An idea that gets floated around from time to time is that of strategically utilizing the sacred franchise of the vote to effect a greater end within the 'conservative' hierarchy.
The idea is simply to join in a united, and a movement-wide effort to cast your vote in favor of the opposition candidate/candidates, essentially effecting an opposition win, which it is theorized will result in tempering the resolve of the wayward party, the core principles of which you actually and truly support.
John Savage over at Brave New World Watch (BNWW) wrote a piece on this very topic recently. Do go over and visit his blog, it's well worth your time.
The suggestion, or proposal for dealing with the crisis, if it comes to that, is an interesting one; one might even say an intriguing one. In theory it would work; in practice I ain't so sure. We've dealt with that before around here. And the truth of the matter is that I don't have much faith that it could ever actually work as proposed.
I can't say as I agree with the method, as you readers have undoubtedly figured out by now, but I certainly understand why someone would conclude that kind of approach a viable, and even a preferable option given the apparent state of confusion about who and what it is, seemingly pervading the GOP right now.
Committing just a quick bit of reflection to it, I think my main disagreement with the approach, however, is this: that I really don't think 'conservative America' can find the inner strength at this moment to effect that kind of a systematic, united, purposeful, and strategic effort. At least I don't think it ('conservative America') could sustain it (the effort) even if it found that inner strength, or remnants of it hiding somewhere deep within itself. I just don't think we're accustomed to digging that deep within us as a group, nor to committing ourselves to such a systematic cause greater than ourselves, and over the long haul, which for me may be said to account for a lot, if not most of the problems we find ourselves facing these days.
Do I deny that it is there, somewhere, waiting to be re-discovered and brought to the fore? No; I don't deny the inner strength of true conservatives; the principled basis upon which our philosophy is erected, and to which it is firmly anchored. To deny it would be no less than to resign myself to a hopeless feeling of impending doom for conservatism, by extension for the nation as a whole. And I ain't ready to do that by any means.
Indeed, I think that it is that kind of inner strength which is usually to be found in an actual crisis situation, not a manufactured one. And that's why I question a conservative-wide commitment to it. After all, 'mankind is more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves...' This suggestion is to me nothing less than a proposal to attempt to manufacture a crisis, and as I said, manufactured crises are not the same as actual ones.
We (and I'm painting with a pretty broad brush here, but for a reason) tend to focus so much on our petty differences, and this practice has become so habitual for us, that we tend to forget what it is that truly unites us many times...most of the time, even. But beyond that, I think we average joe conservatives have lost our sense of direction enough, and again, habitually so, that an attempt at what some are proposing would likely end, if it could ever actually be effected movement wide, in a chaotic going in all directions except the right one. And the only thing I see benefitting from that is the opposition movement if it recognizes what is happening well enough to capitalize on it. Perhaps I give them too much credit, but I think the opposition has proven themselves on more than a few occasions a pretty savvy bunch.
But this is a really deep subject which is deserving of much more time and reflection than I have to give it at this moment. Don't be surprised if I devote yet another post, or even several more to the topic. In any event it'll make for some good discussion, I'm sure, as it has in the past.
P.S. as y'all can see we're still making lots of changes to the blog, and there remains much more work to be done. Please be patient with us as we tirelessly work to perfect it for your viewing pleasure.
-DW
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Vote Democrat; Save the Republic?...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Terry, what I’d like to know above all, before posting a substantial reply, is: Among all the harmful things that Democrats might want to do if elected in 2008, what do you fear is the most likely to be achieved? Conversely, what among the things that an establishment Republican might do is both praiseworthy and feasible?
I for one don’t think that differences among Republicans are “petty”, or that we’re still a long way away from a “crisis”. The differences between me and the present Republican leadership are profound and probably unbridgeable, as the neocons would never take a back seat to traditionalists in the GOP. If the Republican Party chooses in the primaries not to return to good leadership, then we need to show the bad leadership that we won’t accept it. I’m not denying that traditionalists have “inner strength”, but that isn’t enough to reclaim the Republican Party so easily. Traditionalists had a lot of inner strength when they repudiated the Rockefeller Republicans in favor of Goldwater in 1964, even though he lost in a landslide. Before that, I’m sure many conservatives wanted to see the GOP nominees get their butts kicked in the hope that the party might later nominate a more conservative candidate. More to come soon.
