IN FOR A PENNY, IN FOR A POUND: MORE EYOREISM ON BROWN
My post yesterday drew the usual praise and congratulations from some of my friends on the right. I am always heartened when such open mindedness, thoughtfulness, and attention to nuance pours forth from such a perspicacious crew. They always reinforce my core beliefs about many conservatives who have set themselves up as gatekeepers and arbiters of acceptable thought.
And I am heartily glad that I make a conscious effort to eschew their anti-intellectual, anti-reason, pro-conformist worldview.
Disagreeing with someone because you believe they are wrong is fine. Posing counter-arguments based on logic and rationalism is the goal of enlightened discussion. But trying to suppress, or otherwise condemn reasonable points of view by making unsupportable attacks on my intellectual integrity and character bespeaks a mind incapable of prudent, reflective discourse.
Every now and then, the bilious rants, unthinking diatribes, and ignorant bombast directed at me by legions of right wing conformists becomes too much to ignore and I feel that some kind of response is necessary. The trap, of course, is that complaining about it automatically brands one as a “whiner.” This tactic, employed by those without the chops to argue on the merits of the proposition thus shielding themselves from their own stuporous inanity, is similar to the left’s stratagem of calling anyone who disagrees with Obama a “racist,” - an ironic juxtaposition for the ages.
I reject the idea that talking about the ugliness, the stupidity, the outright fallaciousness of one’s detractors is indicative of “whining.” I consider it a large part of my continuing critique of modern conservatism. After all, the whole point of their philippics are that I am not a conservative - by their shallow and benighted definition of the term.
I suppose I shouldn’t let it bother me after all these years but celebrating one’s own ignorance by glorying in ad hominem attacks is more than an internet phenomenon. It is the same kind of crap pushed by Hannity, Limbaugh, and other cotton candy conservatives whose influence on the base is so profound. Parroting such louts does not make one sound intelligent. It makes you sound like, well, a parrot who’s been taught to screech obscenities.
Yeah I’m guilty of the same thing at times in response. I’ve tried being reasonable in the past and it’s like talking to a brick wall. I’m supposed to be “reasonable” in responding to this?
It was the Tea Party Movement that just won Mass…and…and…I was going to put something in that was nasty. But victories by the Real Roots of Conservatism, that part which doesn’t require big names and big money to be successful, make me giggle about some of the sanctimonious posts you have made, Rick.
LOL! :giggle:
Do you really think you have a part in the future of conservatism? And if you do…why?
Can an adult reason with a two year old? I would think a spanking would be more to the point.
The ugly truth is, many who call themselves “conservative” today haven’t a clue what that means - not because they disagree with me but because their conformist mentality - the palpable fear of being caught thinking differently than the cool conservatives on the radio and TV - drives them to view any deviation from what they know as “conservatism” as enemy propaganda. Nuance is suspect because conservatism is something you should feel in your gut, not reason out with your mind. And for many, intellectualism equals elitism - the “ism” most in bad odor these days.
Allow me to say that I am pleased as punch at Scott Brown’s stunning win yesterday. I am buoyed by the fact that in 6 months, I will still feel that way while the overwhelming majority of my detractors will be spitting blood at Brown for being a traitorous wretch, a RINO, an apostate, and an ungrateful lout.
The worries about Brown’s vulnerability to selling out only grow when one learns, as Politico reported on Monday, that Brown’s campaign was “filled with staffers who once worked” for Romney. Expect Romney, who I believe is the only potential GOP presidential candidate guaranteed to lose in 2012 if nominated, to take major credit within party circles for Brown’s win in an attempt to revive his flagging viability and to quietly attempt to minimize the importance of tea partiers and others on the ground and throughout the country who did the dirty work. Sadly, top-echelon Republican leaders are still enamored of Romney based on his money and supposed charm. They don’t call it the Stupid Party without reason.
“Selling out?” To whom? For what? I think it significant that Brown did not utter the words “tea party” last night in his acceptance speech. The base may have rallied to his candidacy but to believe that Brown would commit political suicide in Massachusetts by redefining himself in the image of a Rush Limbaugh conservative is idiocy. For about 80% of the country, Scott Brown is plenty conservative enough; a fiscal hawk, supporting tax cuts, against Obamacare, and interested in a robust but reasonable kind of federalism.
