Been mullin’ over the current disunity within the Republican Party, and the Republic in general, since Obama’s reelection. Sadly, none of it really surprises me. It is really just a another tiresome example of the same ole, same ole—curse of the ole republican circular firing squad syndrome.
I am just a blogger, just an American, just a citizen journalist—nobody of particular import. But I’ve been following this political stuff long enough to see some troubling patterns on my side of the political aisle.
My first question: where is the spirit of cooperation within the Republican Party? Are we striving for unity here or not? Why do republicans and conservatives choose to tear each other’s heads off so often? It is rather ironic when I listen to some on the right, who claim to eschew the tactics of Saul Alinsky, engage in Alinskyite tactics against their own. For example, republican establishment types referring to their Tea Party brethren as “chuckleheads” or “hobbits,” or tearing down people like Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh—apparently in an effort to retain standing with their more “moderate” or “liberal” colleagues.
What does this accomplish? The very people they are marginalizing are their own voters. Are those within the Republican establishment so blind that cannot see that they are literally telling their voters and constituents “we don’t need you”? What do you think such a message tells potential voters?
There are plenty of people who would vote for the Republican Party, if the republicans would reach out more and clearly delineate their principles and beliefs in simple terms, as opposed to thumbing their nose at those outside the beltway and the establishment—who are ostensibly seen as beneath their political acumen and prestige. Some of the Republican establishment types have snubbed people like Allen West or Michelle Bachmann. Yet, it is people like Bachmann and West who take the time to meet and speak with their constituents, as opposed to some within the Republican Party who remain aloof and unapproachable, or just downright hostile. Again, from a purely political perspective, it is incredibly demoralizing to the republican base at large.
Republicans need to loosen their collars a bit, in my mind … roll up their sleeves and get some outreach going to communities where their message is non-existent. I’ve heard from a number of black conservatives, for example, that there is no republican presence in their neighborhoods and communities; they feel they are really fighting an uphill battle with no substantial support. This lack of presence by the republicans would also apply to other communities, such as Latinos, Native Americans, Asian, homosexual, etc. The republican establishment really needs to wake up and support efforts at the grassroots level by assisting new organizing efforts. We need a bottoms up, top-down approach to counter similar efforts by the Obama camp.
Of course, in order to reach out to new voters, you must have a clear and simple platform. I think the Heritage Foundation has it right: First Principles—meaning: defending individual rights, fiscal responsibility, strong defense, balanced budget, limited government, fair taxation, supporting the entrepreneur, freedom in business, etc. In a nutshell: the defense, protection and preservation of the U.S. Constitution. By sticking to First Principles, the republicans can find common ground with many libertarians, conservative democrats, independents, etc., as opposed to a bloated platform which attempts to appeal to every special interest group under the sun.
Conversely, why are some conservatives so daggone rigid at times? When you’re playing the political game a certain amount of pragmatism is required. The goal is to win. So many times I’ve watched certain conservatives act with such headstrong rigidity that they cut their nose off to spite their face … it’s either black or white, my way or the highway; otherwise, I’m picking up my toys and going home and I’ll take everybody down with me on the way. The most recent example of this self-destructive phenomena I’m referring to is the case of Todd Akin and Richard Murdoch.
Now, I happen to think Murdoch and Akin stepped in it. They both should have anticipated the abortion questions and been prepared to answer them in a way that does not alienate all the women in the republican base. But the Democrats always circle their wagons around their own. If this sort of political ineptness was committed by Democrats, their leadership would not cut off DNC funding and turn on their own. They would more than likely say something like “we don’t necessarily agree with all the Senator’s comments but he has been a champion for our cause and we wholeheartedly support him … We just need to move on with the business of the nation.”
I’m not advocating accepting any manner of behavior or chicanery from our elected leaders. But I am saying that the republicans and other like-minded individuals are way too quick to throw their own to the wolves for the slightest infraction. This is foolish from a purely political perspective. Who will want to be part of an organization that so willingly turns on its own? That’s not good P.R., folks.
But, if I’m going to sit here and dish out my ten cents worth on what I feel is ailing the Party, I need to be man enough to look in the mirror and ask myself, “What’s my part in all of this?” Naturally, I would like to say I’m completely blameless and it’s all Bush’s fault (snicker). Well, here goes: I believe I have become too angry over the past year or so … to the point where I feel constantly wrapped around the axle about the state of the union, and politics in general. I know I’m not alone. I’ve used some pretty strong language and gone off on some epic rants. Unfortunately, rants don’t read well. Besides, if I allow myself to fall in the trap of continuous bashing and ranting without providing truly helpful solutions, or some hopeful or inspiring vision, then I’ve become the very thing I hate.
