The Other McCain

That Atlantic piece about Ricochet has set off a very interesting blog discussion about what it is conservatives should be doing with New Media. All we need now is for Julian Sanchez to weigh in, get Glenn Greenwald and David Frum involved, and we’ll have another pointless month-long time-waster.

While we await the onset of Sanchezistic discourse, however, the rest of us have a chance to audition for the role of Armchair Intellectual:

• Clark Stooksbury is “inclined to agree with Dan Riehl” — mainly because it permits Clark to revisit his Evil Neocon Theory of Conservative Failure. I’m not quite sure if he’s suggesting that the Republican Party is a Mossad-orchestrated conspiracy, but . . .
• Thers at Firedoglake requires scare-quotes for  “conservative ideas,” which he pronounces “stupid” — a familiar argument: Liberals are smarter than you because they say so!
• Professor Donald Douglas sees an opportunity to put another couple of lumps on Conor Friedersdorf’s head, which is the kind “fun, accessible and light-hearted” project we can all enjoy.

OK, so what about my own concerns that (a) the light-hearted fun should have begun with a phone call to me, and (b) at this point in time, winning congressional elections should take precedence among conservative priorities?

Ideology and iPods

Not too much support for proposition (a) — although I don’t really expect others to acknowledge that I am the center of the universe — but in a comment on proposition (b), Noel from Cold Fury pointed out that Episode 16 of Ricochet (that link is an MP3 download) includes some electoral advocacy for Dr. Rob Steele for Congress. And they featured Tim Burns in Episode 14. (Yes, that’s another MP3 download.)

Important confession: I’ve never owned an iPod, a device I regard as Satanic in origin and purpose. So while I’ve been a guest on many podcasts, I’ve never been the audience for podcasts. Therefore I am ill-prepared to discuss the prospects of saving conservatism via MP3 downloads, although I suspect that Ricochet is unlikely to replace Metallica and Lady Gaga in the iPod preferences of The Cool Kids.

My wholly subjective and egocentric perspective — i.e., I don’t listen to podcasts, so who gives a rip about podcasts? — may be blinding me to the world-historic implications of Ricochet, but that wouldn’t be the first time my semi-Luddite tendencies caused me to arrive late to an important trend. (Me to intern Amy Doolittle, circa 2002: “OK, so what are these ‘weblog’ thingies you keep talking about, and why should I let you do a feature story about them?”)

On the other hand, the Ricochet home page describes their mission as “center-right conversation” and “center-right” is a term I loathe like God hates sin. It smuggles into our discourse the misbegotten conception of a political “center” that is an obsolete legacy of Arthur Schlessinger — a liberal who, in the aftermath of the GOP’s 1946 takeover of the House, sought to define centrism and moderation in terms advantageous to liberals.

“Center-right” may or may not be a Laodicean formula for spineless, unprincipled compromise, but it is certainly not the kind of fighting creed that summons bold spirits to rally ’round and drive the enemy from the field of battle. Conservatives don’t need a Politics of Negotiation with liberalism — am I the only one who remembers how that “change the tone” and “compassionate conservatism” stuff worked out for Dubya? — we need a Politics Of Victory that sends liberalism fleeing for the hills.

The ill-conceived Bushian attempt to craft a center-right “third way” was precisely why Karl Rove’s “Permanent Republican Majority” resulted in the exact opposite of its intended result. And sic semper hoc — go back and read Bill Buckley’s anathema on Eisenhower-era “Modern Republican” idiocy. The cluelessness of Modern Republicanism led directly to eight years of JFK/LBJ, the very zenith of 2oth-century liberalism in power, with attendant political-cultural catastrophes that still haunt us today.

Yet I do not blame the proprietors of Ricochet for the pernicious phraseology of their home page. They did not create the phrase, and it might be eliminated by a simple tweak of their WordPress dashboard. Despite my bruised feelings about my omission from the “conversation,” I am pleased to see that they’ve recruited James Poulos and his genius sideburns as managing editor.