But in a couple of months, the Blumers of the movement will realize that Brown also believes in - gasp! - spending tax money on stuff like education, alternative energy, infrastructure, and unholy of unholies, health care reform. This will be enough for apoplexy to set in among some conservatives who either didn’t bother to read where this guy is coming from, or who believed that because “true conservatives” supported him, he’d change his stripes and start thinking as they do.
A telling poll done by Rasmussen on how Bay State voters viewed Brown:
In the end, Brown pulled off the upset in large part because he won unaffiliated voters by a 73% to 25% margin. The senator-elect also picked up 23% of the vote from Democrats. [Our polling shows that 53% of voters in Massachusetts are Democrats, 21% Republican and 26% not affiliated with either party.]
[...]
Twenty-eight percent (28%) say Brown is Very Conservative politically; 44% say he’s Somewhat Conservative, and 22% view him as a political moderate.
Two-thirds of Brown’s fellow Massachusettians see him as a moderate conservative or a political moderate. And how much further left are political independents in Massachusetts than anywhere else in the country? When Brown ends up disappointing those who believe he is the future of the Republican party due to his strong conservative beliefs, they will have only themselves to blame. Blinding oneself to reality is what many conservatives are all about these days.
And Scott Brown will pay the price for their myopia.
There’s nothing you can really do. Some people just naturally have a conformist attitude. If they align themselves with a certain group, they then feel like they need to make themselves fit in as much as possible. Personally I just choose to think what I think, and if a Republican agrees then I am “aligned” with them on that one issue. If a Democrat thinks the same as I do then I agree with them. It just so happens that the way the parties are lined up right now, I most often agree with Republicans.
But not everyone is like that. And sometimes a person just happens to agree with almost everything another person (or maybe group) thinks as well.
This sort of reminds me of something I see a lot concerning Rush Limbaugh (or whoever else). Many liberals criticize conservatives or Republicans and say “ahh you’re just going along with what Rush said, etc.” This personally makes me think wait, what if its the other way around? It’s not that I listen to Rush and then decide to believe what he believes, what if I listen to Rush because he says things I agree with?
Comment by Scott — 1/20/2010 @ 11:24 am
MA is proof that not just the tea partying conservatives are upset at the direction Obama is taking the country, but even those moderate-conservatives in MA are mad. The tea party movement is a manifestation of anger at government (today that government is Dem led) overreach and arrogance and profligate spending, not the creator of that anger (but, it’s certainly given people comfort to express it, seeing that they are not alone).
While I suspected the anger was nearly universal, it’s nice to see MA validates that.
Brown is a great GOP candidate from MA. He’s likely the best us nutty right wingers could hope for from there. I agree, he won’t do any “selling out.” We know what kind of “conservative” he is. Just like Snowe/Collins, who are of similar ilk. We like to complain about them, but, like Brown, they’re about as good as it gets for Maine.
Spector and Crist, though, would be different stories, as their states are certainly capable of sending more conservative candidates to the Senate. Some on the Right do need to understand that there are compromises we must make on the way to permanent majority status. Accepting the Snowes, Collins’s, Browns, and ultimately Liebermans (I jest) as part of the GOP, if not as total players in the conservative movement, is surely part of that. As Reagan reminded, he who agrees with me 80% of the time is my friend…….
Comment by Jay — 1/20/2010 @ 11:40 am
I thoroughly agree with your point here.
If you haven’t thrown all of your ideas down, and then carefully, deliberately, consistently picked up the one’s you’ll espouse based upon your own reasoning,
then you’re really not much of a human being.
Seen from that vantage, one can respect the fact that a Barack Obama at least set out to do the things he felt that the majority of the country elected him to do, for all we may find them wrong-headed.
Comment by smitty — 1/20/2010 @ 11:42 am
No doubt the election of Brown is a terrible thing and will make conservatives go mad and get cooties. Get a grip and get over yourself. Most of us who disagree with you from time to time do so because you are wrong. Your faith-based belief that Americans want more and more big government, without any empirical evidence to support it, deserves the derision it receives. You would make a stronger case if you backed it up with evidence. To proclaim you are “reasonable” and “rational” when you spew emotion, well, speaks for itself.
Last night was a great night. You may want to ignore its significance and speculate that it will all end badly, but there is nothing to support your thesis. Sorry, but reason usually has a basis.
There is a huge difference between wanting conservative government and no government at all. Believing that government should act is not a belief in big government - which only proves my point that you and others like you don’t have a clue what conservatism is all about.
ed.
