As you know, conservatism/the GOP has a lot of internal problems right now. They cover a lot of ground, but I think they especially relate to what kind of party or movement the Right wants to be. I don't have an answer myself, but it's best to talk about it.
Just about a year ago, us Commentaramans (not sure if that's a word, but I'm rolling with it) rang in the presidential election. As you may remember if you were on the site, things got kinda ugly. Profane rants, gnashing of teeth, condemning the public in general and anyone who might have been even slightly responsible for Obama's victory, slightly inebriated excoriations of said groups on Facebook, etc. I don't remember what everyone else on the blog was doing.
Anyway, the general bitterness lingered, and over the next few days, a lot of us discussed how we were going to relate to Obama-voters from now on. The consensus: Let it burn. Screw trying to mitigate the Dems' screw-ups, or make the pain of ObamaCare slightly less severe. Boycott all organizations and businesses associated with TOTUS, only patronize those who lean Right, let the liberals ram everything they want through the government, and allow the rest of the country to choke on it. It didn't entirely stick, of course (though I for one have only ordered pizza from Papa John's since then), but it was so mean-spirited, and it felt sooo, so good.
Again, such a course is not exactly being followed. Consider the battles of the past year in Congress. Say what you will about the merits of the amnesty fight, there's no doubt those opposing any kind of immigration reform truly believed it was their duty to keep Obama from bringing into the country a whole new voting bloc for the Dems and leaving the Left in total control for the foreseeable future--whether or not that would have happened is of course another story, but they clearly believed it would have and that they ought to prevent it. Ditto for the whole ObamaCare/shutdown blowup last month. Congressional Republicans had no intention of letting ACA in all its awfulness come crashing down on the public without a fight. Regardless of their strategic or tactical wisdom (or lack thereof), they're still invested in the governing process and contesting the Left's agenda where possible (at least in theory).
That's not going to change. But I do wonder where much of the base stands on this. Browsing the blogosphere as I often do, I come across a lot of loose talk about how we ought to have just let the government go bankrupt and crash, forcing people to take responsibility for themselves instead of relying on DC, inducing a constitutional crisis, and basically just starting from scratch. Of course it sounds vague; no one knows how it would go off in reality. It is, however, a very tempting idea.
Of course, this is kind of an updated, slightly more bitter version of the whole "going Galt" idea from a year or two ago. It comes from Atlas Shrugged and suggests that the productive elements of society should, in effect, cease to be productive, cloistering themselves and their resources while the unproductive hangers-on are forced to either starve or adapt. I've always been of two minds about this idea. There are days when I would opt for the whole "nuke the system"/"post-apocalyptic" scenario, especially when there's a particularly outrageous story in the news--days when I would accept such a breakdown, hardship and all, just to force the Left and all its constituents into brutal reality. But again, the question is, could we accept this in reality?
The truth is, as much as a lot of us would like to fantasize about burning it all down and starting over, we are very rooted in the world we live in. We like hanging out with our friends, watching the game on TV, living a quiet life--all that. And while I would never suggest the kind of government we have right now makes that possible--truth be told, it kinda undermines it--the stability that comes from a lack of inner political turmoil does. Efforts to collapse the system might not hurt us right away, and the long-term damage might well be very survivable, but there would be effects from provoking crisis after crisis and a breakdown in government efficiency. Our international financial position would suffer, our infrastructure would decay, many places would see a breakdown in law and order....think Detroit writ large. It might not be horrific, and we might be better for it afterward, but it would hardly be pleasant to experience.
As a political philosophy, conservatism has always recognized this on some level. Among its first principles are 1) A reluctance to sacrifice the personal well-being of others for the sake of some quasi-utopian vision of government, 2) A belief that continuity and gradualism are preferable to rapid and violent change, and perhaps most importantly 3) The certainty that there is always much good in the world, and that it ought not be thrown away for no reason. All of this militates against the "going Galt"/"Let it burn" theory.
I won't say this means we shouldn't at times sacrifice our peace and tranquility to go toe-to-toe with the Left on something of importance. Obviously, we have to every now and then. It also doesn't mean I won't indulge fantasies about applying the wrecking ball to the diseased parts of society every now and then. Rather, it means that if we engage in real talk about bringing down the government or attacking whole institutions, we ought to pause and consider the cost before going any further with it. And who knows, it may be worth it. But make sure it is first.
Kind of a tangential issue, I know. But as it's a commonly circulated idea among some on the Right, it's worth talking about a little. Any thoughts?
