The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

The Republican Direction Is The Same Tired One As The Democrats; Just Slower

Posted on | September 28, 2014 | 73 Comments

by Smitty

As is generally the case when reading purported conservative writers
like Brooks and Noonan, one wonders: what part of “Progressivism is
played out” do they not understand? Noonan in the WSJ:

But put aside the word “nationalized.” Shouldn’t the Republican Party make it clear right now exactly what it is for and what it intends to do?

Here the views of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and much of the Washington-based GOP election apparatus have held sway. If you are explicit in terms of larger policy ideas, you just give Democrats something to shoot at. Don’t give them a target. ObamaCare, the foreign-policy mess, the IRS—these are so unpopular they’re more than enough reason to vote Republican. Don’t give voters a reason not to!

Dems to shoot at; conservatives to vote for: WDATPDIM?
Noonan cites the old trope

The cliché is that
Republicans are old, white, don’t like women or science, are narrow,
numeric and oppose all modern ways. The cliché probably isn’t as
powerful as it used to be because the president has made so many new
Republicans, but it’s still there.

And why won’t it die? Look at the low points in this year’s primaries:

Why would the Republican Party want a radiologist like Milton Wolfe in office, somebody who might speak credibly in favor of market reforms for healtchare? Somebody who might insist the actually GOP do something to offend the clerisy, like sending ObamaCare repeal legislation to #OccupyResoluteDesk? Nah, lets just keep a deadwood incumbent in place instead. Somebody ‘reliable’. Like in those banana republics we used to laugh at. Those rubes in the base are supposed to get the hint and just play along. This is a Progressive country now, heading in the direction of Old Europe; the legacy Constitutional features,
Pat Roberts may yet cling to power in Kansas for example, the Bill of Rights, are being steadily pecked away at,

and will eventually collapse in a “Too old; didn’t read” tweet.

Speaking of ‘reliable’, how about that Mississippi miss? Why not blow away any GOP pretense of credibility by completely jacking up a runoff vote? Those far gone
conservative ISILs
will shut up, lay by their dish, and vote GOP–what other choice do they have? It’s like this: the GOP interest in
balancing the books, reforming taxes, Thad Cochran reached for the brass knuckles in the Mississippi primary

limiting government, and restoring power to the states hasn’t been more

than pro forma posturing since Reagan. Today’s GOP is just not substantially different in its commitment to Progressivism than the Democrats; what differences you can point to are of style only. Yeah, it’s a bit of a shame that small donors are going to have to be rooked into contributing to campaigns,
John McCain is rumored to ponder another 6 years fronting the legislative thrash band “Zombie Warhorses” only to discover that they were being shamelessly used,

but isn’t that the essence of politics? At least, that’s what I got out of the last Brooks column I formally laughed at.
Mark Levin says that it’s time to nominate another Reagan for 2016. The 2014 GOP doesn’t seem to care fig #1 about the future, reform, the base, or anything other than keeping the elite in power.
What’s the point of the Republican Party if it can’t nominate anyone other than Ward Cleaver, unless his name rhymes with “Tush”?
Now, it is certainly the case that not voting is unacceptable. You’re all paying customers, directly or indirectly. Let’s get out and vote. Keeping the Tea Party pressure up on the deadwood is still the most reasonable way to affect change. I will say that if there is one political scalp to covet, it’s John McCain’s. Start saving aluminum cans now, and hope that Arizona puts forth a credible conservative challenger, because I’d love to donate to anyone capable of sending that warhorse out to pasture.

Comments

  • Art Deco

    (there are certainly plenty of quislings in the party as you point out very well in this post)

    No, there are a mess of Capitol Hill apparatchiks whose field of vision does not extend any farther than Capitol Hill and who cannot imagine life without it. (See Richard Lugar). There are also shills of the business lobbies (See Haley Barbour). There are also people almost sociopathic in their capacity for trading in guises and poses (See Kelly Ayotte).

  • NeoWayland

    Libertarians who have been around a while don’t like to follow anyone.

  • Pingback: Francis Fisher, Alan Grayson Wants You Stupid | Regular Right Guy()

  • Adobe_Walls

    That would explain Ron and Rand’s unpopularity.

  • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

    I used to do so, but when you give directly to a particular candidate, they have to forward some of it to the Party. So I quit sending them money, except in situations where there’s really no other choice but to help a guy who has a chance, like I did with Milton Wolf. But I send the rest of my contribution dough to PACS like Senate Conservatives and SarahPAC. (I know all the PACs lose money through administrative costs, but so does the GOP.)

  • Adobe_Walls

    This is based on my impressions based on votes taken in 112th
    congress which at the time (2011) had 84 new Republican house members.
    Assuming all of these new members were considered or at least claimed to beTea
    Party, an admittedly over broad assumption.