Comment by obamathered — 1/20/2010 @ 11:50 am
Yes, I claimed I didn’t want any government, Rick. Nice refutation with a distortion of what I wrote and, again, no empirical evidence to back up your past assertions that Americans want larger and larger government. I won’t even address my alleged lack of conservatism because all you do these days is make a claim based on emotion and then claim to be reasonable. It is really sad and pathetic. But I understand some people cannot admit they are wrong or even see it.
You have never made any statement anywhere that would lead me to believe that you think government should be doing anything at all. And you accuse me of putting words in your mouth? Where have I ever advocated “big” government? Whenever I have said government has a role to play - no matter how small - you accuse me of advocating “big government.” The obvious conclusion one can draw is that since you disagree with my belief that government has a role to play, no matter how small, that you must then believe that it has no role to play.
Does government have a role in regulating the economy? Does it have a role in education, in protecting the environment, in making sure we don’t have poor people dropping dead on the street from hunger, in health care? The American people support government intervention in all of these areas and many more. Don’t believe me? Try eliminating the dept of education or the EPA. You will be very unpopular, very quickly.
These are all reasonable functions of government - taken, as they are today, to unreasonable and decidedly unconservative levels. My point is that applying conservative principles to these government functions are a helluva lot better than applying liberal principles to them.
Your position would be interesting to flesh out. How can a “true” conservative believe that any of those things are the proper function of government?
ed.
Comment by obamathered — 1/20/2010 @ 12:17 pm
Rick said:
Would any “true” conservative up in the Nut House here care to actually define what a “true” conservative actually is? That would be awesome.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 1/20/2010 @ 12:47 pm
This is a great victory but Republicans have to realize it for what it is- a vote against Obama, not a vote for an anti-abortion, anti gay marriage, pro war platform.
Comment by Gregdn — 1/20/2010 @ 2:17 pm
Hi Rick
It is ironic that Scott Brown is in some sense likely to turn out to be a conservative Barack Obama. That is to say there are people who voted for or supported him who will discover he is not what they currently think him to be. I am not saying he conducted the same kind of all things to all people campaign the president did. Nor am I accusing him of the obvious chicaneries of which the president and current democrats are guilty. Rather, that the rage still building over the direction Congress has taken for the last 30 years is deep and Massachusetts voters have chosen the best of two candidates and some are likely to place more than rational hope on his shoulders. I believe that fiscal hawks, strong on national defense with a sceptical view of abortion and an understanding that they are public servants, not part of a kleptocracy are needed right now. Essential honesty is the key ingredient and I hope Scott Brown is an honest man.
It is probably best to say that many Americans are angry at the result of 30 years of bipartisan misrule that has savaged our economy and left us vulnerable. The current administration has tossed bricks onto the camel’s back, and the camel is on its knees. People are looking for men on white horses. Brown may be one but we need many, and in both parties.
Comment by Jim — 1/20/2010 @ 2:34 pm
A win is a in, so congratulations. Democrats are going to be pilloried for getting HCR through and the ads are going to be just as shrill if they don’t. So they may as well take the heat for a package they delivered.
The Republicans have no interest n compromising on anything, it just becomes harder for them to hide it.
BTW, if it was so critical that Brown be seated before moving forward on HCR, why isn’t he on a plane to day to Washington so he can start voting on the rest of the Senate’s business? Could it be that claim was the usual conspiratorial hot air?
Comment by Richard bottoms — 1/20/2010 @ 3:42 pm
The answers here are YES, but the next question is not posed. Which government should have these roles: federal, state, or local? The follow-on question:”To what degree?” is not posed, either. The principle of subsidiarity says that the roles should be greatest nearest the customer, and least at the top, perhaps totally restricted to no-string grants to poorer states and localities.
Comment by mannning — 1/20/2010 @ 4:26 pm
#2 - “MA is proof that not just the tea partying conservatives are upset at the direction Obama is taking the country, but even those moderate-conservatives in MA are mad.”
Indeed.
Conservatives are thrilled with Scott Brown’s win because the Obama attempt to change this country radically has FAILED.
They attempt failed because strong majorities of American people do NOT want the healthcare debacle cooked up in Congress. They dont want mandates, they dont want to pay more for less while unions, illegal aliens, and special interests carve up exemptions and side deals.
