable isn't it? I'm not sure there's a better test case. But even if I did have $10 billion or so to spend on a media empire, it wouldn't do any good to be reactionary. It's too late for that because we no longer have the taste for what the Bible and tradition says.
Forget "traditional values." We need to go back to manna itself. If I had that $10 billion to kick around I think I'd abandon the values war all together. Instead I think I'd embark on a mission to reconnect philosophy with wonder, and go to war against pride.
1.8.2013 | 7:57pm
Publius says:
The media is a major part of the problem, and as some of the commentary has alluded to, the media reiniforces the idea that it is simply not chic to be a conservative/Republican. My college students get their "news" from three sources: The Daily Show with John Stewart; the Colbert Report; and the occasional viral video mocking some Bible thumping gay marriage opponent or some Tea Party candidate questioning evolution or claiming that woman cannot get pregnant as a result of rape. I don't know how this can be countered -- younger Americans see Colbert and Stewart as honest, impartial observers of the American scene who skewer hypocritical conservatives who don't practice what they preach, or even if they do practice it, it's only practiced by the unintelligent. Chastity, traditional marriage, living within your means, and pro-life views are just not hip, and probably cannot be made so. . . .We have Dennis Miller, but that's about it, and I just don't see a Miller or the two or three other Hollywood conservatives capable of countering the "sophisticated" views of the new media personified by Stewart and Colbert. It is amazing that these two liberal clowns are driving the discourse, at least among the 18-35 crowd, but they are.
1.8.2013 | 8:28pm
Don Roberto says:
Rome got the Caesars; we get our equivalent. Voters picked the man who said he doesn't believe in unchanging moral values and wouldn't want his daughters to be "punished with a child" over the man with solid beliefs (not much quirkier from a materialistic perspective than my own) and six kids.
The wicked (those who love sin, e.g., the Mammon and Hedon worshippers in the media) and the ignorant (those who do not recognize sin, e.g., the voters in my precinct who couldn't even fathom how any rational person could vote against BHO) simply outnumber the virtuous and the wise. It has usually been thus. The Republicans only win when they follow the center of the degenerating bell curve more closely than the Democrats.
The wicked (those who love sin, e.g., the Mammon and Hedon worshippers in the media) and the ignorant (those who do not recognize sin, e.g., the voters in my precinct who couldn't even fathom how any rational person could vote against BHO) simply outnumber the virtuous and the wise. It has usually been thus. The Republicans only win when they follow the center of the degenerating bell curve more closely than the Democrats.
1.8.2013 | 8:47pm
JERD says:
Mark: Scalia's premise is the dominating influence of MSM. Assuming the premise to be true, then I am of the view that MSM's content is driven by market forces, and the political persuasion of the outlet's owner will have no impact on political outcomes.
If her premise is wrong, and as you say the influence of MSM is waning, then you would, it seems, reach the same conclusion that I do - who controls MSM will have no impact on political outcomes.
If her premise is wrong, and as you say the influence of MSM is waning, then you would, it seems, reach the same conclusion that I do - who controls MSM will have no impact on political outcomes.
1.8.2013 | 9:23pm
pfkga says:
Republicans will be just fine given time and perspective. But Guest is correct. The onus of being the party that favors the corporation over the people is a consistently cited accusation. It may be partly the created fiction of the media and the college professors, but the reality is Republican candidates don't do enough to dispel the notion. The discussion of illegal immigration and immigration reform is a good example. Republican debates this past year were filled with villification of the interlopers, those sneaky criminals who come to our country and take our jobs and fill our emergency rooms at taxpayer expense. The focus of attention was directed at individuals, who having the misfortune of being born and raised in places with little or no opportunity, share with us the ambition to search for and make a better life for themselves. None of the political dialogue addressed the much more culpable employers looking for cheap labor and passing off to taxpayers the social cost commonly included with legal employees. The recent housing crisis is another example. Republicans including President Bush did not like the insane lending practices creating the housing bubble. They knew that mortgage loans given to millions of people who could not afford them was unsustainable. The architects and advocates of the lending policies were Democrats, but the Republicans went along with it because Wall Street, banking and housing industries were making lots of money. If Republicans had forcefully advocated for taxpayers and voters instead of lobbyists and corporations that would have been a war they could have won. As it is George Bush is irrationally blamed for the current economic recession and Democrats continue to harm us all while passing themselves off as the party of the people.
