Deep Liberal Thinking: Its the Fault of Those Damned Teabaggers!

To be sure, they don’t use words like that – being all super intellectual and mainstream, you see, they don’t go in for vulgarity.  But, that is the sense of Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein when they write this:

A brighter future for politics and policy requires a different Republican Party, one no longer beholden to its hard right and willing to operate within the mainstream of American politics.

Unlike the Democrats who, of course, completely ignore their hard left and are willing to compromise on such things as abortion, right?  I mean, if some people just wanted to have some reasonable, humane restrictions on abortion in the later half of pregnancy, these moderate,  in-the-mainstream Democrats would have no problem with that.  Answer:  Wendy Davis.  The Great Pink Hope of the Democrat party in Texas who stood tall and brave against an attempt to prevent children 8 months in to pregnancy from being ripped limb from limb by abortionists.  Thank goodness for moderate Democrats who operate within the mainstream of American politics.

What, exactly, is the “mainstream of American politics”?  It is that big corporations and big government will get bigger while an insulated Ruling Class of corporate and government bureaucrats live high and mighty off the sweat of average Americans.  Mann and Ornstein are dead on about one thing:

Any degree of success in this arena requires enlisting a small group of Senate Republicans who have tired of the lockstep opposition to Obama and  relish an opportunity to legislate.

Opposition to Obama is “lockstep”, you see?  If you bother to read the article, you’ll understand that the authors think that Obama is the one who reached out to the GOP and tried to govern by compromise.  But then that dratted TEA Party came along and started to muck everything up (unstated sub-text – dog whistle, as it were – “they are racists who just hate”).  Meanwhile, opposition to conservatism is nuanced and willing to compromise…like the way Obama immediately abandoned the birth control mandate when Catholics reasonably pointed out they couldn’t do that without violating their moral beliefs.  But it is true that there is a group of Senate Republicans who do relish the opportunity to legislate and if such legislation works out to just giving more power and wealth to the Ruling Class at the expense of the people, so be it.  After all, its not the people who pass out invitations to the cool parties, nor can the people ensure a well-paid sinecure once the “small group of Senate Republicans” retires.

As I noted in “You Say You Want a Revolution“, below, its an entire class which is united against us.  People like Mann and Ornstein have got their marching orders…provide a patina of intellectual legitimacy for the McCains and Grahams of the GOP to stab the rest of us in the back…go ahead, they say, satisfy your desire to legislate.  Step away from those crazies Rand Paul and Ted Cruz (to Mann and Ornstein, the literal pictures of intolerance…and I mean that; the picture posted at the top of their article is Paul and Cruz).  You’ll get a nice write up in the Washington Post.  You’ll be lauded as a statesman.  President Hillary Clinton will award you a Presidential Medal of Freedom.  We’ll ensure that your memoirs sell in the millions!

Getting rid of these people will be difficult and then easy.  First difficult in finding enough GOPers who will fight – but once we do, we will win and win it all.  And then we just cut off the taxpayer funds for the left and be free of them forever.

Advertisements

22 thoughts on “Deep Liberal Thinking: Its the Fault of Those Damned Teabaggers!

  1. Amazona September 14, 2013 / 3:32 pm

    “Any degree of success in this arena requires enlisting a small group of Senate Republicans who have tired of the lockstep opposition to Obama and relish an opportunity to legislate.”

    This is just what we can expect from people to whom “politics” is nothing more than a game of identity.

    The other day a woman at work made the oft-heard comment that she and her husband “just don’t like politics”. I asked if that was because, to them, “politics” is just bickering and name calling and insults, and she said yes, that is exactly why. I asked her how she would feel if “politics” was really a discussion about which kind of government we want, and she said THAT would be interesting. So we chatted for a couple of minutes about it, and she said that she her husband would both be willing to get involved in discourse about whether the United States should have a small and restricted central government or a large and unrestricted one.

    I then brought up the 10th Amendment, and got a blank look, so I brought it up on my computer screen. She read it, read it again, looked at me with amazement and said “THAT’S in the Constitution?” I said “It is the heart and soul of the Constitution, the Constitution distilled into a few short words.” She asked me to print it out for her.

