Fight the Fight You’re Fighting

Posted on | July 9, 2013 | 98 Comments

Blame it all on Wilmot and his damned Proviso.

Alana Goodman at the Washington Free Beacon has a profile of Jack Hunter, a.k.a “The Southern Avenger”:

A close aide to Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) who co-wrote the senator’s 2011 book spent years working as a pro-secessionist radio pundit and neo-Confederate activist, raising questions about whether Paul will be able to transcend the same fringe-figure associations that dogged his father’s political career.
Paul hired Jack Hunter, 39, to help write his book The Tea Party Goes to Washington during his 2010 Senate run. Hunter joined Paul’s office as his social media director in August 2012.

The point of Goodman’s article is that Rand Paul is being discussed as a serious contender for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination and that his association with Hunter is therefore either (a) an indication that Rand’s candidacy is a Trojan horse crammed full of kooks, or (b) a hindrance to Rand’s “pragmatic” appeal.

Having myself dealt with the “neo-Confederate” issue, my perspective on this controversy is perhaps unique. And the most interesting aspect of Goodman’s article may be how it chronicles the rather nuanced shift in Jack Hunter’s views over time. She links to a blog post Hunter wrote in January of this year:

Some say Rand is not Ron because he is “willing to play them game.” That’s exactly right. That’s the point — to play it, influence it and win it as much as you can. The neoconservatives certainly do, to their advantage. Even Ron Paul “played the game” to some extent by becoming a Congressman, running for president and being engaged in practical politics. In the end, we’re all playing a “game” of some sort, even if it means trying to prove we’re the most pure in our ethos. The question is — is the endgame simply to satisfy our own egos? Or to achieve loftier, principled and tangible political ends?

What Hunter is talking about is the question of whether people will cling so fiercely to the purity of their beliefs as to exclude themselves from meaningful participation in the political process. When Jack Hunter entered the fray 15 years ago as an avowed secessionist radical, he obviously never expected to find himself one day making these arguments for pragmatism. But that’s the way the American two-party system works, you see.

My long interest in the political fringe derives from the knowledge that, historically, movements that make a difference always begin on the fringe. The forces that elected Barack Obama president, after all, were the same left-wing radicals whom we saw smashing windows in Seattle in 1999 and marching beneath the banners of Marxist organizations during the anti-Iraq War protests.

Democrats have been so successful at “mainstreaming” left-wing fringe movements that we tend to forget these movements were ever on the fringe. Republicans, meanwhile, are so beholden to notions of bourgeois respectability that they often assist Democrats in denouncing and marginalizing the rightward fringe. This is how we find ourselves with a president whose bestselling memoir was quite probably ghost-written by the unapologetic terrorist Bill Ayers, and who was re-elected by a campaign that smeared the harmless moderate Mitt Romney as a dangerous menace to the common good.

So the Democrats not only never cede an inch of their radical past, but are forever pushing forward with new radicalisms, while Republicans habitually assume the strategic defensive. But should we blame this on the GOP, or blame it on the fringe? Jack Hunter, bless his heart, was trying to speak truth to kookery.

The conservative movement flourished in the wake of the 1964 Goldwater debacle not by purging their own fanatical supporters — some of whom were as kooky as any Paulbot — but by persuading these fanatics to get organized and comport themselves in a manner that could attract mainstream support. The movement that eventually elected Ronald Reagan president and, in doing so, subsequently defeated the Soviet empire, was very pragmatic in its approach to the electoral process and what we might call image management.

Achieving that kind of success is what Jack Hunter seems to have had in mind when he replied to his critics within the Ron Paul movement, in effect saying: “Chill the f–k out, you kooks! I’m a kook, too, but there aren’t enough of us kooks to win an election!”

This is a mature realization, and I reckon Jack Hunter also realizes there’s no use re-arguing the Wilmot Proviso, either.

In politics as in war, victory is a balm that soothes all wounds, and defeat is an irritant that inflames ancient injuries.