    I started retesting
    my impression by comparing their current Heritage Action Ratings. I stopped at
    Colorado as even that small sample more than confirms my impression. Of the
    twelve new members from the first five states (alphabetically) only three rated
    above 70% and only one of those above 90%. As far as I’m concerned anyone under
    70% is a liberal and I wouldn’t consider voting for anyone under 95%.

    If you would like to reseach this further here are two links.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freshman_class_members_of_the_112th_United_States_Congress

    http://heritageactionscorecard.com/

  • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

    Heh. Well, I hope you’re wrong there. I claim that with something as massive as a nation, the wreck itself takes a lot of time to complete its collapse.

    Either way, gravity WILL have its say in the matter.

  • NeoWayland

    I don’t think either one ever considered themselves libertarian.

    That didn’t stop some very silly people from proclaiming that The Libertarian candidate had come.

  • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

    Many of them of course were just calling themselves that because it was the buzz word of that cycle.

    And because they’re fecking liars, like Orrin Hatch did when gathering Mark Levin’s endorsement on national radio.
    Lie about Tea Party, govern like a Prog.

    Ayotte and a few others we all know about. Sleaze, Louize!

  • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

    Even if they were so inclined, traditional Libertarians have been co-opted by:

    1) Their lackadaisical attitude toward Party politics, and

    2) neo-libertarians who’ve discovered a whole lot of useful idiots among the less informed Libertarian ranks.

    UKIP was formed by people who recognized the need of an actual party mechanism to move forward.

  • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

    I’m betting I could become as well-known as David Brooks by posing as a ‘thoughtful” Democrat, who writes columns at The Atlantic, The Hill, or Huffpo.

    I could probably rake in the coin with that gig, too.

    But it’s something I couldn’t live with. Not for one entire column, at least.

    Too many people out there are totally comfortable living with that stain.

  • Adobe_Walls

    Perhaps you are confused. Ron Paul ran for president in 1988 on the Libertarian Party ticket, Pat Paulsen ran several times in the New Hampshire Democratic primary and came in second to Bill Clinton in 1996. This is actually somewhat puzzling to many in that his position on all social issues “I feel that it is too directly bound to its own anguish to be anything other than a cry of negation, carrying within itself the seeds of its own destruction. However, to get to the meat of the matter, I will come right to the point, and take note of the fact that the heart of the issue in the final analysis escapes me.” was held by a substantial segment of the public.

  • Quartermaster

    Best you stay asleep. You’ve demonstrated a heap of naivete.

    Where on earth do you think the so called conservative Democrats landed? They fit right in with the GOPe who have been that way since they were founded.

    I looked with care, from the inside, as I used to hold elective office as a Republican. I know all to well what they are, and how they think, and they are moderate leftists. They are statists to their core.

  • NeoWayland

    No, I’m not confused.

    Ron Paul may have run as a Libertarian, but he was an opportunist.

  • NeoWayland

    I can’t argue with you there.

    I will point out that political parties got us into this mess AND rigged the game so it’s nearly impossible for anyone else to win.

  • Matt_SE

    Well, that’s the methodology I would’ve used…and Heritage Action, too.

  • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

    They’ve certainly made it incredibly hard to form any other party.

  • NeoWayland

    Another reason why I am not convinced that a new party is the answer.

  • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

    That’s why I came up with my ridiculously simple, Vote West concept.

    If we started in earnest today, even if we got Limbaugh, Levin, Malkin, Palin, Cruz, and a host of conservative stars all miraculously on board, it would still take a minimum of eight years to get on the ballot in all fifty states. We could only afford to miss a few low-elector-number states in our first try, or we’d miss that sweet “matching” funds gig the two majors get.

    So I figure, hey, get the candidate elected first, and then form the party around that person before inauguration day.

  • NeoWayland

    Intriguing I admit.

    I can see two major weaknesses. First, finding a candidate that the other conservative candidates would support over their own ambitions.

    Second, trusting such a candidate. Under the circumstances, if such a candidate won, they might well become an American Caesar.

  • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

    Well, the last one assumes something outside of our Constitutional system, but yeah, as barack proved, a cult of personality leads to tyranny.

    The first one is problematic, but I think we can sell it. Especially if it gets at least as much traction as “Talk Like A Pirate Day.” I mean, how hard can it be, really?

  • NeoWayland

    I was thinking more of Washington, Jackson, or Eisenhower rather than the Imperious Leader, but yeah.

    I don’t know about the first though. I see it as a “my mojo is better than your mojo” problem. I keep flashing on two guys at keyboards determined to crack the box while keeping the other guy at bay. Maybe it’s the wrong simile.

  • Pingback: FMJRA 2.0: Crazee Horse : The Other McCain()