    It would not be all that hard to bring people like her into the discourse, and make them comfortable participants in the process. But as long as we let the Left call the tune, and the tune is unending squabbling and bickering over emotional issues and constant insertion of emotion, we are going to continue to be helpless and impotent.

    • M. Noonan September 14, 2013 / 5:48 pm

      That ties in with my view that we conservatives simply haven’t been presenting ourselves to the non-conservatives. We also lose sight of the fact that right now, it is crunch time…we need to take on board everyone we can while we craft the “us vs them” message, which will be geared to explaining that “they” are the liberals and their RINOs stooges.

      • Amazona September 14, 2013 / 6:17 pm

        As long as we let ourselves get sucked into the quicksand of “issues” so beloved by, and necessary to, the Left, we will continue to flounder.

        Our candidates might be perfectly capable as legislators, but suck at campaigning, because they continue to get sucked into answering gotcha questions that are nothing but setups to gather ammunition to use against us. All they need is a soundbite like “legitimate rape” and they are off and running, and in no time the ignorant and the gullible are howling at the moon.

        When I have talked about this I have run into “conservative” prissy-mouthed sniping along the lines of “At least I am not afraid to stand up for what I believe in…”

        Great. Go stand up for it. Make a big deal out of it, beat your breast, shout to the rooftops just how morally upright and superior you are—while the nation goes down the tubes, you can preen on your imagined moral high ground. That is what has gotten us into this mess——the conviction that what we need to stand for is VALUES.

        Oh, values are crucial. But personal values are not government, and when it comes to government the only values that matter are governmental values. Run the nation the way it is supposed to be run, and let your personal value system run your own life, and it will all even out. An example: I abhor abortion, I think it is an abomination and a soul-killing disgrace. But rather than take a stand that says only those who agree with me can vote for a conservative for president, I think it far wiser to focus exclusively on GOVERNMENT, and if the nation is run properly then the people can decide what they think is moral, without the feds stepping in to override state sovereignty.

        It’s the same goal, but without the “I’m-more-moral-than-you” posturing. I have become quite disgusted with those who will sacrifice the nation just so they can trumpet their own morality. I see nothing moral in that.

      • M. Noonan September 15, 2013 / 12:01 am

        I think even the “social issues” can be worked to our advantage. First off, younger people are – in polling – showing themselves to be increasingly pro-life. This is because of two reasons I can see:

        1. Very effective education by the pro-life people. This makes all kinds of sense because no matter how you slice it, our side doesn’t have as its result a dead baby. The improvements in ultra-sounds have also gone a long way – and is why pro-life forces spend bags of money obtaining ultra-sound machines; hard to kill someone you can see, ya know?

        2. The current generation of youth knows that at the whim of their mothers, they could have been killed up to the moment of birth. This has been clarifying.

        If campaign for pro-life from the perspective of having a right to live as opposed to wanting to ban abortion, I think we can score heavily. Make no proposal to ban abortion, but make all sorts of proposals to provide aid to unwed mothers while also enacting every more late-term abortion bans (which are very popular everywhere in the country).

        The gay marriage issue can also be used effectively – now that gay marriage is a fact of life, the key to victory is to campaign on a “live and let live” program. Not so much trying to roll back gay marriage, but campaigning to ensure that people are allowed to live as they wish…gay people can get married, Christians can stay out of it…and no one can bully them in to going along (the routine efforts of gay rights activists to force people to participate in gay marriage plays right in to our hands…younger people have a strong libertarian streak on everyone just being able to do as they wish and it won’t sit well if we widely spread stories of people trying to force people to do things they don’t want to do).

        That is just two examples of how we can work the message to turn the left’s own, little fascist efforts to suppress us against them at the polls.

        While I’ll never be a Libertarian, it is time for a high dose of Libertarianism in our campaign efforts – a “get off my back” campaign which can be used to leverage people in to backing our efforts to reduce the size of government.

      • Amazona September 14, 2013 / 6:21 pm

        The only “us” that matters right now is the Constitutional model, small-federal-government “us” and the only “them” is the infinitely expandable federal government without Constitutional restraints “them”.

        The more we clutter up the discourse the more we will have people being distracted and wandering off into the weeds.

