Fight the Fight You’re Fighting

Posted on 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.

 

 


98 comments

  1. I believe the ‘Pubs were a “fringe” movement to the Whigs long about 1860 or so. Fringe’s tend to assimilate over time as you point out with the Dems.

  2. The Whigs began falling apart in the 1840s. The Pubbies had their organizing convention about 1854 and ran their first Presidential Candidate in 1856, John C. Fremont. The Whigs had already fallen apart by the ’56 elections.

    I will say, however, that the GOP was something of a radical party, progressive even. They stood for a strong FedGov and were the spiritual descendants of Hamilton. The GOP established the political atmosphere that gave birth to the Modern Democrat party and its attendant ills. Lincoln’s war allowed for Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Clinton and Obama. Without Lincoln the FedGov would not be the prize it became.

  3. One of the biggest kooks in FedGov is your distant cousin, Juan. He likes to call Cruz, and others, wacko birds, but he’s little different from the moonbats we rail against.

    I would have to disagree that Romney was a harmless moderate. He governed as a moonbat as MassGov and gave us the founding of Obamacare, which is failing in Massachussetts as it would nationally. I’d bet a dollar to a donut that he would be even worse as POTUS simply because he would have far more power to do mischief.

  4. Paul’s problem with the “fringe” didn’t begin with Hunter and won’t end with him.

    Like his Dad and many other libertarians, as long as the subject is the size and scope of government and individual freedom they sound perfectly acceptable to conservatives – because of course those are ideas they took directly from conservatives. But let them get off the program just a bit and stray into foreign policy, the gold standard, or any of dozens of conspiracies and they will be off in the tall weeds of nuttery before you can say, “He said what?”

    Sitting Senators always make lousy Presidents anyway. Harding, Kennedy, Obama – three strikes are enough!

  5. Hey, the Whigs were a force to be reckoned with when they elected Old Rough and Ready. But those damned fringe kooks who seemed to fear that slavery might be extended to the deserts of Arizona and Utah — I mean, really? — insisted that political success through compromise was unacceptable. What is remarkable to me is that academics engage in all manner of revisionist history, but anyone who questions the Conventional Wisdom about the origins of our nation’s bloodiest war is automatically suspected of of being a proponent of Hate. Our nation’s history is obscured by mythological “noble lies” that our Platonic archons insist we accept as symbolically true, whatever the actual facts may be.

  7. More artfully said. I meant that in the space of less than 10 years they went from nothing to the Presidency. And you and RSM are correct about what that meant for history. Lincoln was quite open about his desires for a strong federal government. It’s the only reason the Civil War was fought. But, alas, there are only two Presidents in our history who are not allowed to be “deconstructed:” Lincoln and FDR. Both disregarded the Constitution when it suited. Alas, one doesn’t learn about that these days though.

  8. Excellent analysis, expertly written. The Left paints all opponents as kooks or extremists, and sometimes they are right: Alex Jones and the Truthers, for example.

    I am something of a neo-Confederate myself, would love to see the South secede and become its own nation, again. However, I don’t think it’s going to happen and I am not wasting my time in working for that goal. However, the depredations of the Obama Democrats have become so severe and, to my way of thinking, extreme, that I do believe secession is an option that must never be taken off the table.

    If we cannot stop and reverse the strong leftward trend, it will certainly become necessary at some point. I place my hopes in Texas, where the idea is strongest at the present time. And I don’t really give a damn who considers me a kook. (I am a strong supporter of Israel by the way, unlike many paleoconservatives.)

  9. My dear sir, if you damned cornpones had lacked the sheer temerity to start building textile mills and foundries, emancipation would have remained something for our wives to amuse themselves with over tea. but no… Sincerely,

  10. “I am something of a neo-Confederate myself”

    That’s what Amy Chow tells me, anyway. 😉

  11. The problem the “neo-Confederates” have to get around is that the original Confederates were seceding in order to protect slavery. Dress it up all you want, that is the root of it — they wanted to keep treating people like property, and considered the loss of an election to an abolitionist an insult worth starting a war over.

    You will NEVER convince me that you have any interest in liberty by appealing to the memory of slavers. Praising Jefferson Davis is little different than praising Che Guevara, Mao, or Pol Pot.

  12. He catered to militia groups, much like his dads newsletters catered to conspiricy nuts and white supremicists. I doubt the average American wants him representing our country.