When I first started blogging about four years ago, it wasn’t really what you’d call blogging—more like commenting. At that time, I became damn near enraged one night watching Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and ilk spew their spitting moralism at any and all Americans that would even consider deviating from their progressive liberal worldview. Olbermann and Matthews were engaging in their time-honored, tiresome habit of personal attacks on those who disagree with them. You know, the typical leftist agitprop rhetoric that we’ve come to know, love and expect from the purveyors of all things progressive—MSNBC: republicans are bigoted, racist, sexist, xenophobic, fascist, homophobic, knuckle-draggin’, mouth-breathin, redneck, slope-headed, trailer-trash, wingnut morons. Oh, and they’re from the South and the Midwest (flyover country), too! Did I tell you that they are old and white, too? Man, what a bunch of losers!
While listening to this petulant, partisan invective flowing forth from the crew at MSNBC, I heard Chris Matthews say that Saul Alinsky was their “hero.” I didn’t know much about Saul Alinsky at the time, but I had heard Rush Limbaugh refer to the “Alinsky Playbook” on numerous occasions back then. I decided to research this Alinksy character. I ended up reading his book Rules for Radicals, which lead to me to read a number of commentaries by David Horowitz regarding the importance that leftist radicals place on the sort of community organizing (agitating) tactics championed by Alinsky.
Without getting into a dissertation about Saul Alinsky, I will point out that one of Saul Alinsky’s Power Tactics was ridicule itself. Alinsky referred to ridicule as “one of man’s most potent weapons,” because, in Alinsky’s mind, there’s no real way the opposition can answer it. In my opinion, Alinsky is quite correct that ridicule is difficult to respond to. But I believe you can respond to ridicule with better ridicule. After reading Alinsky’s book, and some other gut-wrenchingly nauseating leftist organizational literature that was being disseminated to “community organizers” at the time, I decided to employ their very own power tactics and strategies against them in the blogosphere.
The internet and social media have revolutionized the way people communicate. I’ve been involved with internet development in some form or other since 1996. It was was in the late 1990’s that I noticed the pernicious influence of George Soros’ plethora of 501 (3)(c) non-profit front groups and mass organizations that were just hammering the living sh*t out of George W. Bush and the republicans. Typically, any republican or conservative related search queries I would enter into the popular search engines of the time would bring up tons of results bashing Bush, conservatives, Christians, neocons, etc. Most of these results were posted on sites funded by Soros et al.
I began to think of what a serious development this was, since the republican party was doing nothing to counter the propaganda flowing forth like a raging river from the progressive left and the democrats during the Bush years; they were losing the Information War. So, when I did finally have the opportunity to respond to the frothing minions of the left via right-leaning websites, like Fox News and others, I took to it with a vengeance.
At first, when debating liberals on various news sites, I attempted to present thoughtful responses and do so with civility. I quickly learned that’s not how our progressive friends like to play. So I returned the vileness (plus some) in big heaping postfuls. My thinking was if you like ridicule then two can play that game. The key is: who plays it better?
Admittedly, all of this back and forth with progressive liberals and trolls was just a form of venting for me. I had learned from experience that many times debate with liberals quickly devolves into a steady and endless torrent of ad hominem attacks. So, I was always more than happy to return the favor. Besides, I was laughing the whole time I would provoke the trolls into apoplectic fits of gargantuan proportions. It was, and is, quite entertaining to see them lose it so easily. But after a while, the endless back and forth loses its entertaining quality as one watches the present administration grind our constitutional republic into dust.
That’s when I decided to start this blog. I wanted to write more in depth about the ideology, strategy and tactics of the left and how we might be able to win the Information War. It has been quite a year—with its low points and high points. I’ve learned that the conservative new media can be quite competitive. At times, I have discovered that people you think would’ve gotten behind your efforts can’t stand you, while others that you never would’ve dreamed would get in your corner, do.
I can honestly say that I am utterly fed up with party politics. For all intents and purposes, I have renounced any party loyalty or affiliation at this point. I do not do this lightly. I’m not saying I’ll never vote republican again, because I’ll sure as hell never vote democrat. But if I’m going to donate my time, money and effort to a republican cause that decides to throw me, and others, under the bus whenever it appears expedient to do so … well … you can kiss my white a**. I pledge allegiance to the flag and the republic for which it stands—meaning: the U.S.A.—not a bungling political party. I’m in good company, too. George Washington and James Madison were no fans of political parties—Washington went so far as to say they were always baneful in the long run. I can’t really say it any more plain than that. Well, maybe I could. But I digress.
What I’m specifically referring to are examples like the recent comments by former Gen. Colin Powell—whose recent metamorphosis from republican to devoted Obama supporter has left me fuming—who claims there is a “deep, dark vein of intolerance” within the republican party. Additionally, we’ve heard remarks by Sen. John McCain referring to members of the Tea Party movement as “hobbits.” There have been others of the right-wing elite who have publicly made disparaging remarks about grassroots efforts. What idiocy! Political suicide! My only question to these right-wing elites: Do you want votes or not?