      • Amazona September 15, 2013 / 12:08 am

        Mark, I don’t agree. While I do agree that social issues are important, I think they need to be separated from issues of how to govern the nation. How often do we have to see people voting for Dems because of disagreement on “social issues” to learn this lesson?

        Go ahead and have groups promoting these issues, as personal values, if that makes you feel better, but please don’t tangle them up in voting on how to govern the nation or we will continue to keep eroding our base and losing elections that are supposed to be about government and not about “issues”.

        The best way I have heard it described, and this was by an evangelical Christian, was that the federal government was not about morality—that was left to the states and to the people. If we can’t learn that lesson we will continue to hand over the nation to people who play the “issues” game far better than we ever will.

      • M. Noonan September 15, 2013 / 1:14 am

        Amazona,

        But that is just it – with the massive over-reach of the left, we can now campaign for social issues on Libertarian grounds. The left is setting itself up for final victory or defeat…and when a force stretches itself for that final lunge, it has to leave its flanks uncovered. The left is hoping that they can push on to victory before everyone finds out that we’ll all be under tyranny…now is our chance to make the argument not that, say, gay marriage is immoral, but that the liberals are using it to attack people for not doing as they’re told.

      • dbschmidt September 15, 2013 / 4:05 pm

        Look at every election since (inclusive) Goldwater. The Republicans have won every time they stand on principals and a firm governing stance. They have lost every time they getting muked down in issues and/or present a Liberal-lite RINO.

      • Retired Spook September 15, 2013 / 4:22 pm

        They have lost every time they getting muked down in issues and/or present a Liberal-lite RINO.

        DB, at this point you would have to think that the leadership/movers and shakers in the GOP know that, so the only conclusion one can draw is that they really don’t care whether or not they’re in power. I think the average RINO Republican was most happy from 1953 to 1994 when they just showed up, drew a paycheck, portrayed themselves as the loyal opposition and got invited to all the DC cocktail parties. That’s largely why they became knows as Country Club Republicans. I believe a lot of them would like to go back to those days. As long as they let new blood like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Rand Paul take over and guide the GOP in a new direction, the McCain/Graham wing of the GOP can camp out on the country club lawn for all I care.

      • dbschmidt September 15, 2013 / 4:35 pm

        With Graham polling under 50% in SC and McCain mentioning that he may not run again there is additional hope for 2016. Then again–it is too far off. 2014 and a massive anti-Hillary 2016 campaign needs to start gearing up. BTW, when I mentioned “anti-Hillary” I actually meant just let her record and lack thereof speak for itself. Remind the folks of failure after failure of their next anointed one. Of course that did not stop our current failure-in-chief from getting reelected. I guess “what difference does it make anyway.”

      • Amazona September 15, 2013 / 7:09 pm

        Campaign FOR all the values you want, but do not campaign ON them, unless you want to shut out people who do not share those precise values, stated in that precise way.

        I’ll be happy to take the votes of “married” homosexuals, women who have had abortions, etc. because my primary goal is to reinstate Constitutional government in this country. If that is what we campaign on, we can get all of those people. If we campaign on “issues” we cut them off.

        And what we keep overlooking is that those “ISSUES” are not in the purview of the federal government anyway, so why campaign on them?

        I’ll tell you why—it is because it satisfies an internal need to believe we are more moral than others. Whether we are or not is not the question—whether it is relevant to how best to govern the nation IS.

        Sure, the tide is turning away from Liberal hedonism and irresponsibility. But every single law that applies to any of this is, according to the 10th Amendment, designated to state or local government, or to the People. So what is to be gained by making these values criteria for voting for Constitutional government?

        Campaign on government alone, educate people and get national elections back where they are supposed to be—-about how to run the country—-and leave the moral issues to the people.

        When we insist on dragging our morality into what is supposed to be about government, we are merely the other side of the coin from the Left, which is determined to make government reflect their values. No matter what the Founders may have believed to be essential personal qualities for good government, we have to note that they were very careful not to insert these into the actual template for government. When we do, we violate the principles they stood for, and we stretch the document they created to form the best government they could imagine.

