By Brent Allen Parrish
One of the biggest beefs I have with liberals and the radical left is their devotion to the collective over the individual. The intense desire to place the needs of the collective over the individual requires diminishing the concept of individuality itself.
It’s interesting how you can stick the suffix ism onto the end of a word and, many times, turn it into a negative, e.g. alcoholism, communism, socialism, capitalism, sexism, individualism, etc. (Oh, I almost forgot journalism!) The left appears quite enamored, if not neurotically obsessed, with the whole notion of ism, period.
Naturally this leads to seeing people not as individuals but groups of individuals, or as many radical leftists prefer to say–the masses. But there is no such thing as a mass of people because a so-called mass of people is, in reality, a group of individuals. Stalin was quoted saying, “Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all.”
I realize that some start to squirm reading a quote from Josef Stalin, or when they hear the terms Communist or Marxist. As a matter of fact, some will even completely tune out upon hearing these terms. There’s numerous reasons why I believe this to be the case, but that goes outside the scope of this article.
The problem is it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to describe and explain the origins of the left’s political ideology without exposing and revealing its Marxist roots, particularly when one thoroughly researches what is taught in colleges and universities these days.
Now I doubt many media personalities would come right out and quote Stalin, or admit that they are, in fact, card-carrying communists or socialists, but not all. MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell has no problem admitting that he is a socialist, nor does Rosanne Barr or Vermont’s Senator Bernie Sanders.
The constant Marx-inspired inculcation of young minds to embrace socialism and communism as a vastly superior system over capitalism occurs on many fronts–public schools, colleges, universities, Hollywood, mass media, etc. This sort of Gramsci-inspired assault on culture and tradition has been a longtime in the making. The New Marxism employed by the left via attacking culture on all fronts (critical theory) has made significant strides in conditioning individuals to dismiss the importance of their own individuality–namely, freedom and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not only that, even right-leaning individuals adopt the narrative of the left and fall into the trap of dividing people into classes and groups. I think we all do it, at times, really.
The big problem for me with the whole concept of Marxism is I reject the very premise that underlies its entire foundation. The first sentence of the Communist Manifesto reads, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”
Although the struggle between the poor and the rich has been a part of *mankind’s history, by no means do I agree that it is the only factor, for it completely ignores the immorality and brutality that is replete throughout human history. The Manifesto simply boils history down to the the haves vs. the have nots, i.e. the Bourgeoisie vs. the Proletariat. If only the have nots had more, then all would be Utopia and man would be perfected.
Unfortunately, we are operating under these Marxian divisions, e.g. lower-class, middle-class, upper-class, fat cats, etc. Our form of progressive taxation is designed to eliminate “income disparity” but only stifles growth and greatly hampers upward mobility by dividing the society into separate classes and taxing them punitively. This is what a true dyed-in-the-wool Marxist would call fairness or social justice–when, in fact, it is the “equal sharing of misery.” But I digress.
Right now I’m completely fed up with a number of Republicans, particularly the leadership. I would describe these Republicans as Progressive Republicans–for example, Sen. John McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham. They no longer represent me, nor do I believe they are fighting for what is best for the United States. Instead, McCain and Graham seem to be playing a nauseating and demoralizing game of going-along-to-get-along–appeasement.
Now typically when I hear folks like Rush Limbaugh and other well-known conservatives address the topic of Progressive Republicans like Graham, Boehner, McCain, Collins, etc., they are typically referred to as the “Republican Establishment.” I completely understand and concur with what is being implied, but I think we need a new strategy dealing with the milquetoast element within the Republican Party.
My point is I don’t want to see our side throw out the baby with the bath water. We need to stand behind those who are serious about bringing the United States back under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution. The Republicans that I see out there fighting and engaging with the American people are folks like Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Mike Lee, Sen. Rand Paul, Rep. Darrell Issa, Rep. Trey Gowdy, and others.
I’ve been so frustrated with the Republican Party, as of late, that I seriously reconsidered re-registering my party affiliation as an independent. But I believe what needs to be done is a thorough house-cleaning of the RNC and the GOP. A third party would be political suicide. Such a maneuver would only guarantee Democrat rule for the foreseeable future.
That’s why I believe we need to get away from the rhetoric of the “Republican Establishment” and start identifying and targeting those Republicans who are not fighting for the cause of limited government, strong defense, fiscal responsibility, freedom in business, the Bill of Rights, and the constitutional rule of law. We should settle for nothing less. These are principles that I will not compromise on, no matter what the consensus is to the contrary.