Since 2011, when Sarah Palin refused to seek the GOP nomination and the Rick Perry presidential bandwagon imploded, many conservatives have nursed their grievances: If their favorite candidate could not be the Republican nominee in 2012, then they were determined that their least favorite candidate could not have it, either. This meant that when the dark horse Rick Santorum surprisingly emerged as the only viable alternative to Mitt Romney, many conservatives — having endlessly repeated the anti-Santorum talking points issued by their own demonstrably non-viable favorites — abandoned the “Anybody But Mitt” arguments they had been making in 2011. So by the time Romney clinched the nomination, at least half of the grassroots core of the GOP were in a foul and disgruntled mood.

Useful Lessons From Ancient History

History recedes so rapidly that the causes of recent Republican defeats may seem as ancient as the Wilmot Proviso, but my point is that it’s not just fringe kooks who marginalize themselves by the selfish and impractical attitudes Jack Hunter criticized. And I perceive that Hunter himself is now faced with the logic of his own argument: Should he insist on remaining part of the Rand Paul team — which might hurt the cause he avows — or step aside to prevent a scandal?

Well, the damage is done. Even if Hunter quit now, Rand Paul’s former association with him would be cited by opponents in 2016 as proof that Rand Paul is a dangerous extremist. And so what Rand Paul may decide to do is to call Hunter on the carpet, read him the Riot Act, and require him to avoid any further embarrassments.

“Double-Secret Probation,” as it were.

It seems that Hunter has already disavowed the most dangerous charge against him, anti-Semitism. In 2008, he wrote:

“Whether for Israel or oil, or both, a permanent U.S. foothold in the Middle East has been the primary neoconservative goal since day one and certainly since long before 9/11.”

Hunter’s mention of Israel in the dependent clause is the problem. You could argue all day about neoconservative foreign policy goals and never get in trouble, but the minute you go there — the “Israel Lobby” trope — you’re doomed beyond hope of redemption.

Here is where my own experience may be an instructive example for Jack Hunter or anyone else in similar circumstances. Without rehearsing the entirety of my own history as an “extremist,” let me say that I can probably recite the Riot Act from memory. It was made plain to me that my employment had nothing to do with any opinion I might hold in regard to any controversy, past or present, but rather I was being paid to report and edit the news. And therefore, “shut the hell up, do your job and stay out of trouble, you crazy knucklehead.”

Or words to that effect.

Good advice, especially for someone who enjoys grabbing hold of an unpopular and perhaps untenable position and trying to win the argument for the sake of argument. Certain truths are often obscured by our unwillingness to consider seemingly far-fetched alternatives to the Conventional Wisdom, but one does not Win Friends and Influence People by making a habit of deliberately provoking such controversies and pushing one’s antagonists to the wall.

Pray God Always Gives You Foolish Enemies

Anyway, there came a crucial moment when a disgruntled former reporter for The Washington Times, who bore a grudge against my bosses, began making the argument that they were secretly in cahoots with that horrible neo-Confederate, Stacy McCain. And in the course of his dishonorable vendetta, this wicked person went so far as to claim that he had heard me espouse anti-Semitic views.

You goddamned worthless liar, George Archibald.

Christians are commanded to pray for our enemies, but I must here confess an occasional moment of disobedience.

However, “vengeance is mine, saith the Lord,” and whatever perversity of mind caused George Archibald to destroy himself, that foul lie was a weapon he accidentally handed to his foes, because everybody who knows me can attest that I have never been a Jew-hater. Indeed, I am an unapologetic philo-Semite, and there were enough people who knew this truth that George Archibald’s lie exposed him as a fool who could not be trusted to tell the truth about anything.

Both friends and enemies have been mystified by how I’ve survived and flourished as a journalist despite having been branded an “extremist,” without going through the “Deny, Denounce and Repudiate” ritual of self-abasement that the Maoist impulses of modern liberalism generally demand. But I had the benefit of good advice (and bad enemies) and was reminded that certain promises are still in effect.

“And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.”
— Genesis 12:3 (KJV)

Being heirs by adoption, as it were, requires humility and gratitude. If we are called to serve, we ought not complain about the difficulties of our service, nor resent the chastisements occasioned by our own disobedience, for whom God loves, he chastises. Amen.