      • M. Noonan September 15, 2013 / 11:40 pm

        Amazona,

        I see you’re point – we don’t want to be all excluding. Heck, even the Pope is on board with this…liberals, being liberals and so idiots, are interpreting some of the Pope’s remarks as a move towards liberalism, but they are nothing of the kind: just stating long-held truths, but also stating them in a way which pushes back against the anti-Catholic/Christian narrative in the MSM without in any way causing offense to non-Catholics/Christians. I think we can push back in a way which satisfies social conservatives like me (we’re really more worried about being stabbed in the back by the GOP Establishment…we know we’ll eventually win the culture war as the left is in love with death, but we do fear that in order to be “moderate” the RINOs will not just refuse to fight along side us, but will start to fight against us). Working in favor of this is a dawning realization on the part of social-conservatives that the most crucial battle isn’t to keep gay marriage illegal or immediately ban abortion…it is to retain the freedoms necessary for us to argue against gay marriage and for a ban on abortion.

        But there are still two halves to our problem – and one half is the moral decline of the nation. Rand Paul sees it:

        …The senator made his comments about the need for faith leaders to rise up and called for increased religious fervor after Beck asked him about his own spiritual well-being.

        Paul said that when he was first running for office he appreciated people telling him that they were praying for him, but that he didn’t take these pledges seriously enough. Now, he sees inherent value in these prayers and well-wishes — and he believes the nation should adopt similar sentiments.

        “I think that our country needs a spiritual cleansing,” Paul told Beck. “I really think we need a revival in this country — and I do need your prayers and I do need the strength to go on with this, because this isn’t always easy.”…

      • Retired Spook September 16, 2013 / 7:48 am

        But there are still two halves to our problem – and one half is the moral decline of the nation.

        Just the moral decline in and of itself is bad enough, but those who are actively engaged in or leading the decline can’t seem to be happy unless they also ridicule those of us who get up each morning and ask ourselves, “how can I do good today”, or, at the very least, “God watch over me, guide me in the right direction, and help me make wise and decent choices in all that I do.” Now, when anyone makes fun of my efforts to live a decent, moral life, I just throw it back at them with something like, “I didn’t realize what an anti-religious bigot you were. You should get help.”

      • M. Noonan September 16, 2013 / 12:54 pm

        I agree with handing it right back to them – of course, as often as possible with gentle reproof…but the main thing is to surrender no ground to them. So, these days, I’m apt to remind liberals when they talk of “the children” that they are killing very large numbers of them via abortion and so they should shut their traps.

      • dbschmidt September 16, 2013 / 2:29 pm

        That is the one thing that I liked about folks like Newt Gingrich–they “corrected” the debate moderators when they tried to get that soundbite on some social issue that has nothing to do with governance of this nation. i hope the current crop learn this trait as well and stay focused on what is important and discard what is liberal crap.

      • Amazona September 17, 2013 / 6:41 pm

        Absolutely, “hand it back to them”—but why be gentle?

        In a one to one discussion, slam it back at them—“It’s completely hypocritical to claim to be concerned about the welfare of children unless you are fighting to protect them at every age.”

        boom

        But in politics? No.

        To a question to a candidate about abortion, let’s say to a Senatorial, Representative, Presidential or VP candidate, I would come back with “What is the point of that question? Are you asking me about my personal belief system? My religion? Just what do you think those might have to do with running the country? Do you even KNOW the Constitution? Do you realize that there is absolutely nothing in my job description, according to the Constitution, that would give me any authority over that? If you understand that and you are still asking me, I have to think you are just a shill for my opponent, trying to get a soundbite he can use. If you don’t, then I suggest you go back and study up on it before you try to interview candidates. NEXT!”

        To hell with “gentle reproofs”.

  2. dbschmidt September 14, 2013 / 10:07 pm

    Can anyone say “Overton Window”, or maybe I should call it the “Orwellian Window” when speaking of Liberal goals? I can name more sources than Mark / Matt used for their last book with respect towards “fundamentally transforming” this nation. Probably not the latest but close is the Dodd-Frank creation fiasco known as the CFPB as in;

    “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau officials are seeking to monitor four out of every five U.S. consumer credit card transactions this year–up to 42 billion transactions – through a controversial data-mining program, according to documents obtained by the Washington Examiner.”