Why? Precisely because, as Stooksbury points out, the contributors to the Ricochet “conversation” are almost uniformly neocons, and I know Poulos has paleocon DNA. If Poulos and his sideburns are permitted inside the Big Tent, this is perhaps a signal that some of the more shrewd neocons have recognized the error of their Urge To Purge attempt to consolidate unquestioned hegemony within the Right. Many years ago, I privately counseled Poulos never to admit publicly that he had read M.E. Bradford — “Mel who?” — and he has shrewdly heeded that counsel. 

Loyal Minions, Losers and Laughingstocks

Poulos will, of course, deny that he is part of my long-term Gramscian conspiracy to mount a paleocon “long march through the institutions” of the Right, but what kind of conspiracy would it be, if the Loyal Minions were not pledged to secrecy? And what about the fact that you’re laughing at this as if it were all a big joke?

Exactly — part of the Master Plan.

Speaking of secret conspiracies, today I received an e-mail from a confidential source who is involved in online political activism of the pragmatic Let’s-Win-Some-Elections variety, and my source identifies various self-defeating propensities commonly encountered:

• The people who think that there aren’t any differences between the two parties . . .;
• The people who blame everybody except their own faction for the problems with the GOP;
• The people who don’t think that they need to support the results of a primary that they participated in but didn’t win; and, generally
• The people who don’t think that they need to be polite to the political party that they want to use as a tool with which to change public policy.

The good news is that you can still foster activism — the Tea Party was a godsend for encouraging the basic concept of getting together in the fresh air and complaining, all at once — but there’s hella people out there who don’t want to do what is pretty much thankless grunt work. Which is why there’s a Ricochet, and which is why neither you nor I were headhunted for it.

Some very cogent analysis there, even if it steps on my toes a wee bit. Rudeness toward the GOP is certainly something I’ve never avoided. I take a “tough-love” approach toward delinquency, and when Republicans start selling out — inter alia, people actively seeking the re-election of John McCain ought to hide their heads in shame– they’re begging to be punk-smacked, and often, and by someone who knows how.

More importantly, however, Republicans need to abandon the kind of buttoned-down politeness that requires them to pretend that the Democratic Party is motivated by a genuine desire for the public good when they are, in fact, the Evil Coalition of Liars and Fools. (Hint: You will become an honest Democrat when you become an ex-Democrat, admitting you have been a Fool deceived by Liars.)

The “thankless grunt work” aspect of politics noted by my anonymous friend is something Ronald Reagan addressed:

“You can accomplish much, if you don’t care who gets the credit.”

It has been my pleasure over the years to become acquainted with many of those whose uncredited labors helped accomplish the Reagan Revolution, and I know the truth of that saying.

Fully acknowledging my own egocentric lust for glory — “Being Notorious Is Not the Same Thing As Being Famous, But It’s Better Than Being Anonymous” — it is nevertheless true that I do behind-the-scenes work for which I never receive credit.  A bad reputation can be a very valuable thing, if you know how to use it.

Do I purposefully act the part of a ridiculous clown? Yes. Do I occasionally accomplish good things without credit? Yes, again. 

Let others self-consciously strive to be universally acknowledged as Serious Thinkers — that’s the “smart” way to become an utter laughingstock.

But why bring Conor Friedersdorf into this?

I don’t much mind wasting time on a Sunday afternoon, but some things are more wasteful than others.

My first reaction to the Ricochet story was admittedly idiosyncratic, whereas Dan Riehl takes a more practical view:

It’s a complex topic, but the Left tends to use new media tactically to generate specific results and win elections, not just nationally – but in states and districts, as well. OTOH some on the Right seem focused on creating, or simply recycling the same old same old, in hopes of creating new stars. There’s a need for both. But I suspect what the Left is doing is more likely to pay off, politically speaking.