Thanks for your interest in my post!
John, I think you've misread me, which is probably my fault so let me try to clarify a couple of points...
First, I don't recall using the term 'Republicans' a single time in the post, and for a reason. But I'll go back and check it again. I don't think the differences between the various factions of republicans are 'petty' either. I'm talking about the differences between 'traditionalists' (within that group) as you call them/us.
It may well be that traditionalists could ignore their petty differences between one-another and unite around a common cause like you're suggesting, but I'm just not seeing it. But like I said, I'm not going to vote for a democrat because in my estimation, in so doing, I'm casting a vote in favor of all that the party stands for, both officially, and unofficially.
I don't think it a stretch at all to believe that democrats and leftist republicans would likely misinterpret the outcome as a mandate to impliment some of their more radical agendas, and with the numbers t'boot. The only thing keeping the demos and the rinos from doing that very thing right now is the lack of numbers. I don't care to help them along in that manner. No; as I said, I'd rather withhold my vote as to do that. That would be more satisfactory to my conscience.
Second, the 'inner-strength' I was referring to with regard to traditionalists is something, as I tried to explain in the post (again, not very well apparently) that they're/we're (as a whole) going to have to rediscover in ourselves before we can ever utilize it effectively.
Like I said, I think it's there, down deep in traditionalists, but it is something that has been laying dormant for quite a while now. But what I was getting at was that I think the proposal, as such, is basically DOA due to this factor. And even if it were resurrected, they'd probably utilize it in a whole different kind of fashion than what you're proposing.
Third, by 'manufactured crisis' as opposed to a legitimate one, I'm merely making a distinction between what you're suggesting the effect of your proposal will likely be on the minds of the GOP, and what I'm suggesting it will be, by inference.
I agree that we're moving swiftly toward a real crisis situation here. In essence what you seem to be proposing, though, is simply to help it along in its progress. No matter how I look at it, what that boils down to is manufacturing a crisis situation by outside influence, or by an unnatural one. And if it's not intended to create the appearance of a crisis situation in the party faithful and elites, thus shifting the way that they govern back more to a traditionalist approach, then I must be totally misreading you.
I'm not that confident in the idea that the GOP can be saved anyhow. It may be too far gone now. But I'm interested in hearing you out more. You may have a legitimate strategy here that'll actually result in the outcome you project. Maybe I'm just too dumb, or too thick headed to see how.
-DW
Terry, thank you for clarifying. My response is here.
John, thanks. That's a well written, well thought out reply.
Y'all be sure to go over and read John's reply to me. And also to read my reply to his reply which I posted in the comments section of his post. As I predicted, this subject has already made for an interesting discussion, even though we're still working on clarity. And John's command of the subject makes for a much more interesting discussion on the topic than I think we've had before.
As I explained there, I'll be addressing his questions in a future reply (probably this evening or in the morning as I don't have the time to devote to them right now) to his post, and to what I expect he'll post in reply to my latest on the subject. So y'all stay tuned, it should be interesting, as I say.
Ain't this fun!
-DW
Terry, thank you. I responded to your comment. I hope you will read my clarification before writing your reply.
OK, John, very good. I'm on my way over to take a gander at it in just a few minutes.
Thanks for the heads up.
John, more than likely where I got the idea that you were indeed vying for a broader implementation of the strategy to include Congress was that the last time we had this discussion (over at the AFB, as I recall) that was the general view I was contending against as to the application of the strategy. There was a sentiment expressed by someone of being hopeful that the republicans would roundly be defeated in the elections of '06, and that we oughta cast our votes to effect the same to teach 'em a good hard lesson.
I'll try to go back and retrieve that discussion from the archives at the AFB later this evening. But it appears as though I've unfairly leveled against your proposal an accusation that wasn't warranted. And I apologize for that.
I'm much more receptive to the idea of isolating the strategy to the presidential race only. I can't say that you've managed to convince me yet, but the little bit of Machiavellian (great post title, btw!) in me is intrigued by the concept as such.
I have more to say on the subject, particularly with regard to the liberals trying to push their agenda in Congress now that they outnumber the republicans. But I'm here again limited by the constraints of time, so I'll have to get back to you on that later.
But thanks for the clarification, and for the time and reflection you've devoted to the subject.
-DW
Post a Comment