1.8.2013 | 9:48pm
Douglas Johnson says:
I have an analogy. In my analogy, “the military” will take the place of “the media.” “The military” is not affiliated with any country or particular point of view, but the military handles all the fighting.
What happens is this: One country decides they don’t like the way things are and decides to go to war with another country. At that point they make war plans, strategize battles, design uniforms, etc. and when all that’s done they take their stuff to “the military” and tell them to get going with the plan. Likewise, the country being invaded does all the same things and hands their defensive strategy over to “the military.” When all is said and done the best ideas and strategies win.
But imagine if after a half-century or so of hiring the best historians and strategists, the United States managed to lose every battle even when going against the worst laid plans by the poorest nations. In an attempt to get to the bottom of this Americans start talking to people in “the military” and lo and behold it turns out that “the military” is mostly composed of people who don’t like the United States. In fact for many of them, it was because of their dislike of the United States that they decided to join “the military” in the first place.
At that point we’d realize that there is nothing we can do with the current setup. What would we do? Would we continue handing over our defense to “the military” while now complaining that “the military” shouldn’t be so “biased”? After losing a war to some little Caribbean country, would we shout “SEE?! This PROVES ‘the military’ is biased!” and then go on relying on “the military” for the next battle?
What happens is this: One country decides they don’t like the way things are and decides to go to war with another country. At that point they make war plans, strategize battles, design uniforms, etc. and when all that’s done they take their stuff to “the military” and tell them to get going with the plan. Likewise, the country being invaded does all the same things and hands their defensive strategy over to “the military.” When all is said and done the best ideas and strategies win.
But imagine if after a half-century or so of hiring the best historians and strategists, the United States managed to lose every battle even when going against the worst laid plans by the poorest nations. In an attempt to get to the bottom of this Americans start talking to people in “the military” and lo and behold it turns out that “the military” is mostly composed of people who don’t like the United States. In fact for many of them, it was because of their dislike of the United States that they decided to join “the military” in the first place.
At that point we’d realize that there is nothing we can do with the current setup. What would we do? Would we continue handing over our defense to “the military” while now complaining that “the military” shouldn’t be so “biased”? After losing a war to some little Caribbean country, would we shout “SEE?! This PROVES ‘the military’ is biased!” and then go on relying on “the military” for the next battle?
1.8.2013 | 10:19pm
WhoCares says:
I propose not worrying about the R party. They are dead men walking, just a distorted reflection of the D party.
This culture is infected with self-love and juvenile thinking to a fatal degree. It, too, is a goner.
The Catholic church should do, again, what it did when the Roman Empire collapsed. Immediately start saving in its monasteries the important information needed to build/rebuild a true civilization. Have the monks learn the manual and technical skills so as to be able to teach them to the future generations after the fires that will consume this sewer of a society die down.
This culture is infected with self-love and juvenile thinking to a fatal degree. It, too, is a goner.
The Catholic church should do, again, what it did when the Roman Empire collapsed. Immediately start saving in its monasteries the important information needed to build/rebuild a true civilization. Have the monks learn the manual and technical skills so as to be able to teach them to the future generations after the fires that will consume this sewer of a society die down.
1.9.2013 | 8:56am
Robert says:
More than ever, the press is acting as the agitprop arm of the Democrat party. Assuming this pattern continues — buying a few women's magazines might help, I guess, but I doubt it would turn the tide — the only thing that will stop the juggernaut is a collision with fiscal and demographic reality.
In principle, democracies and republics can halt a disastrous course well before the smash. But I suspect that in practice, that's impossible given the short-term focus of everyone in politics.
No wonder sales of arms and ammunition are skyrocketing. As Bob Owens says, "This is a society preparing for war." (http://www.bob-owens.com/2012/12/something-funny-happened-on-the-way-to-the-tyranny/) And I don't think he's speaking metaphorically.
In principle, democracies and republics can halt a disastrous course well before the smash. But I suspect that in practice, that's impossible given the short-term focus of everyone in politics.
No wonder sales of arms and ammunition are skyrocketing. As Bob Owens says, "This is a society preparing for war." (http://www.bob-owens.com/2012/12/something-funny-happened-on-the-way-to-the-tyranny/) And I don't think he's speaking metaphorically.