Benjamin Franklin said, “Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other.” Jack Hunter has learned a lesson and, whatever the resolution of his role on Rand Paul’s team, he should be grateful for this lesson, as should we all.

Now let us stop quibbling about the Wilmot Proviso — or the Iraq invasion, for that matter — and instead focus our attention on defeating Satan and his earthly manifestation, the Democrat Party.

Fight the fight you’re fighting, and fight it with all your strength.

Category: History

Comments

98 Responses to “Fight the Fight You’re Fighting”

rsmccain
July 9th, 2013 @ 5:02 pm

@Michael_Zak The whole point of my discourse is that we gain nothing by arguing over ancient grievances. @smitty_one_each
rsmccain
July 9th, 2013 @ 5:06 pm

If we agree Democrats are Satan’s Own Party, all other disagreements are trivial. http://t.co/gPSRyMWaTV @Michael_Zak @smitty_one_each
lucyk6992
July 9th, 2013 @ 5:08 pm

RT @rsmccain: If we agree Democrats are Satan’s Own Party, all other disagreements are trivial. http://t.co/gPSRyMWaTV @Michael_Zak @smitty…
lucyk6992
July 9th, 2013 @ 5:09 pm

@rsmccain @michael_zak @smitty_one_each #Democrats’ next step: Armageddon!
Hired Mind
July 9th, 2013 @ 5:11 pm

Why do you think those tariffs existed in the first place?

Slavery was a justifiable reason to “beat the South”, and beat it mercilessly, for as long as it took to end the practice.
jstephans5
July 9th, 2013 @ 5:12 pm

RT @rsmccain: If we agree Democrats are Satan’s Own Party, all other disagreements are trivial. http://t.co/gPSRyMWaTV @Michael_Zak @smitty…
BeccaJLower
July 9th, 2013 @ 5:13 pm

@rsmccain:You don’t Win Friends and Influence People by making a habit of pushing one’s antagonists to the wall http://t.co/aeuAmGm8VM #tcot
FilmCriticOne
July 9th, 2013 @ 5:15 pm

@smitty_one_each Davis heroism, according to his wife, was all fake. See her 20 page letter. http://t.co/b87DKTN561
rsmccain
July 9th, 2013 @ 5:29 pm

RT @BeccaJLower: @rsmccain:You don’t Win Friends and Influence People by making a habit of pushing one’s antagonists to the wall http://t.c…
keyboard jockey
July 9th, 2013 @ 5:33 pm

As time goes on I am having a difficult time more and more, believing that Romney didn’t throw the 2012 election. As in lost intentionally as in took a dive. Obama is on track to shove through the progressive’s agenda. I think there are many politicians that put their political ideology (progressive) ahead of their party loyalty.

For instance SEE George W Bush’s latest utterance on US Senate’s amnesty bill, he’s in favor of passing Barack Obama’s amensty agenda. George W Bush once famously stated, responding to a question about our lack of border and port security after 9/11 – Dubya: sometimes commerce trumps security. Well most of the time commerce trumps security. Who wishes that George W Bush felt the same compassion for the middle class and working class poor in this country, that pay taxes – that he does the illegal alien population suppressing those same tax paying US citizen’s wages? Compassionate conservatism indeed.

These two admissions from Romney’s themselves make me think the fix was in.

Mediate:

Even Mitt Romney Didn’t Want Mitt Romney To Run For President In 2012 by Matt Wilstein | 9:50 am, July 2nd, 2013

ABC: Mitt Romney Didn’t Want to Be President, Son Claims

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/12/mitt-romney-didnt-want-to-be-president-son-claims/

So what was the purpose of Romney running (proxy WASP candidate) if it wasn’t to keep a Conservative republican candidate from challenging Obama, and turning the progressive bus around?
BobBelvedere
July 9th, 2013 @ 5:34 pm

RT @rsmccain: “[H]istorically, movements that make a difference always begin on the fringe.” http://t.co/gPSRyMWaTV
BobBelvedere
July 9th, 2013 @ 5:38 pm

RT @rsmccain: “[F]ocus our attention on defeating Satan and his earthly manifestation, the Democrat Party.” http://t.co/gPSRyMWaTV #tcot
Richard McEnroe
July 9th, 2013 @ 5:50 pm

They existed to keep the South economically and materially dependent on the North. They never freed a single slave.