(Note: Due to an academic conference/ego-stroking session in St. Louis over the weekend, I won't be available to reply to comments, so feel at liberty to rummage through the thread. If I'm not back next week, it means I and other distraught Cardinals fans have decided to end it all.)
Just about a year ago, us Commentaramans (not sure if that's a word, but I'm rolling with it) rang in the presidential election. As you may remember if you were on the site, things got kinda ugly. Profane rants, gnashing of teeth, condemning the public in general and anyone who might have been even slightly responsible for Obama's victory, slightly inebriated excoriations of said groups on Facebook, etc. I don't remember what everyone else on the blog was doing.
Anyway, the general bitterness lingered, and over the next few days, a lot of us discussed how we were going to relate to Obama-voters from now on. The consensus: Let it burn. Screw trying to mitigate the Dems' screw-ups, or make the pain of ObamaCare slightly less severe. Boycott all organizations and businesses associated with TOTUS, only patronize those who lean Right, let the liberals ram everything they want through the government, and allow the rest of the country to choke on it. It didn't entirely stick, of course (though I for one have only ordered pizza from Papa John's since then), but it was so mean-spirited, and it felt sooo, so good.
Again, such a course is not exactly being followed. Consider the battles of the past year in Congress. Say what you will about the merits of the amnesty fight, there's no doubt those opposing any kind of immigration reform truly believed it was their duty to keep Obama from bringing into the country a whole new voting bloc for the Dems and leaving the Left in total control for the foreseeable future--whether or not that would have happened is of course another story, but they clearly believed it would have and that they ought to prevent it. Ditto for the whole ObamaCare/shutdown blowup last month. Congressional Republicans had no intention of letting ACA in all its awfulness come crashing down on the public without a fight. Regardless of their strategic or tactical wisdom (or lack thereof), they're still invested in the governing process and contesting the Left's agenda where possible (at least in theory).
That's not going to change. But I do wonder where much of the base stands on this. Browsing the blogosphere as I often do, I come across a lot of loose talk about how we ought to have just let the government go bankrupt and crash, forcing people to take responsibility for themselves instead of relying on DC, inducing a constitutional crisis, and basically just starting from scratch. Of course it sounds vague; no one knows how it would go off in reality. It is, however, a very tempting idea.
Of course, this is kind of an updated, slightly more bitter version of the whole "going Galt" idea from a year or two ago. It comes from Atlas Shrugged and suggests that the productive elements of society should, in effect, cease to be productive, cloistering themselves and their resources while the unproductive hangers-on are forced to either starve or adapt. I've always been of two minds about this idea. There are days when I would opt for the whole "nuke the system"/"post-apocalyptic" scenario, especially when there's a particularly outrageous story in the news--days when I would accept such a breakdown, hardship and all, just to force the Left and all its constituents into brutal reality. But again, the question is, could we accept this in reality?
The truth is, as much as a lot of us would like to fantasize about burning it all down and starting over, we are very rooted in the world we live in. We like hanging out with our friends, watching the game on TV, living a quiet life--all that. And while I would never suggest the kind of government we have right now makes that possible--truth be told, it kinda undermines it--the stability that comes from a lack of inner political turmoil does. Efforts to collapse the system might not hurt us right away, and the long-term damage might well be very survivable, but there would be effects from provoking crisis after crisis and a breakdown in government efficiency. Our international financial position would suffer, our infrastructure would decay, many places would see a breakdown in law and order....think Detroit writ large. It might not be horrific, and we might be better for it afterward, but it would hardly be pleasant to experience.
As a political philosophy, conservatism has always recognized this on some level. Among its first principles are 1) A reluctance to sacrifice the personal well-being of others for the sake of some quasi-utopian vision of government, 2) A belief that continuity and gradualism are preferable to rapid and violent change, and perhaps most importantly 3) The certainty that there is always much good in the world, and that it ought not be thrown away for no reason. All of this militates against the "going Galt"/"Let it burn" theory.
I won't say this means we shouldn't at times sacrifice our peace and tranquility to go toe-to-toe with the Left on something of importance. Obviously, we have to every now and then. It also doesn't mean I won't indulge fantasies about applying the wrecking ball to the diseased parts of society every now and then. Rather, it means that if we engage in real talk about bringing down the government or attacking whole institutions, we ought to pause and consider the cost before going any further with it. And who knows, it may be worth it. But make sure it is first.
Kind of a tangential issue, I know. But as it's a commonly circulated idea among some on the Right, it's worth talking about a little. Any thoughts?