The left has declared figurative war on the right, yet the progressive element of the Republican Party has not developed a plan of attack (opposition), but rather is engaged in constantly negotiating favorable terms of surrender. It would behoove the Republican leadership to familiarize themselves with the lessons and maxims of war, in my opinion.
What do I mean? Well, I’m starting to skirt the edges of my expertise, but let me try and explain. Now I’m no graduate of a War College, nor do I have any command experience in the military, but strategy, operations and tactics is something I’m quite interested in. The Western way of war can differ quite dramatically to the Eastern way of war. What I’m specifically referring to is Clausewitz vs. Sun Tzu. From what I understand of Clausewitz, whose influence on modern Western armies cannot be understated, is that his strategy toward war was primarily centered around political goals and motives. While politics can never be completely divorced from war, I never believed that it should be the sole motive. The main goal of Sun Tzu’s approach to war was total victory, not just a political victory. Sun Tzu believed the enemy must be crushed, not simply subdued or contained.
One interesting way to visualize the difference between the Clausewitz-style of warfare compared to Sun Tzu’s is to compare two popular board games. Chess is a game played in the West where the goal is to take out your opponent’s sovereign–in this case, the queen. Chess is a game of attrition. Pawns, knights, rooks and bishops may all sacrifice themselves in the struggle to take out the queen, or to protect their own. In contrast, the objective of the ancient Chinese strategy game Gho is not attrition but capturing “real estate.”
The significantly different approaches to strategy between East and West also results in vastly different operations and tactics being employed. For example, in the Western war of war, according to the Clausewitz school of thought, when an army is confronted with a superior enemy, the typical strategy is to hunker down and harden static defensive positions–dig in, basically.
Conversely, Sun Tzu believed that if an army only defends, and never attacks, victory can never be achieved. According to Sun Tzu’s maxim’s of war, when confronted with a vastly superior force, one should harass and harangue the enemy, as well as harden and improve defenses. Sun Tzu believed in keeping constant pressure on the enemy, even when outnumbered. He also was quite fond of using ruses and feints to confuse and baffle the enemy. Always keep ’em guessin’!
You might be asking how this all applies to the so-called Republican Establishment. Well, I see the Republican Party hunkered down in defensive positions and unwilling to attack because they feel they are confronted with a more powerful opponent. As Rush Limbaugh has pointed out, the Republican Party has a number of Progressive Republicans who are just fine with big government.
What has become painfully apparent recently is the dismissive treatment given Republicans like Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul, Sen. Mike Lee, and others, by entrenched Republicans like John McCain and Lindsey Graham. But not only are the RINO elements of the Republican Party willing to publicly display their disdain for their own colleagues, senators like John McCain are willing to even discourage potential voters by insulting and disparaging grassroots efforts–namely, the Tea Party Movement.
Moreover, the professional political strategist appears to be driving the Republican election strategy. For example, Karl Rove is a number-cruncher and professional fundraiser extraordinaire. But, in my humble opinion, one cannot drive their political strategy by polls and numbers alone. The tendency is not do anything to rock the boat if the numbers aren’t supporting it. The problem with this strategy is standing up and fighting against the left is discouraged in favor of “not rocking the boat.” In my mind, voter rolls for the Republicans will vastly increase if they provide an effective opposition to the progressive liberal agenda, instead of being the alternative party (progressive lite).
Say, @KarlRove, when you're next on TV, use the whiteboard to show us how much money you wasted in 2012 for a 1% victory rate on RINO mush
— Doug Ross (@directorblue) August 2, 2013
— Doug Ross (@directorblue) July 2, 2013
— Doug Ross (@directorblue) August 1, 2013
This is where a counter-insurgency-style strategy is needed, in my opinion–meaning: 1) identify the target; 2) isolate the target; 3) insert into hurt locker (in this case, vote them out of office). Instead of referring to the Republican Establishment, let’s start calling out the offenders by name. Clearly identify those Republicans who are not representing their constituents and refuse to fight for Constitutional rule of law. It does our party no good to refer to the problem in a nebulous sense. We must be specific about who and what we are referring to if we wish to turn this mess around.
Don’t start nothing, won’t be nothing. ~ Dana Loesch