1.9.2013 | 9:33am
ras743 says:
Absolutely spot on. I've been ranting about this for years. I worked in the business for 13 years, dating from the early '70s through Reagan's second term, and saw the bias in every newsroom in which I worked. But the MSM's malpractice in the Obama years is one of degree, not of kind, compared to earlier eras. They've been doing this since the Reagan era. Call upon every person of a conservative bent you know to drop their subscriptions/viewing if they're still foolish enough to be contributing such. These institutions are, literally, undermining the Republic. The idea that intelligent people -- otherwise respectable conservatives -- still treat relentless Leftist partisans such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, NBC News, et al, as serious institutions, worthy of respect, is beyond me. Every day should be dedicated to calling out these charlatans, heaping contempt, loathing, and scorn upon them. There is no point in trying to engage them in rational discussion. They're impervious to facts; their entire world view ignores human experience. Persuasion has not and will not work. Use the force of the market and put them out of business.
1.9.2013 | 10:06am
Margaret says:
I believe there is a natural affinity between progressives and the media that will be very difficult to overcome. The media craves change, crisis, chaos, victims, etc. Progressives also crave and create these things. Conservatives pray for one "slow news day" after another. We just want to work and raise our families in peace. A society at peace is the media's worst nightmare.
It is often said that history is written by the victors. I think it is important to realize that film, music and journalism are written by the victims. Which is more eye-catching to the general public: a story about a just law that benefits 999,999 people, or a story about one small child who suffers as a consequence of a "harsh and unfair" law? This is why the news is always full of stories about the "victims" of immigration law, marriage law, anti-abortion law, etc.
It seems to me that this natural alliance of progressives and the media is insurmountable in a novelty-obsessed culture such as ours. The only way to overcome it would be to change the core values of our society. Unfortunately, it seems that the only societies that intensely cherish peace and stability are those that have recently emerged from a period of horrific upheaval. This is one reason I think things will need to get a lot worse before they begin to get better.
It is often said that history is written by the victors. I think it is important to realize that film, music and journalism are written by the victims. Which is more eye-catching to the general public: a story about a just law that benefits 999,999 people, or a story about one small child who suffers as a consequence of a "harsh and unfair" law? This is why the news is always full of stories about the "victims" of immigration law, marriage law, anti-abortion law, etc.
It seems to me that this natural alliance of progressives and the media is insurmountable in a novelty-obsessed culture such as ours. The only way to overcome it would be to change the core values of our society. Unfortunately, it seems that the only societies that intensely cherish peace and stability are those that have recently emerged from a period of horrific upheaval. This is one reason I think things will need to get a lot worse before they begin to get better.
1.9.2013 | 10:25am
John LaVoy says:
A religious perspective on political and cultural issues has a significant downside: it tends to ingrain a somewhat absolutist mentality. While maintaining a core set of values is the upside, the problem arises when that sense of stasis seeps into areas where it does not belong. It leads to people being averse to change even when change is truly warranted.
The comments above indicate an unwillingness to accept an alternative view of the political problems faced by conservatives. For years conservatives have been ranting about the media…and I believe this has done nothing except alienate the media even more. For years conservatives have been ranting about college professors, and this has likewise accomplished nothing. Yet people hold on to the issues and will not budge.
The recent fiscal cliff negotiations provide another example. Conservatives wanted spending cuts and Obama wanted a tax increase on the top 2% of American incomes. The opportunity to trade one for the other was there, especially given that most Americans also want spending cuts. But, conservatives held to an absolutist position on tax increases. They alienated the public and came off as whiny little kids. The underlying issue was not taxes or spending: it was absolutism operating where it has no place. Did this accomplish anything?
It isn’t the media. It isn’t the universities. It isn’t the welfare state. Conservatives desperately need to look inward, to clear their own eyes, if they hope to connect with the majority of Americans
The comments above indicate an unwillingness to accept an alternative view of the political problems faced by conservatives. For years conservatives have been ranting about the media…and I believe this has done nothing except alienate the media even more. For years conservatives have been ranting about college professors, and this has likewise accomplished nothing. Yet people hold on to the issues and will not budge.
The recent fiscal cliff negotiations provide another example. Conservatives wanted spending cuts and Obama wanted a tax increase on the top 2% of American incomes. The opportunity to trade one for the other was there, especially given that most Americans also want spending cuts. But, conservatives held to an absolutist position on tax increases. They alienated the public and came off as whiny little kids. The underlying issue was not taxes or spending: it was absolutism operating where it has no place. Did this accomplish anything?