  13. “Since 2011, when Sarah Palin …, 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… when…Santorum surprisingly emerged as the only viable alternative to Mitt Romney, many conservatives— having endlessly repeated the anti-Santorum talking points… — abandoned the “Anybody But Mitt”
    arguments they had been making in 2011.    ”

    A) It began long before Palin’s decision
    B) You just described the process by which Santorum rose to the fore, and Cain before him.

    In other words, the long knives were out the moment anyone dared to reply that they were “not opposed” to considering a Presidential run. (A certain, Falstaffian-proportioned candidate comes to mind.)

    My participation in the process was to defend ALL candidates who showed any ability to express Conservative ideas without either putting people to sleep, or opening themselves up to the kind of sh*tstorm Todd Akin did. I found myself defending the entire roster of conservatives against the folks who went in with one mission clear on their minds: destroy candidate x.

    Unsurprisingly, people are already doing that to Perry since his news of the other day. I’m sure we’ll see it with every single conservative who steps forward. This single factor is the most stupid of the reasons (and there are many) that the GOP has earned it’s nickname as The Stupid Party.

    At some point, folks will have to accept the ugly bits with the good bits on the scaley hide of any conservative politician who can win. I would have accepted Newt, Bachmann, Cain, Perry, or Santorum. Any conservative–baggage and all–was preferable to Romney. Each of them had something to hate: Perry’s open borders, Bachmann’s occasional flakiness, Cain’s obvious newness to the philosophy of the founders, Santorum’s total inability to extract himself for social issues. On it goes: the long knives crew won, and midwived the Romney campaign.

    I could live with Rand Paul as the candidate, even though he’s a totally-misguided amnesty guy who has bought into counterfeit marriages (he might fix enough other stuff to make up for it, who knows). I certainly won’t be contributing to his campaign, but I won’t be on a mission to destroy him, either. I’ll just support the best Conservative candidate, and work like hell to eliminate the Romney clone that comes along next.

    Here’s hoping that, for 2016, we all coalesce around one fairly decent Conservative in time to beat back the long-knives crowd.

  14. Jefferson Davis was a West Point graduate, hero of the Mexican War, a U.S. Senator and Secretary of War and was, in fact, an opponent of secession.

    Please explain his historical likeness to Pol Pot and Che Guevara, if you think you can.

  15. Rob, slavery was a wonderful stick to beat the South and justify decades of economic warfare, everything from denying the Southern States access to industrial technology that wouldhave rendered slavery economically unsustainable to slapping punitive tariffs of the South’s imports and exports to the point where they couldn’t afford to give it up. What the North was ALWAYS concerned about was finding excuses and means to nullify thr South’s superior position to expand into and exploit the Western territories.The North didn’give a damn about slavery and would have nothing about if secession hadn’t happened . Forget thr speeches and essays. Follow the money and legislation.

  16. I think people will miss the most significant aspect of what you mean. Romney would have seemed better in a host of areas. Conservatives would have gone back to sleep.

    But I firmly believe Obamacare would have been fully implemented by now under Romney. With none of the delays, and none of the waivers. Why? Because he’s a “fixer,” that guy. He’d have found the “magic ingredients” to make it appear to work, even with Republicans in charge. That’s why he would have been worse. Much worse.

    Without him starting a second term of Progressivism, we are at full liberty to oppose this crap entirely, and hopefully elect someone who has actually read the Constitution.

  18. I’ve recently read a book, Congressman Lincoln by Chris DeRose, that sheds very useful historic light on the controversies that ultimately led to the end of the Whig Party. At the time Lincoln was elected to Congress, abolitionism was extremely unpopular in Illinois, but even during the presidency of Polk, the shape of future events was foreshadowed. Polk and the Democrats supported war with Mexico, which was popular, and which the Whigs opposed. But then the Whigs (Lincoln foremost among them) decided to nominate the war hero General Taylor for president, which led directly to the founding of the Free Soil Party and, in short order, to the end of the Whigs.

  20. There is an old joke: The difference between a paleoconservative and a neoconservative is that, while they agree the country started going to Hell in the Sixties, the neocon locates this turn for the worse in the 1960s.

  21. Well, Alexander Stephens might have said so, but I usually avoid quoting Little Alec in polite company, as he had some opinions that were slightly controversial, you might say.

Comments are closed.