    Add this to the others we know of, as well as those we don’t, George Orwell is having a grand time. Might have been wasted on the hippies was the saying ; Tune in, turn on & drop out. Well, maybe nowadays, I have already “turned on” (without drugs) and tuned in (to the ongoing issues) and preparing to drop out or off the grid. Not a prepper but always prepared.

    I will (over the last couple of posts) have to agree that Conservatives (in general) do not present themselves well in the public arena and also agree with Amazona that the “quicksand of issues” is a great part of the downfall. I also agree with Amazona about “Our candidates might be perfectly capable as legislators, but suck at campaigning, because they continue to get sucked into answering gotcha questions that are nothing but setups…”

    One would think they would learn—get them some edumication like I gots at the trough of public schools, but no. What could go wrong? Individual education at the (poor choice of terms) lowest or as close as possible to the individual level of the population appears to work best. I educate one person and they tell two friends, etc. approach. People are smart–groups are not.

    The recall in Colorado (God Bless their population in not only this particular action but also look over them with the storms, floods and devastating needs of all) of both Senators plus a few others like Scott in Wi still gives me hope. Here in Durham, I try to convince folks that the State / Federal government is not actually here to “help” you but rather to push the status quo has opened a few eyes.

    I hope it happens at the ballot box but I am ready for other options.

    • M. Noonan September 14, 2013 / 11:53 pm

      What was crucial, in my view, about the Colorado recall is that these were Democrat-heavy districts. I think Obama won them each by about 20 points. This is the Land O’ Liberals…and we still nailed two Democrats. Then there’s that CA special election a few months back where in a District with about a 20 point Democrat registration advantage and a massive Latino population, an old, white, conservative GOPer won. What is the key in all three races? The conservative side (a) asked for votes and (b) hammered against basic premise of liberal rule (that we have to have government do everything for us).

      There is no place in the USA where we can’t get votes – maybe not enough to carry a particular liberal-heavy district (thought that is possible, as has been seen), but enough to carry liberal House districts…and take away liberal States from the Democrats electoral college total.

      • neocon01 September 15, 2013 / 10:18 am

        Mark
        two or three big citys can nullify the entire rest of the state’s votes. Is there any wonder why this has become the donks plantation filled with illegals, throngs of uneducated, ebonics speaking thugs and welfare rats, and vote cheating is epic? This IS their power and until we can have real control of the way voting is done including ID and massive oversight we will lose no matter how many attempts to lower our standards to meet theirs.
        Term limits and strict voting laws and oversight.

  3. neocon01 September 15, 2013 / 10:09 am

    All they need is a soundbite like “legitimate rape” and they are off and running, and in no time the ignorant and the gullible are howling at the moon.

    last night was a good example of that,
    seems a young girl committed suicide because of “bullying” and my liberal friends (at a party) went bat shiite screaming for the incarceration of 11yo’s for this dastardly deed.
    I asked them to define “bullying” of course none could, I asked them where the father was?? the answer was WHY?, (turns out nowhere around) I asked if they had some background of the mother or the young girl herself? again blank stares and the question WHY does that matter?
    Hellooooo Mc Fly.
    Then they proceeded to say the mother took her out of school but the “bullying” continued. I asked how?
    answer well on social media, the phone (her cell) and the computer. My answer was simple turn off the computer, take the cell phone away and if there are one or two continuing the “bullying” go talk to their parents, have an attorney sent them a letter, and if it continues seek relief through the courts and a law suit….all I got was mad faces, blank stares and mumbling that im a whacko after all there SHOULD BE A LAW!!! and the schools………..
    NEXT??

    • dbschmidt September 15, 2013 / 4:00 pm

      Reminds of all of the snowbirds that moved to Florida who could not stand all of the rules and regulations; nevertheless, the first thing they did was to create a ton of new rules and regulations via the HOA. It must be okay as long as they get to write the rules and regulations.

  4. neocon01 September 16, 2013 / 5:17 pm

    “teabaggers”??

    bwany fwank is GOP??
    WHO KNEW??? LOL

Comments are closed.