We are back to a more normal politics, between 40 and 60 yard lines. Socialized medicine is dead, and if the leftwing Democrats want to ram something through, bully for them, because 2010 will be a Tsunami unlike any we have seen in years.
Most conservatives have no illusions or concern that Senator-elect Brown is not exactly like them. It’s enough that Ted Kennedy’s seat is now in moderate hands and wont be a rubber-stamp for Democrat extremism and over-spending, over-taxing, and over-regulating.
Removing Harry Reid and putting red state Senate seats like ND and AR into Republican hands will help further bring the Senate back to sanity.
We cant wait for November.
Comment by Freedoms Truth — 1/20/2010 @ 4:56 pm
“The Republicans have no interest n compromising on anything, it just becomes harder for them to hide it.”
The Democrats have no interest in compromising on anything, and proved it with their bullying behavior in the last 12 months.
It was egregious in the extreme to bypass even the House-Senate conference process to get the bill cooked up behind closed doors.
‘WE THE PEOPLE’ have delivered this rebuke as a reaction to the terrible mis-governance of the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress. Both the process and the product in healthcare ‘reform’ is rotten. If Dem flaks like Dick Bottoms keep trotting out phony and unconvincing talking points, their party will lose badly in November (as in lose the House for sure and lose lots of Senate seats).
Comment by Freedoms Truth — 1/20/2010 @ 5:00 pm
“That is to say there are people who voted for or supported him who will discover he is not what they currently think him to be.”
I am a conservative who gave Scott Brown some money. I have no illusion that Senator-elect Scott Brown is as conservative as me. I suspect he will be exactly the kind of independent-minded moderate conservative who will fit the temperment of the independents and other Mass. voters who elected him.
And I wouldnt begrudge him that one iota. It is enough that this election killed the most dangerous and worst big Government bill in a generation.
And I suspect Sen Brown will likewise be reticent about supporting other big, nasty, over-the-top bills like cap-and-tax and amnesty for 12 million illegal aliens, which Coakley would have rubber stamped.
In short, assumptions that conservatives are mis-reading what’s in the package are wrong. We are thrilled this moderate was elected and is saving America from the Obama lurch to the left.
Comment by Freedoms Truth — 1/20/2010 @ 5:04 pm
I see some in the dem party and the media today are talking about the “far left” wing of the democrat party having too much control of the agenda, thus costing them this seat in Massachusetts. I don’t know that I’ve ever heard a “mainstream” media person, or for that matter a democrat, use the phrase “far left.” For that fact alone, this election is a victory for the moderate, center-right politics you seem to desire. For so long, the far left has been sold to us as “mainstream” — the Cindy Sheehans, Code Pink, George Soros, MSNBC, etc. Of course they were never “mainstream,” and I think often the center-right looked positively fascistic when compared to the “moderate mainstream,” as the far left was sold to us. But now I think many in the democrat party understand that they have a fringe of their own to deal with, and it is on the verge of destroying their party.
So you, and others, have railed against the “far right,” perhaps justifiably at times. And now we have an acknowledged “far left” to mirror the right side’s excesses (though, unfortunately, they are installed as the President, Speaker of the U.S. House, and Senate Majority Leader). America, it seems, doesn’t like her politicians to engage in ideological excess at either end of the spectrum. It seems, with this election, that the right side of the aisle is perhaps learning that they will correct course, or, as happened in ‘06 and ‘08, the course will be corrected for them by the glorious American people. Now what of the left, and more importantly, the far left? It’s curious that this election has left you wondering what the right will do. I’m wondering what the far left will do. Glass half full, I guess.
Comment by Anon — 1/20/2010 @ 5:14 pm
Not until the recent special election in the Kennedy owned Bay State has there been solid proof that Obungle and his hopey-changey rope-a-dope Chicago hustle doesn’t wash the way they would have liked it to on a national level.
What is driving those D.C. lefties absoluely batsh!t right now is that the “grass roots” is no longer wholly-owned by the national democrat enterprise, ACORN or the SEIU.
Publicly insulting and disrespecting fixed income Mom & Pop’s attending a late summer Tea Party protest or a townhall meeting is the petard they will all be hoisted upon.
You Betcha.
Comment by CZ — 1/20/2010 @ 5:28 pm
Rick,
Very interesting.
You take some blog post’s as a reason to continue to trash Cool Conservatives on Radio & TV.