Slavery was an inarguable evil. But it was neither the sole nor most significant friction between. North & South.
LADowd
July 9th, 2013 @ 5:55 pm

@smitty_one_each @rsmccain Hey this may be a dumb question, but how does one know which of you wrote a post on TOM? There’s no byline!
rsmccain
July 9th, 2013 @ 5:57 pm

@LADowd @smitty_one_each Unless it’s got Smitty or Wombat’s byline, I wrote it.
LADowd
July 9th, 2013 @ 5:59 pm

@rsmccain @smitty_one_each Oh! There’s another one of y’all? 🙂
K-Bob
July 9th, 2013 @ 6:00 pm

Well, whether he wanted to win or not we’ll never really know. What is certain is that you can’t wuss and head-fake your way to the top job unless you are a leftist with the media in your pocket.
drea4liberty
July 9th, 2013 @ 6:06 pm

.@rsmccain Love it! Amen! @Michael_Zak @smitty_one_each
drea4liberty
July 9th, 2013 @ 6:06 pm

RT @rsmccain: If we agree Democrats are Satan’s Own Party, all other disagreements are trivial. http://t.co/gPSRyMWaTV @Michael_Zak @smitty…
gmardre
July 9th, 2013 @ 6:14 pm

“Fight the Fight You’re Fighting” good read http://t.co/Skf9M4I64v
keyboard jockey
July 9th, 2013 @ 6:18 pm

It shed’s light on Sarah Palin’s remark about maybe it’s time for a 3rd party threat. We get it the DC insider’s fix is in.

Progressivism in our government today is like a virulent syphilitic strain. It’s going to take more penicillin (TEA party) waves to get it under control.

How bad is it? George W Bush broke his self invoked vow of silence to respond to Obama’s amnesty agenda, by cheer leading the opposition’s effort.
FilmCriticOne
July 9th, 2013 @ 6:33 pm

@smitty_one_each Davis was a fake and coward who claimed to be hero, according to his wife’s 20 page letter., C it. http://t.co/b87DKTN561
Michael_Zak
July 9th, 2013 @ 7:42 pm

The point of my book is we gain nothing by accepting Democrat lies about GOP history as basis for current debate @rsmccain @smitty_one_each
JadedByPolitics
July 9th, 2013 @ 8:08 pm

Fight the Fight You’re Fighting http://t.co/zrh7NDNw8d “Fight the fight you’re fighting, and fight it with all your strength” EXACTLY!
Stogie Chomper
July 9th, 2013 @ 8:45 pm

Rob, your understanding of history is just plain wrong. And the North wanted what, to make citizens of the blacks, make them equal socially and politically? No, not even close. The North wanted slavery kept out of the territories because they were devoted bigots who hated blacks. Many Northern states (including Lincoln’s state of Illinois) passed laws forbidding blacks to settle there. Lincoln himself was a white supremacist and white separatist.

You will NEVER convince me that honoring Abe Lincoln is in any way consistent with conservatism or liberty or freedom, or that there was anything at all honorable about this ruthless despot, or anything “free” about the federal government ordering one group of states to invade another group of states to coerce them into a political union that they do not want. And it was the North who started the war by invading, not the South by seceding. And what did the great emancipator (who never freed a single slave) do? Suspended habeas corpus illegally. Tried to arrest the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Threw the entire state legislature of Maryland into prison without charges or trial. Shut down hundreds of newspapers. Threw thousands of citizens into prison, again without charges or trial. Lincoln was a disaster, the worst president in American history.