(Note: Due to an academic conference/ego-stroking session in St. Louis over the weekend, I won't be available to reply to comments, so feel at liberty to rummage through the thread. If I'm not back next week, it means I and other distraught Cardinals fans have decided to end it all.)
32 comments:
T-Rav, Well said! I agree.
If we ever want our government to become conservative, then we need to work hard to win the public over. That means showing them that they can trust us. The "let it burn" attitude, at least as it's approached by most of the people at other blogs I observe, flies in the face of that because they are advocating crazy. Essentially, they want a shutdown for the sake of a shutdown, and they want to deny Obama any piece of legislation because they hate him personally. That approach only hurts us with the public because it shows that we aren't acting rationally and thus cannot be trusted to run the government. So I absolutely agree.
IMO, what we need instead is a positive agenda to offer the public as an alternative, and we should show a willingness to work with Obama to get things we can agree upon. But that means shaking the "let it burn" people.
All that said, I do think there is an aspect of the "let it burn" approach we should adopt. Obamacare is a great example of this. The Democrats have passed an horrifically bad law which will piss off tens of millions of moderates. It's so bad that I think the bill will implode under its own disastrous weight as we are seeing daily. In this instance, where the public knows exactly who to blame and where the Democrats have no way out of the trap they have built, I think the best strategy is to let the bill go forward and to start to do its damage. In the meantime, we offer an alternative and we tell people, vote for us and we'll fix it and we hope that the public reaches its pain tolerance in 2014 and 2016.
I think free market capitalism does have the weakness of concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer hands. It's opposite number, socialism has the weakness that it stifles incentive to be successful, breeds dependency, and creates a culture of entitlement that is unhealthy. What seems to work in this country is when there is a healthy give and take, compromise if you will, between thee two philosophies. Historically, things will tend to go back and forth. And yet, there has never been a real retreat of the welfare state ever since the days of Wilson and Roosevelt. Even under Reagan, all that really happened was a temporary lull in the pace of change. People have always talked about the "great tipping point" where 51% of the people are taking so much from the state, it can never be righted …… unless it inevitably fails and crashes. I cannot predict the future anymore than anybody else. I do think, a proper role for government is to try and establish and maintain an environment that promotes competition. In that regard, I am a proponent of the anti-trust laws, and the amount of control by the big Wall Street Financial houses. O.K., it's eastern time so I'm tired. Good topic, Rav.
BTW, let me add that two of the problems I see from the "let it burn" folks are that:
(1) They are truly spewing hate and most of it is aimed at our own side, so they are undermining conservatism. In effect, they are like John McCain on steroids in a different color shirt, and that's a problem.
(2) They have this idea that if somehow we could bring down the government by whatever means they are advocating today, then the public will "naturally rally to our side" and seek to re-establish the American Libertarian Utopia of the 1850s that never was. But history tells us that is not correct. History suggests that every time the public finds itself in a time of crisis, it asks for more government.
It's the same thing with calls for a constitutional convention. The people advocating this (see Mark Levin), think that the convention would be staffed with Glenn Beck listeners. The reality is that we would be looking at a room packed with moderates and leftists and a few conservatives, and the resulting constitution would probably look more like Europe's than anything conservatives would want.
Great points. I think this means that instead of statements like destroy the current government, which sounds very seditious, talk about improving the government. Make it more fair. More efficient. More responsible. Before anyone yells at me regarding fair, perhaps the word I am looking for is just.
Koshcat, I'm actually a big fan of using the same words liberals use and just throwing our own definitions behind them. It's kind of silly actually to let them have exclusive use of words like "fair" and "justice".
ObamaCare: No justice, no peace...
I for one would like to see more of a "screw you and your socialist government" approach taken by the individual states. Let the largest ones lead the way (think Texas) to a more "states rights" approach to government and the peoples approach to the creeping (now upright shuffling) socialist tendencies of the left in this country.
We should force the federal government to make a decision on how far they want to push the states to submit to federal rules and decision-making. The left has taken over the judiciary for the most part (see Justice RB Ginsberg) and their vision of this country is diametrically opposite of what many on the right think. It will come to a head sometime soon, and maybe O'Care is the vehicle that finally shows what their vision for us, the proles who don't know what's best for them, embodies. The states that did not sign up for the federal exchange could be the leaders in this.
Otherwise, we, the productive, will just sit back, see more and more of our individual rights and decisions usurped by the federal and state (think NYC) government bureaucrats until we find we are working to keep half the country on subsidies and wanting even more and more from us.