It isn’t the media. It isn’t the universities. It isn’t the welfare state. Conservatives desperately need to look inward, to clear their own eyes, if they hope to connect with the majority of Americans
1.9.2013 | 10:37am
I Callahan says:
I'm a bit confused. The title of your article is "Republicans' Atomic Stupidity", yet you seem to state that whatever the Republicans do, they can't outdo the media.
If that's the case, does it matter if they have any principles?
If that's the case, does it matter if they have any principles?
1.9.2013 | 12:17pm
jeannebodine says:
So let me see if I get this straight: Republicans shouldn't stand for principles but instead should buy gossip magazines. That's it in a nutshell, right?
You really believe we can take back the culture by purchasing some magazines or even a TV network? We have the time & leisure to do this and we'll be persuasive enough to head off what is going on in the K12 and colleges, in movies and in the rest of the MSM? And in the meantime, Republican politicians should continue on their mealy-mouthed, Romney-esque path that is already unpopular?
Funny that you seem to feel SO strongly that Mark Theissen is so completely & absolutely wrong. I wonder why that is?
Personally, I'm with Mark. I think it's time to try something as drastic as standing for principles to try to save the country. It may not work but frankly from what I can see on the ground there isn't & won't be enough left of the GOP to win an election anyway. Who knows with 4 more years of Obama, maybe more Americans will be open to listening to the grown-ups. I just know that my children & their children deserve to have me try.
You really believe we can take back the culture by purchasing some magazines or even a TV network? We have the time & leisure to do this and we'll be persuasive enough to head off what is going on in the K12 and colleges, in movies and in the rest of the MSM? And in the meantime, Republican politicians should continue on their mealy-mouthed, Romney-esque path that is already unpopular?
Funny that you seem to feel SO strongly that Mark Theissen is so completely & absolutely wrong. I wonder why that is?
Personally, I'm with Mark. I think it's time to try something as drastic as standing for principles to try to save the country. It may not work but frankly from what I can see on the ground there isn't & won't be enough left of the GOP to win an election anyway. Who knows with 4 more years of Obama, maybe more Americans will be open to listening to the grown-ups. I just know that my children & their children deserve to have me try.
1.9.2013 | 12:25pm
Ritchie The Riveter says:
Reagan signed off on amnesty for illegals ... we got more illegal immigration.
Bush 41 gave in on taxes ... we got Bill Clinton and a tax increase.
Bush 41 listened to the diplomats and left Saddam in power ... for his son to clean up, twelve years and tens of thousands of dead later.
Bush 43 listened to the conventional wisdom about "minimizing the footprint" in Iraq ... and it turned into a quagmire until he learned from the good work of Men in-theater like H.R. McMaster, Sean McFarland, and Travis Patriquin, and kept American boot-prints where ordinary Iraqis could see them and trust them to protect them all over Iraq.
We have tried compromise and civility as a substitute for standing on principle, and we have found that consensus, bereft of sound principle, is the way of the lemming ... and leads to the same end.
Principle needs to become popular again ... but that means that many of our pop-culture heroes might have their mellow harshed about their choices in life, and so do everything they can to either avoid it, or substitute their fantasies for it.
Maybe it is the rest of America ... not conservatives ... who need to look inward, and question the pop-culture conventional wisdom encouraged by our media, old and new.
That is, if they want to learn the truth the easy way ... not the hard way.
Bush 41 gave in on taxes ... we got Bill Clinton and a tax increase.
Bush 41 listened to the diplomats and left Saddam in power ... for his son to clean up, twelve years and tens of thousands of dead later.
Bush 43 listened to the conventional wisdom about "minimizing the footprint" in Iraq ... and it turned into a quagmire until he learned from the good work of Men in-theater like H.R. McMaster, Sean McFarland, and Travis Patriquin, and kept American boot-prints where ordinary Iraqis could see them and trust them to protect them all over Iraq.
We have tried compromise and civility as a substitute for standing on principle, and we have found that consensus, bereft of sound principle, is the way of the lemming ... and leads to the same end.
Principle needs to become popular again ... but that means that many of our pop-culture heroes might have their mellow harshed about their choices in life, and so do everything they can to either avoid it, or substitute their fantasies for it.
Maybe it is the rest of America ... not conservatives ... who need to look inward, and question the pop-culture conventional wisdom encouraged by our media, old and new.
That is, if they want to learn the truth the easy way ... not the hard way.