If I ever met you and told me Jefferson Davis was the equivalent of Che Guevera, Mao or Pol Pot, I would be sorely tempted to punch you in the mouth. However, I will give you a chance to irradiate your darkened brain with light by reading a scholarly article by a University Professor, called “Why the Civil War Was Not About Slavery.” Here’s the link:

http://saberpoint.blogspot.com/2010/12/why-civil-war-was-not-about-slavery.html
Stogie Chomper
July 9th, 2013 @ 8:47 pm

As I recall, Stephens opinions were closely similar to those of Abraham Lincoln.
Stogie Chomper
July 9th, 2013 @ 8:51 pm

Hired Mind: the North never, ever put forth any responsible proposal or plan for ending slavery. Never. Furthermore, the North was equally guilty with the South for the existence of the institution. It was Northern slave ships and merchants who brought the slaves to the Americas. Slavery existed in all but one of the original 13 colonies, and most of the Founding Fathers were slave owners or slave traders. You are simply ASSUMING history by making comments like that, as if history could be written through the workings of your imagination. Read the article if you want to develop some actual understanding:

http://saberpoint.blogspot.com/2010/12/why-civil-war-was-not-about-slavery.html
rsmccain
July 9th, 2013 @ 9:05 pm

Step 1: Blog about need to forget ancient grudges. Step 2: Watch commenters fiercely argue about ancient grudges. http://t.co/gPSRyMWaTV
robertstacymccain
July 9th, 2013 @ 9:11 pm

They were both Whigs, you know.
robertstacymccain
July 9th, 2013 @ 9:14 pm

In my hometown of Lithia Springs, Georgia, the tallest building in town was a textile mill — or rather, the ruins of the textile mill, which Sherman’s troops burned in 1864.
mjwadeesq
July 9th, 2013 @ 9:14 pm

RT @rsmccain: Step 1: Blog about need to forget ancient grudges. Step 2: Watch commenters fiercely argue about ancient grudges. http://t.co…
SydneyCadeWest
July 9th, 2013 @ 9:35 pm

RT @rsmccain: “[F]ocus our attention on defeating Satan and his earthly manifestation, the Democrat Party.” http://t.co/gPSRyMWaTV #tcot
Quartermaster
July 9th, 2013 @ 10:26 pm

Your privilege. K-Bob has the full of it. You OTOH, are a long wayz off.
rmnixondeceased
July 9th, 2013 @ 10:37 pm

The forces that elected Barack Obama president, after all, were the same left-wing radicals whom we saw smashing windows in Seattle in 1999 and marching beneath the banners of Marxist organizations during the anti-Iraq War protests. The children and grandchildren of ’60’s radicals like the SDS and Weather Underground. We must ever be vigilant lest we nurture an asp at our breast …
rmnixondeceased
July 9th, 2013 @ 10:41 pm

Remember that the Republican party began as a 3rd party and it’s first successful run for the presidency was Lincoln, who wasn’t even on the ballot in 10 southern states. Also keep in mind Patton’s words: “L’audace, l’audace, toujours l’audace.”
RMNixonDeceased
July 9th, 2013 @ 10:41 pm

“Remember that the Republican party began as a 3rd party and it’s first successful run for the…” — rmnixondeceased http://t.co/kNe0AO1KSl
AngelaTC
July 9th, 2013 @ 10:46 pm

Fight the Fight You’re Fighting http://t.co/g9GHguv83i by @rsmccain is definitely worth a read, jack hunter and rand paul peeps.
RMNixonDeceased
July 9th, 2013 @ 10:47 pm

“I think people will miss the most significant aspect of what you mean. Romney would have seemed better in…” — K-Bob http://t.co/HibgmkdC72
rsmccain
July 9th, 2013 @ 10:51 pm

RT @AngelaTC: Fight the Fight You’re Fighting http://t.co/g9GHguv83i by @rsmccain is definitely worth a read, jack hunter and rand paul pee…
ZoNation: “If you can’t even take your own party back, what makes you think you can take the country back?” | The Tree of Mamre
July 9th, 2013 @ 11:02 pm

[…] Fight the Fight You’re Fighting […]
conservativelez
July 10th, 2013 @ 2:19 am

RT @rsmccain: Step 1: Blog about need to forget ancient grudges. Step 2: Watch commenters fiercely argue about ancient grudges. http://t.co…
keyboard jockey
July 10th, 2013 @ 10:13 am

I haven’t forgot that George W Bush, pre-socialized the economy before Obama was elected with the passage of TARP1, in September 2008. George W Bush pretends he’s being compassionate, but what he advocates helps the financial oligarchy that has this country by the short hairs. Chain migration is good for who? Not the American worker who is competing for a job against cheap labor inside their own country.