Is there any point at which we say "ENOUGH"?!
P.S. And if ANY Republican who thinks they will get the Hispanic vote in gratitude for amnesty then they are utter fools. Almost every one of these newly minted "legal" Americans will vote for some of that sweet, sweet cashflow that the Dems will promise. Think we on the right have a problem now? Just wait....
A Constituional Convention scares the crap out of me and I'm fearless. There is no way I would entrust the freedom of this great country to the likes of McCain, Obama, Sharpton and the Clintons. We have to get real on some of these issues. As I've said before, I'm Catholic, I think abortion is wrong, wrong, wrong,,but you have to be an idiot not to realize that it is basically settled law for the most part, I want my chruch to spend money on education and training. Gay marriage, so what, my own way of handling it would be that when you sign the marriage license at the courthouse you are married, then you can go to a church of your choice and tie the knot there. And I might add, you need ironclad laws protecting a church's right not to have to perform weddings they don't want to. Spending, folks it has to quit, but it will have to slow down not come to a screeching halt. The Lefties are correct on one thing, there is way too much corporatism in this country, corporate welfare is out of control just as much as food stamps. Close that damn border and let's sort these illegals out,,,we don't even know who the hell is here right now. I don't know what else to say, I'm just tired of the super Left and super Right,,,
I agree with Koshcat--Repubs should be using the same language as the Dems. Unfortunately, many conservatives have been conditioned against that. You may or may not recall, Romney actually did a fair job of that, but all too often the response from right wing radio was that "he sounds just like a wishy-washy Democrat/liberal." And on that point, I think it was more than just the fringe that bought in.
This is not a good thing. It's exactly what the left wants from the right. If every time they say "up" we say down and every time they say "black" we say "white" it only contributes to the image of the right as obstructionists. It's to the point where Limbaugh et al. are demanding that we disagree on what the very issues are. (I think left actually started that, but you'd never know it now.)
A return to gradualist rather than obstructionist language has a much better chance of resonating with the general public. It was actually working on immigration. "We agree there is a problem to be dealt with here, we just don't think overnight, blanket amnesty is the answer. We need an ordered approach."
That very same rhetoric could be used over and over to get the gradualist conservative way on any number of issues. Who cares who's coming up with the problems so long as you get the solution you want? In fact, if the Dems are always picking problems, that can be used against them. "My opponent only talks about problems, but I've offered solutions."
A final thought, if the public does go for the sudden fix, as with Obamacare, I still think the appropriate conservative response is laissez faire. There's nothing wrong with declaring "the people have spoken" and agreeing to enforce the new rules rigorously. After all, as I often like to quote, Abe Lincoln observed, "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."
tmax..."There's nothing wrong with declaring "the people have spoken" and agreeing to enforce the new rules rigorously." Agreed 110%....! Yet, what do we do when the rules are "modified" or "waivers" are doled out to favored (they voted for me) groups? We, the Right, Repubs, etc., will not go that route. We will enforce the law as written or go through regular legislative channels to modify the law.
So, to your point, while the Right (in a general sense) would agree with your approach and follow it for the most part, how do we deal with the "bad actors" on the Left whose only end game is "winning" at any cost? And would do whatever it takes with waivers, set-asides, stimulus, you name it in order to mold the law to fit their ends?
I think that is what drives many on the opposition mad! They KNOW they would NEVER be able to get away with any of the crap that this admin has pulled, all the way from unconstitutional acts, lies and blatantly abusive use of the federal gov't apparatus.
We will never go back to Andrew's halcyon days of "true Mericans" and representative democracy. We are in the days of crony capitalism and shaving around the edges of the problem will only lead us inexorably to the "European Socialism with an American flair" that the Left is driving us to.
Patriot, you answered your own question. We steadfastly take the position as the party of rules. If the other side tries to break the rules, we work to bring them back in line. And as Andrew has pointed out many times on this site (and I'm counting on him to back me up, as I can't remember all the details) Obama has not been able to get away with fiat rule as you imply.
I know that's not what you want me to say, but I'm not sure what you want to hear, either.
Tennessee Jed
"I think free market capitalism does have the weakness of concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer hands."
I think this is one of the great deceptions of the Progressive movement. This is the idea that free market capitalism creates monopolistic structures. While it is true that there are "efficiencies of scale" which give an advantage to a firm as it grows in size like most economic progressions it is not a straight line going up or an expanding exponential curve. Instead it is a concave curve. This means that as the size of a firm grows the advantage gained tends to reduce from unit to unit until it actually begins to have a negative effect increasing costs.
