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.)
[+] Read More...
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.)