Please list for me ONE issue that Scott Brown discussed in his victory speech that Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin would disagree with?
On the other hand, I presume you consider Scott Brown a failure, because he is an economic moron. He in FULL THROAT near the end of his speech gave his economic cure as lower Taxes on individuals and business, to get the economy going. When Sarah Palin said that, She was a “economic moron”. (Yes that was not your precise word, yet it was your precise meaning..end of Oct/early Nov time frame).
Maybe instead of poking a stick in a dogs eye and crying when you get bit, you might think a bit. For most on the right, there is a core set of beliefs which bring us together, particularly when things are bad. It’s the side issues which only gain traction when economics are good.
Regards,
Comment by the Dragon — 1/20/2010 @ 8:41 pm
Rick:
I lay only the following at your door.
You are disloyal and disruptive at particularly the times when things are most critical. I will welcome criticsm of my party when things are going well and we are dominant much more then when we are on the ropes. This comes down to Nuance and perspective. Sometimes you shout and sometimes you whisper. Volume control gaged to the situation is imporant.
Even when we are on the ropes we can take constructive criticism. Just like a coach can be critical yet inspiring. Yet your attitude makes me think of coach that will avoid the locker room and give speeches that make clear to his players that he considers them ignorant and beneath him.
Nuance and debate has its place and time. The bloody charge also has its time and place
After all Marie Antionette had sophistication in spades, and royal court ettiquette by the bucketful. She was probably a perfectly charming lady in her element. She however was disconected from the rawness and passion of her people, to her they were rude, crude and lacking in proper social graces. They were completly beneath her.
Comment by Steve — 1/20/2010 @ 9:53 pm
Thursday morning links…
Good luck with that: Voters-Be-Damned… Obama Plows Ahead With Radical Agenda- Will Nationalize Student Loan Industry
When will Sen. Brown be called a RINO?
Politico: Dazed Democrats rethink entire strategy
Canada Free Press: Saying No …
Trackback by Maggie's Farm — 1/21/2010 @ 5:27 am
I, too, fear he may be a rino, afterall he is from MA (as am I). He is either a core rino, or will become one after exposure to DC politics.
I also agree that we have absolutely no idea what a conservative, or even a republican, is, anymore….it would be nice if they defined their terms.
I do have a bone to pick with you, however. For someone who decries having bad names hurled at them and meaningless attacks, just outpourings of rage, you certainly go in for quite a lot of that in the above column. When you start calling names, as you did, instead of arguing ideas, you have lost the argument.
Comment by J — 1/21/2010 @ 8:25 am
Chuck: My “Quick and Dirty” True Conservative Definition: smaller Federal government, lower taxes, strong military, more individual liberty coupled with personal responsibilty, strict interpretation of the Constitution, with special emphasis on remembering that there is a 10th amendment (which seems to have been forgotten by all 3 branches of our govt.).
Before you start talking about abortion, and gun rights, etc., let me say that the last clause in my definition covers most of those issues. The second amendment is pretty clear at this point, and only a magician could pull out a right to abortion from a privacy clause. For those rights that are specifically delineated, I support them. For those rights that are not, I may or may not support them, but regardless, I believe the decision should be made by the people of each state.
I didn’t know his name a month ago, so I can’t say for certain much about Scott Brown. But what little I do know about him seems to line up with my definition (although I have no idea on his take on the strict interpretation of the Constitution, admittedly a crucial point). But as Ed Morrisey pointed out this morning, if he votes conservatively all the time, he’ll be a one-term senator (it is MA after all). He (and I) believe that he’ll get a pass for throwing a few votes Obama’s way, as long as he stays strong on all votes regarding national security and fiscal responsibility.
Comment by lionheart — 1/21/2010 @ 1:49 pm
I believe Romney/Palin would be a fine ticket despite all those that manage to find some excuse to discredit her when they both are the brightest and have a interest in our direction that doesn’t include a agenda. That are common sense and I could feel secure in the future with these choices and less Gov. in my life which includes less taxes. She has an ability to get things done and can carry the work load. He looks at things 360 degrees and this would be my choice. They both could give us what we want and do it smartly.
Comment by Tim Lucas — 1/22/2010 @ 9:52 pm
And so it starts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7kFadfB_xY&feature=player_embedded#
Comment by Robert Sendler — 1/22/2010 @ 11:33 pm