|
|
|
October 13, 2006
Wish-based reality?
This is an interesting statement by Bill Clinton: LAS VEGAS (AP) - The nation has been "jammed into an ideological corner" by conservative Republicans and is primed for a power shift in the November elections, former President Bill Clinton said Thursday.If that's the "reality," then what explains the fact that the right wing of the Republican Party has been so furious that they've been talking of boycotting the elections, and a deliberate campaign of "strategic defeat"? This is not to say that there isn't a "narrow sliver" of the of the GOP that is in fact "more right-wing and its most ideological element" but it sure as hell isn't George W. Bush. Far from having power, the narrow sliver is irate because they don't. They feel shut out and ignored, and I think that right now they share an identity of interest with Bill and Hillary Clinton. My theory has long been that more than anything else, the Clintons want this "sliver" to gain ascendancy so that they can win in 2008 by portraying themselves as moderates. So I see the statement as wishful thinking by Clinton. People who don't want him in the White House again should hope that his wishes don't become a reality.
MORE: The subject of collusion between Republican losers and the left is an old topic for me. Is it wishful thinking to hope the situation is not hopeless? AND MORE: In a long and thoughtful post, Clayton Cramer argues that libertarians are promoting a food fight in the Republican Party, in order to benefit from Republican defeat at the polls next month. I agree that this is no time to engage in the "battle for the heart and soul" of the Republican Party or to promote an intraparty "food fight." However, I see little hope for libertarianism prevailing in the GOP, and my worry is somewhat the opposite of Cramer's. I've seen a deliberate strategy of defeat advocated for months -- not by libertarians, but by social conservatives who urge those they view as the party's "base" to sit the election out. I worry that those in this "base" who see themselves as having been systematically sold out would prefer being the powerful faction in a minority party to being a powerless faction in a majority party. I think that staying home in November is a bad idea. If the Republicans lose, "food fight" won't be the word for what will follow. For what it's worth (which probably isn't much), I'm on record as supporting an alliance between Judeo-Christians and atheists, and as I said the other day I've long advocated compromise: politics is about compromise, and many Republicans have compromised with the "religious right." Hell, I've compromised my worthless principles every time I've voted for a Republican who supported the evil "Drug war," so what the hell is the big effing deal with the religious so-called right? I figure maybe if they don't want to kill me, why should I want to kill them? (Especially when millions and millions want to kill us!)I plan to continue my policy of compromising. Like it or not, that's the nature of voting. MORE: I'd say the hardest of the hard core defeat advocates are those who were enraged enough to want Bush to be impeached. Not to start a food fight, but do they prefer Hillary? posted by Eric on 10.13.06 at 09:52 AM
Comments
Good analysis. Regardless of the balance of power in the GOP, sitting the election out strikes me very poor strategy. Eric Scheie · October 13, 2006 06:04 PM Clearly, we can't all get along. But, can't we all leave each other alone? I was actually recently a bit disgusted by a book being advertised at Reason.com, which had the tag, "Christianity under attack? It is now." The idea being, basically, that people SHOULD attack the ideas of Christians. Personally, because so many Christians view freedom as God's gift to all men, and beyond the authority of governments to curtail, I've almost always found Christians to be good allies in the fight against statism. Jon Thompson · October 14, 2006 04:06 AM Actually that's a perfectly sensible position. Personally (although not an American) the Republicans appear to be a pretty average conservative party. But if one judged otherwise, then to put changing the philosophy of the party ahead of electoral victory is moral, just and sound. I find that problem with the Liberal (ie. conservative) Party here in Australia. At a federal level, they are very good, but at t state level I constantly think why the h#ll should I vote for them? They don't actually support any conservative principles or policies, certainly not the ones that matter to me. They even support abortion for goodness sakes! Why the h#ll should I vote for them! Kip Watson · October 14, 2006 11:30 AM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• The right to be irrational?
• I'm cool with the passion fashion • Climate change meltdown at the polls? • If you're wrong, then so is God? • Have a nice day, asshole! • Scarlet "R"? • Consuming power while empowering consumption • Shrinking is growth! • My dirty thoughts • art not codes?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I read Dick Armey's letter over at Sager's place.
I think of it as a clever 'he started it' hue and cry after which the person who really started it tries to slug the relatively innocent person. Or, yes, the Libertarians are starting things.
They do this every election cycle.
Some of its cold-blooded calculation so as to drive up the price of their support, and some of its founded on an inflated notion of their wonderfulness.
In order of importance and size in the Republican Party--Socons, RINOs, and Libertarians. The Libertarians do punch above their weight because they have a clear and simple message (which is also their weakness as their message is too simple for reality, but it does make good bumperstickers), and because they're thoughtfully energetic. I suspect the Libertarians provide more of the 'officer corps' of the R's than statistically they should from these factors.
But in the end, they are the tail on the dog.
It does help that a lot of socons are also slanted heavily toward libertarian ideas as well--such as me.
However to use a memorable phrase of Chiraq's--the libertarians missed a great chance to shut up about Schiavo. It was not as clear cut as they said. They really should have walked away, and shrugged their shoulders. Pick a fight on an issue thats more valuable, and less likely to seriously cheese off your allies.
Sometimes I think Libertarians are driven by an irrational desire to make their contempt for those faithies known.
Porkbusters is an EXCELLENT program started by the Libertarians. No good socon could object to that, and in fact, most should be cheering on the Libertarians. Why can't Libertarians do this sort of thing, be uniters not dividers, instead of trying to tick off the socons.
Because, even though, I find myself mostly in agreement with you on the virtue of compromise, and I try to hold out my hand to libertarians, I too have my irrational streak. Get spit on enough times, get my hand bitten off enough times, and I might be inclined to demonstrate to the Libertarians who the big dog is, and who isn't.