Economically speaking this means that while some industries may gravitate to fewer larger players naturally their is no tendency to create single monopolies because a truly large firm begins to have a disadvantage.
In the 1880's the reasons that Carnegie and the railroads where able to form virtual monopolies was because they were able to control markets using government. The Grant Administration in particular was heavily criticized for crony capitalism and there are probably a lot of similarities between his economic policies and Obamas.
I think the movie Young Guns illustrates this...
Murphy is telling Tunstell to back down and not go after the government grants because he has all the politicians in his pocket "The Santa Fe Ring".
Tunstell's response is the response of free market entrepreneurialism
"Mr. Murphy you have a stock and a store and I have a stock and a store. You will bid on the contract and I will bid on the contract and the best man will win. It's simple and it's fair. So you can take your guns and your men and get off my property because I will be d@^%# if I am to be persuaded by something as base as political corruption."
Murphy could not run Tunstell out of business without the force of government backing him.
BTW, you do realize that Andrew uses the term "reel 'Mericans" derisively, don't you?
Patriot
It should be about which way new Mexican nationals will vote if they become citizens. It should be about what is best for both the US and Mexico and its citizens. The reason that the amnestied illegals are likely to become democratic block voters is that it is likely they will be dumped into the welfare system once here.
I know that there is the criticism that the illegal immigrants have a hard working ethic which is why you find them standing around home depot waiting for someone who has work or at least that is the social meme that is put out. The fact of the matter is there is a marked difference between the illegal and legal immigrant and that is one of resources either intellectual resources or job skills or money. The illegal circumvents the rules and gets in without these requirements so they are poor.
While they may have the same work ethics of the migrant farm workers who came in the 1930's, the US is not the same country as the 1930's. The reason they will tend to end up in the welfare system in greater numbers is that is where the US government will lead them. Not because the are illegal or immigrants but because they are poor. This means they will be forced to get job skills in our failing education system and will be forced into welfare systems that punish saving of money and work. NPR got in trouble for a Spanish language novella (soap operas) series about immigrants signing up for SNAP (food stamps) which attempted to overcome their pride in self reliance that made them refuse these programs.
I think that the best way to denude the illegal immigration problem is to reinstitute the welfare to work rules of the 1994 Congress and to standardize work visas with Mexico and maybe other Central and South American countries so that when they come here to work they have the same pay as a US Citizen meaning they don't cost less than a US citizen.
The dems are setting up a paradigm in this country for illegals. One that places them in a protected welfare class. I think what needs to be fought is that paradigm.
Tmax.....I gronk Andrew's use of the term "real mericans"! (That shows my age huh?)
My point is that we on the right can follow the law, but if the left doesn't and abuses it, we're sort of at a disadvantage, yes? Sure, we can hold them accountable. Just like we've done with all the waivers, exemptions, immigration laws, IRS abuse, vote scams, EO's, etc. that this admin has pulled off without any negative repercussions as far as I can find.
And as soon as the repubs control Congress and the WH, the left and the press will make damn sure they (repubs) follow all the laws and rules to the T.
That's what I don't see changing.
Indi......I agree with almost every word you just posted.
Critch, I concur. That has been the only way to succeed in America -- take what the public will give you and use that to win their trust to getting more. You can only move America a little by a little. And taking an all or nothing, angry/obsessive approach just gets you nothing.
Patriot, The fools are those who think we can win without Hispanics -- mathematically impossible, and those who think that seething anger will win anyone over. And the ability of Texas Republicans to win Hispanics and of Republicans nationally to double their Hispanic score before all the screaming started is proof that immigration reform will work.
Indi - I don't believe I said that free markets created monopolies, only that it creates winners and losers. Second, a great example of an oligopoly was the airline industry. The participants developed a secret code to send to competitors to help them price fix. Where monopolies and oligopolies have the best chance of happening is in industries where there is a particularly significant capital requirement to gain entrance. And really, my point is that whenever a healthy competitive environment exists in a given industry, it promotes development of cost/process efficiency and innovative development.
Patriot, I'm lost. Are you looking for my permission on something? What is your proposal?
Tmax.....No permission, more of an acknowledgement that while the right tries to do the right thing by law, the left uses and abuses the law to get their goals many times. Obama has ruled by fiat..albeit not 100% of the time....and the right has "worked" to keep him in line yet his fiats still stand for the most part. Sure, the right tries to hold him accountable, yet (and the leftists) he sure has got away with quite a lot of "fiats" so far since they've been in power.