1.9.2013 | 12:41pm
nobody.really says:
Conservatives wanted spending cuts and Obama wanted a tax increase on the top 2% of American incomes. The opportunity to trade one for the other was there, especially given that most Americans also want spending cuts..
Alas, most Americans favor spending cuts in the ABSTRACT, but oppose cuts in SPECIFIC. Ok, Americans favor cutting “foreign aid,” and imagine that this represents some large fraction of the budget. But they oppose cuts to entitlement programs, where the bulk of the costs are.
Ideally the parties could join together and uniformly propose a Grand Bargain on taxes and spending. But the last time Obama proposed such a bargain the Republicans balked – and then campaigned on the idea that the Democrats had proposed slashing Social Security! Not surprisingly, the president is being much cagier in approaching the current debt ceiling negotiations, waiting for Republicans to say what they intend to cut. And not surprisingly, even though Republicans say that they favor cutting the budget, they’re reluctant to get specific. They have a perfectly reasonable fear that Obama will give them the same treatment that they gave him.
And so we’re at a stalemate.
Alas, most Americans favor spending cuts in the ABSTRACT, but oppose cuts in SPECIFIC. Ok, Americans favor cutting “foreign aid,” and imagine that this represents some large fraction of the budget. But they oppose cuts to entitlement programs, where the bulk of the costs are.
Ideally the parties could join together and uniformly propose a Grand Bargain on taxes and spending. But the last time Obama proposed such a bargain the Republicans balked – and then campaigned on the idea that the Democrats had proposed slashing Social Security! Not surprisingly, the president is being much cagier in approaching the current debt ceiling negotiations, waiting for Republicans to say what they intend to cut. And not surprisingly, even though Republicans say that they favor cutting the budget, they’re reluctant to get specific. They have a perfectly reasonable fear that Obama will give them the same treatment that they gave him.
And so we’re at a stalemate.
1.9.2013 | 1:55pm
John LaVoy says:
Nobody.really suggests we are at a stalemate, and I agree. However, that did not have to be the case. Had the Republicans simply said "You want a tax increase on people making over 250K? Here it is. We will sign off on it as soon as you put 800 billion in actual cuts on the table." The pressure would have been squarely on Obama. I consider this an elementary and obvious tactic. One must ask why conservatives couldn't pull that particular trigger.
The answer can be found in the posts above, such as the one proffered by jeannebodine. Conservatives have become too enamored of "principle", whatever that means. Politics is not about principle: politics is a practical endeavor. It is the art of the deal. It is compromise. Being overly insistent on "principle" makes politics into a zero sum game, where you either win everything or lose everything. In that context, a party interested in finding win-win solutions will ALWAYS triumph over absolutists.
The answer can be found in the posts above, such as the one proffered by jeannebodine. Conservatives have become too enamored of "principle", whatever that means. Politics is not about principle: politics is a practical endeavor. It is the art of the deal. It is compromise. Being overly insistent on "principle" makes politics into a zero sum game, where you either win everything or lose everything. In that context, a party interested in finding win-win solutions will ALWAYS triumph over absolutists.
1.9.2013 | 4:57pm
DiogenesLamp says:
Scalia is right on the mark correct. The Media controls what gets discussed and what gets ignored. With that power, they steer both the culture and the electorate.
Nothing will get fixed until their power can be counteracted somehow.
Nothing will get fixed until their power can be counteracted somehow.
1.9.2013 | 10:25pm
Response says:
John LaVoy said, "Had the Republicans simply said "You want a tax increase on people making over 250K? Here it is. We will sign off on it as soon as you put 800 billion in actual cuts on the table." The pressure would have been squarely on Obama. I consider this an elementary and obvious tactic. One must ask why conservatives couldn't pull that particular trigger. "
You are not considering the effect of pro-liberal, pro-government, pro-Obama media spin. It is persistent and pervasive. Had the Republicans done what you suggest, this would have been the headline, and the dominant narrative that the typical voter would have received:
Republicans Reject Proposed Solution to Fiscal Cliff Crisis, Insist on Cutting Government Services.
or,
Republicans Look to Cut Benefits to Struggling Low-Income Americans to Provide Tax Relief for the Wealthy.