Let’s play a game, what policy of George W Bush’s, hasn’t been continued under the Obama administration?

George W Bush isn’t a conservative, compassionate or otherwise. He certainly doesn’t care about the middle class and working poor who have been getting ass raped for the last 5 years. Now he wants Obama to succeed in passing his Amnesty wet-dream, that he couldn’t when he was President. Naturalize 11 million illegal aliens, and their chain migrating relatives when how many American tax paying citizens are out of work? Yeah there is nothing compassionate about what George W Bush is proposing for United States Citizens. That he doesn’t get that or cares, says volumes about George W Bush. He can care about Africans, he can care about Mexicans and South Americans but skrew his own countrymen’s quality of life.
Hired Mind
July 10th, 2013 @ 2:14 pm

“the North never, ever put forth any responsible proposal or plan for ending slavery. Never. ”

And do you know why? Because the North didn’t rule over the South like a king. Like it or not, the South had power in the Congress. The North didn’t simply dictate the rules for the South.

The North most definitely changed their own laws to eliminate it in their territories. Most of the Northern colonies banned the importation of slaves soon after the Revolutionary War, and Vermont banned it outright in 1777. Pennsylvania passed a law to gradually end slavery in 1780.

The South pushed through the Fugitive Slave Law in 1850, to try and keep slaves from escaping to the North. This would not have been necessary if there was no place to which slaves could escape.

“It was Northern slave ships and merchants who brought the slaves to the Americas.”

Wrong. It was primarily British ships before the Revolution, as they had the ships, and a huge financial stake in the slave trade. As I said earlier, the North had mostly banned importation of slaves after the war. After that, slavery had become mostly self-sustaining – the slave raids into West Africa had dropped off drastically.

“Furthermore, the North was equally guilty with the South for the existence of the institution.”

Yes, and I never said otherwise. In fact slavery existed nearly throughout the world in the early 1700s. But we’re talking about a HUNDRED years later. So this is simply a straw man.

Instead of reading a blog for your history, perhaps you should crack open an actual history textbook?
K-Bob
July 11th, 2013 @ 12:34 am

We wouldn’t be nearly as mad at Bush if he were President ten years earlier than when he was.

He had the misfortune to be the last Blue Blood Conservative in the game of musical chairs leading up to the official moment we crossed the line into a full-bore social democrat system.

He could have been a conservative leader, but he thought it was still 1975 or something, and the next Dem wouldn’t be a Marxist SCOAMF. So it was easier to be just like all of the other Republicans since Reagan. He was stuck in, “hey, what’s the worst that could happen?” mode, and we got stuck with barack.
Susannah72
July 11th, 2013 @ 12:43 am

Fight the Fight You’re Fighting http://t.co/atAxZL3NbY (Via @rsmccain.)
rsmccain
July 11th, 2013 @ 12:44 am

RT @Susannah72: Fight the Fight You’re Fighting http://t.co/atAxZL3NbY (Via @rsmccain.)
keyboard jockey
July 11th, 2013 @ 9:32 am

I think deep down George W Bush takes after his paternal grandfather Prescott Bush, a liberal who was into Social democracy – Liberal democracy. If anything it was George W Bush’s father who tempered those tendencies.
lawscribe
July 11th, 2013 @ 9:45 am

hide! “@rsmccain: “[F]ocus our attention on defeating Satan and his earthly manifestation, the Democrat Party.” http://t.co/mHOY3Gw01F #tcot