No proposals.....just comments. (or bitchin however you want to look at it)
This is where I need Andrew to back me up, but Obama has gotten away with far less than you think. He's certainly not on track to suspend the next presidential election like some have hypothesized. There are a lot in his own party already anxious for the next election.
tryanmax is right. I'll add more in a bit. Sorry, on a conference call.
I tell you though, we conservatives-slash-Republicans can take a real lesson on how to spin a lie into the golden truth. The WH, Huffpo and just about every other liberal spin site are spinning like spiders on steroids and whirling their Dervishes trying to reinvent the whole "But when Obama said you could keep your insurance...period" thing, so Obama (and THEY) doesn't look bad. He is either a saint for making sure everyone has better insurance. So what if you have to pay a lot more for stuff you don't need like maternity care for 55 year old post menopausal men (yes men). What he MEANT was...and those Tea Partiers lied, lied lied because the websites are going to work. Take notes people, because it's a wonder to behold!
I can't remmeber the movie's title but Sid Caesar gets caught in bed with another woman by his wife, Imogene Coca. The whole time she is yelling at him he is saying, "What girl, where?" and him and the young lady are getting dressed. The young lady kisses him and leaves and he goes, "What woman?" Leaving Imogene stuttering...that folks is what Obama and the Dims are like,,,we catch them in lies and they just keep denying it...they would give Torquemada heartburn...
well I think it was Guide to the Married Man, and I think the girl was Jayne Mansfield, but it has been a lot of years.
Indi, That's why these guys are denied benefits under the Rubio bill.
tryanmax and Patriot, I hear this a lot that Obama is running the world by fiat and imposing his agenda etc. etc., but each of his attempts to do so have imploded in court and been reversed. The NLRB thing in particular resulted in hundreds of decisions being vacated.
And even with things he could do by fiat, like carbon regulation or extending partnership benefits to gays, he's either not done or only done a little and even then kicking and screaming.
At this point, if you look at the Democratic agenda and you compare that to what they've achieved, you're looking at a colossal failure, with their only achievements being a stimulus that didn't stimulate and legislation that is imploding as we speak, such as Obamacare, and Financial Reform which is hopelessly bogged down in rule making.
Critch, That's the Democratic game plan. Unfortunately for them, there's no one else to blame since they've been taking credit for it this long and have been smearing anyone who said otherwise.
Andrew...Repeal of DADT; Not upholding DOMA; DREAM Act; Deeming Congress in session so as to appoint cronies.
I'm not claiming that he does everything by fiat, far from it. And I agree that the left's ability to "transform" America is far from complete, I just think the right needs to fight back on every battle or we will lose the war (which we are losing).
It's never the time to sit back and relax with these clowns.
And Andrew....I just don't have the confidence that by passing amnesty the repubs will get significant Hispanic support. Again, I think most of the millions of new 'legal' voters will vote dem due to the freebies.
Patriot, On the fiat things you mention:
1. DADT was a policy, not a law, and as such could be undone by any administration. As it happens, a law was passed in 2010 by Congress to allow Obama to cancel DADT... which was more authority than he needed.
2. DOMA was overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional and it didn't matter if Obama fought for it or not -- the result would be the same.
3. The DREAM Act is not law and has not been passed. The only part that Obama has been able to do was to stop deporting the kids who would have qualified for the law if it had passed. To my knowledge, no one like Ted Cruz has challenged this in court, which is what would need to happen to stop it. Nor is it likely that these kids were actually deported before.
4. His attempt to deem Congress in session blew up on him and those people got the boot.
As for fighting back, no one is saying not to fight back. What we are saying is that rather than running around like marionettes performing a suicide charge in whatever direction the left points, we need to be smarter about it. We need to try to win the public rather than tell them how much we hate them. We need to stop scaring people with our rhetoric, our behavior and by pushing whacko theories... "there are black helicopters over my house, Obama stole my ammo, and there are gay Mexicans under my bed!" And we need to stop trying to make our party into a private club for the pure. We need to become the party of Ronald Reagan and stop being the party of Pat Buchanan.
On Hispanics, we will get significant numbers because we had them before our right flank decided it was time to hate Mexicans... ditto on blacks and women and the young and professionals and college students. Unfortunately, with the "we hate you" and "I will stop everything" approaches conservatives have taken, they've removed themselves from the debate. So it's either go with Rubio's bill or wait until the Democrats take power and then watch helplessly as they do whatever they want.
Post a Comment