It is damn infuriating when you stand and defend these guys at the street level, and give them your votes, especially during the tumultuous Bush years, when they were doing nothing to fight back against the rabid left’s onslaught. And this is the thanks we get? Hell, some RNC folks have blocked me on Twitter. Even Barack Obama hasn’t blocked me on Twitter, if that tells you anything. Karl Rove, who has leveled his own brand of ire at grassroots activists, admitted the Bush Administration didn’t fight back hard enough against the prevarications and lies by the democratic leadership and liberal media during the Bush years.
On the flipside, there are those conservatives and Tea Party folks that need to understand trying to get a Tea Party conservative elected in a large, urban demographic is not politically feasible many times—the votes aren’t there—which means conservatives and republican moderates will have to work together in order to get their foot in the door. The right should use the left’s strengths against them and start employing their own version of incrementalism, as opposed to an all-or-nothing strategy, that many times leaves them out in the cold with nothing but the shirt on their back. Honestly, how does that help anything?
Note: If you are a “republican” who does not vote, I have nothing to say to you. Might as well head over to TMZ or one of the porn tubes for all you’re worth.
One of the things I’ve marveled over is how Barack Obama can so easily say one thing and do the complete opposite, without any real opposition. I wonder at times how he can look himself in the mirror at night before he goes to bed—he pours it on so thick … just dripping with schmooze. There are so many examples of Obama saying one thing one day and another the next, that I rarely have to spend much time finding evidence to refute him—usually with video or quotes straight from his own mouth.
But I see the method in his communal madness. Obama is a populist president. He is simply doing what any good supreme leader of a collectivist and egalitarian movement would do: he leads a popular front. It is why, in my opinion, he is able to look people in the eye and bald-face lie to them, as long as 51% of the people present believe him, he doesn’t care that you know he is lying. As far as Barack is concerned, he has a mandate for “change.” Obama employs the masses against the system, despite the fact he is the head of the system; this only enables Obama to work from the top-down and the bottom-up via his connections with various front groups and mass organizations. As Trevor Loudon has warned, this is not your daddy’s democrat party anymore. Under the reign of Obama, the Democrats are under the control of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), and the labor unions.
If you don’t believe me, just visit the DSA’s and CPUSA’s websites and tell me what policies and social issues they disagree with Obama on. What you’ll discover is that the DSA and CPUSA wholeheartedly endorse Obama and crew. What does that tell you? Does that tell you anything? If “no,” why the hell not? Why is it that I see some on my side of the political spectrum act like I’m simply disparaging or engaging in a so-called McCarthyite witch hunt of the president when I simply call him out as a socialist/communist (a.k.a. progressive)? For crying out loud, I’ve heard Rosanne Barr on Fox News openly admit she is a socialist, as were her parents, and MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell is a self-professed socialist, too. Is it such a stretch for one to believe that Obama is a socialist when sycophants like Barr and O’Donnell support him with such religious zeal? Once again, what does that tell you?
So many at the level of media and government are engaging in politics these days. But politics is not leadership, neither is the raw wielding of power. Leadership requires bringing disparate groups together for the purpose of pursuing a common goal—which for me is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
We don’t have to like each other; we don’t have to take long, hot showers together; but we do need to start exercising some mutual respect and start supporting those who are supporting the cause (First Principles), instead of ripping people over their differences and not building them up. We need a Popular Front to combat the left’s Popular Front. That requires unity. In the Gospels, Jesus Christ gave the admonishment that if you are only friends with those who are just like you, what good is that? Even the heathen do that, Christ said. How true that is! For example, the mob takes care of their own.
I have noticed how people in groups tend to splinter off into cliques, even in groups of individuals they may have much in common with. It almost seems to be a natural human behavior. We are naturally inclined to relate with people who are like us. I don’t think that is a bad thing per se. But sometimes the need to unite for a common purpose is paramount. I believe this natural tendency for people to assemble in sub-groups within larger groups is unavoidable. This behavior is particularly pronounced with those on the right, since conservatives and republicans tend to be more strong independent types. So, organizing does not come as naturally for those on the right as it appears to for those on the left. The problem is cliques tend to work against each other many times, particularly with fiercely independent types, when there is no semblance of real, decisive leadership.
The bottomline for me is not my loyalty to my party, but my loyalty to my country and the people I love and care about, period. Although Obama may act as if his cult of personality following grants him carte blanche to rule by decree and edict, bypassing Congress and upsetting the checks and balances in place to prevent the arbitrary abuse of power by the Executive, he is not the true Sovereign of the United States of America. The title of true Sovereign goes to the people. It is the will of the people that reigns supreme under our current Constitution, not a single individual or political party. It is high time the American people demand their sovereignty back before it is gone for good!
- Talking Past Each Other
- The Art of Rhetoric: Ben Shapiro’s Interview with Piers Morgan
- Ben Shapiro on Hannity: ‘We’ve Reached the End of Bipartisanship’ [Video]