You are not considering the effect of pro-liberal, pro-government, pro-Obama media spin. It is persistent and pervasive. Had the Republicans done what you suggest, this would have been the headline, and the dominant narrative that the typical voter would have received:
Republicans Reject Proposed Solution to Fiscal Cliff Crisis, Insist on Cutting Government Services.
or,
Republicans Look to Cut Benefits to Struggling Low-Income Americans to Provide Tax Relief for the Wealthy.
1.10.2013 | 9:46am
John LaVoy says:
FIrst, I would like to thank First Things for providing a forum where actual discussion can take place. Such an animal is on the verge of extinction.
In response to Response, I suggest, with all due respect, that your answer exemplifies the deeper structural issue I am trying to get at. Absolutism as a primary mode of thinking often leads to sacraficing the good on the altar of the perfect. WHile the headlines you predict would inevitably appear, the position would be clear to the large number of thoughtful Americans who walk down the middle of the road. Unfortuantely, because the tactic will not be 100% successful, conservatives shy away. The same pattern is emerging on the issue of gun control. The same pattern emerges on the issue womens health.
In response to Response, I suggest, with all due respect, that your answer exemplifies the deeper structural issue I am trying to get at. Absolutism as a primary mode of thinking often leads to sacraficing the good on the altar of the perfect. WHile the headlines you predict would inevitably appear, the position would be clear to the large number of thoughtful Americans who walk down the middle of the road. Unfortuantely, because the tactic will not be 100% successful, conservatives shy away. The same pattern is emerging on the issue of gun control. The same pattern emerges on the issue womens health.
1.11.2013 | 4:57pm
GibsonRocker1951 says:
The reason the GOP is on it's own political cliff is that with media like C-SPAN, there doesn't have to be a media opinion. It takes no more brains to figure it out than to see that the Republicans seem to play this all-or-nothing game that fails make a commitment to anything. For all their rejecting of Obama's plans, they entered no solutions of their own what so ever. To understand human political nature, we only have to look at Alabama in the 1950's and 60's. George Wallace was continually elected as governor by the Black vote. Why? Because they knew he was committed to what he said, even though it was not what the Blacks wanted or needed. Unfortunately, those running against him would not commit and straddled the fence.
The public sees the GOP as committed, not to the public interest, but to the special interests of its own choosing, to those who have money, and are unable to initiate. They seem to have disregarded the poor and disenfranchised, and the public is empathizing with them at this point, thanks to the recession. The GOP needs to wake up and begin to make a strong commitment to things that really matter. Continue to stand by Pro-Life, but remember that people use guns to kill and the massacres have been committed by entitled whites, not Ghetto Blacks. Pro-Life is good but you have to support those who respect the lives begun by their own errors. Pro-Life has to mean All-Life or it becomes nothing but a platitude and a pick-n-choose smorgasbord. Somehow the GOP cannot fathom this according to their paradigm. People want more than empty platitudes; it may have worked for Reagan, but times have changed. GOP, wake up and drink the coffee, not just smell it. Oh yeah, cast off Ted Nugent and the NRA, and align with real gun owners who know attitudinal restraint.
The public sees the GOP as committed, not to the public interest, but to the special interests of its own choosing, to those who have money, and are unable to initiate. They seem to have disregarded the poor and disenfranchised, and the public is empathizing with them at this point, thanks to the recession. The GOP needs to wake up and begin to make a strong commitment to things that really matter. Continue to stand by Pro-Life, but remember that people use guns to kill and the massacres have been committed by entitled whites, not Ghetto Blacks. Pro-Life is good but you have to support those who respect the lives begun by their own errors. Pro-Life has to mean All-Life or it becomes nothing but a platitude and a pick-n-choose smorgasbord. Somehow the GOP cannot fathom this according to their paradigm. People want more than empty platitudes; it may have worked for Reagan, but times have changed. GOP, wake up and drink the coffee, not just smell it. Oh yeah, cast off Ted Nugent and the NRA, and align with real gun owners who know attitudinal restraint.
What this means is that the culture at large is now indifferent to the existence of overarching truth and that an awareness of the nature of reality can only be renewed by the collapse of the entire arrogant enterprise that underlies the liberal/progressive project.
Then and only then will we (collectively) be properly oriented so as to be capable of moving forward again.
But since the liberal project is dependent on the centralization of power, opportunity already exists to apply the law of subsidiarity and begin rebuilding on personal, interpersonal, and community/church levels.
As an example, the public schools, sadly, must be abandoned by those grounded in the broader reality and replace with those means by which the consciences of the young can be properly formed rather than corrupted.