I certainly agree, and have witnessed this phenomenon first-hand. I’ve been amazed at the difficulty in the past few weeks of getting conservatives to pay attention to the PA-12 special election. Here is a chance to take a seat away from Nancy Pelosi — to give the Democrats a good punch in the nose — and yet it hasn’t gotten nearly the kind of attention that Scott Brown got four months ago.

Some of us were discussing this Friday evening in Pennsylvania, and various explanations were offered. OK, it’s a congressional election — one of 435 seats — as opposed to a Senate seat. And there is not the kind “41st vote” factor here, as there was in Massachusetts in January. Neverthless, PA-12 is the only actually election (i.e., not just a primary) on Tuesday, and you’d think conservative New Media would be fired up and focused. But they’re not, at least not like they were in January.

It was suggested, in the discussion we had Friday, that perhaps the failure of the Lynch campaign in last month’s FL-19 special election had made people a little gun-shy about getting emotionally invested in PA-12, but that doesn’t make sense. Every election is a different election. FL-19 was a nearly unique situation — Michael Barone’s post-election analysis was insightful — and the demographics and political history of PA-12 are completely different.

If that explanation doesn’t work, what about Bill Russell’s relentless badmouthing of Tim Burns? Russell, who lost to Jack Murtha by 15% in 2008, is disgruntled over not getting the GOP nomination in the PA-12 special election. Russell has ostentatiously refused to endorse Burns in the special election, and Russell’s campaign — he’s still on the ballot in the GOP primary — seems focused entirely on tearing down Burns. (Russell’s spokesman smeared Burns as an “opportunist” in the Pittsburgh paper last week.)

It isn’t hard to imagine that those who supported Russell in 2008 share his disappointment, but the logic of being the anti-Murtha candidate died with Murtha on Feb. 8, and Russell never developed any other message. The “opportunist” smear against Burns is just that, a smear. Burns helped organize the first Tea Party in his community in April 2009 and his congressional candidacy was the result of grassroots supporters encouraging him to run. Yet I fear that Russell has used the connections he made in 2008 to discourage conservative New Media coverage of the Burns campaign.

As troubling as that scenario might be — one man’s vengeful spite damaging an otherwise promising prospect — there’s an even more disturbing possibility. Maybe the inattention to the PA-12 special election indicates that New Media on the Right simply don’t understand what’s at stake here.  Maybe conservatives don’t realize that politics is about, y’know, winning elections?

A scary thought. Dan’s point about the Left’s tactical use of New Media stirred up that thought, which has been rattling around in my brain for a few weeks.  Maybe the Tea Party phenomenon was a temporary fad, an ephemeral thing. Maybe all those people who turned out at rallies on 9/12 just got bored and lost interest when their activism didn’t yield immediate results. Now they want to go back to what they were doing before — bitching about liberal bias in the MSM, etc. — and so there’s no incentive for conservative New Media to pay attention to the mechanics of electoral politics. Why cover campaigns, if nobody wants to read about campaigns?

Scary thought, I say, because all these pundit projections of Republicans gaining 40 or more House seats in November — enough to recapture a majority — don’t mean squat, if people won’t pay attention to key campaigns this fall. Among the 253 House seats currently held by Democrats, at least 90 are plausibly winnable for the GOP. (See Jim Geraghty’s analysis at National Review.) If getting New Media focused on House campaigns is difficult when there’s only election in the whole country, what will it be like after Labor Day, when there are 90+ key races going on?

Most conservatives already live in Republican-held House districts. The GOP’s biggest New Media challenge for 2010, I believe, is to motivate and mobilize these people as activists, getting them to help out with congressional campaigns in nearby Democratic-held districts, so that Republican challengers in key districts have more volunteers to act as “boots on the ground” in these campaigns. While online fundraising is important, the money will follow if people get fired up about the candidates.

However, unless there is some greater effort to do what Dan Riehl talking about — using New Media “tactically” — I fear that Republican House campaigns will suffer unnecessarily from a shortage of enthusiasm.