Over at Sultan Knish Daniel Greenfield is at it again. This time his position is that conservatives work far too hard at being “nice”. Lefties don’t bother.
Some of this is because Lefties have a pass by the media, although of late Hillary seems to be tagged pretty hard (well, for a liberal). But then, there is the rumour that Obama is trying to scuttle Hillary as the democrat selection. There could actually be some truth in that.
Meanwhile, Greenfield makes some important points.
If there’s one thing that conservatives need to cure themselves of it’s a slavish desire to be nice. Those who give in to it are lost.
Liberals don’t suffer from a niceness crisis. They don’t find common ground with us. They don’t worry that somewhere out there someone dislikes them.
Think about that for a moment. Conservatives are ALWAYS (except for Ted Cruz) trying to be nice. Even in the recent candidates for the republican presidential nomination, the biggest complaint against Trump is that “he is harsh”. One of his comments last night caught me. “There isn’t TIME to be ‘nice’.” There may well be truth to this. Conservatives have long been unwilling to be harsh, to speak truth and let the chips fall where they may. Perhaps some would call this “bomb throwing”. I’m for that.
But to go on. Greenfield makes some other important points.
It’s not just about policy. This is a conflict that takes place in mental and moral spaces. Before the policy, comes the worldview. The left will lose political battles rather than give an inch on its worldview. They view liberals who retreat on any issue as traitors and punish them. Conservatives lose political battles because they open up gaps in their worldview, they make mental and moral concessions, and once they’ve done that, losing the policy battle is a foregone conclusion.
Winning requires an uncompromised worldview. Lose that and every battle becomes a frenzied clash followed by a strategic withdrawal to the next crucial issue. ObamaCare. Iran. Planned Parenthood. Don’t worry, one of these days we’ll fight one to the end. Just not this one. Or the next one.
When you have a compromised worldview, then you stand for nothing.
The Republican Party has ten thousand men and women who believe in nothing, but are eager to discuss policy. Their policy ends up being liberal because there is no firewall of conviction.
The question of world view is SO important. In the last 50-100 years, depending on where you want to place the marker for the start, (my vote is with Wilson, but I will listen to arguments for TR) the Left has unflinchingly assaulted America. It has been the attack of “the betters”. Reflect on Hillary’s comment back in Bill’s presidency about how people don’t know how to spend their money on healthcare. That is an overwhelmingly arrogant statement, including all the aspects of superiority, ego, arrogance, and smug self-satisfaction. We are all too stupid to know how to manage our lives.
This can be said to be the essence of all that has happened to us since the 50’s, when the explosion of federal government power, and abuse, began. Now we have come to the inevitable conclusion that we are being ruled by what was first called the “elite” but is now recognized as the “ruling class”. ?But how do we turn this around. There have been some comments on this already here by Titus, in commenting that we need to “protect” the lower classes. Perhaps. But that form of “protection” needs along with it some huge change in lower class attitude. ?How do you make them see that they have willingly become the slaves they decry from time to time. Their forefathers were very real slaves in the traditional sense, but they have become the same – to government, and so the ruling class – without quite the same bonds.
Our battle is not merely external, but internal. Totalitarian movements are not just defeated in the ruins of fallen statues and burning palaces, but in the resistance to their messaging in our own minds. By purifying our convictions, we immunize ourselves to tyranny. We become like those great men and women we admired throughout history whose resistance called on an impregnable moral power.
We become firmed in conviction by not giving in to intellectual or emotional manipulation. We do this by rejecting any moral authority on the left whatsoever. We disregard whether the left considers us nice. We cease trying to find common ground with a movement that wants to enslave us.
When we close that door, the left loses its greatest manipulative weapon.
Anyway, read Daniel’s comments here.



Dev, isn’t it *conservatives* – particularly Judeo-Christians – who see the world as warped, wounded, steeped in sin; thus, requiring redemption? Maybe it’s not conservatism, but the ‘country-club’ sort of WASP Republicanism Knish is castigating here…He seems to have it backwards. Progs can be sickly sweet: participation trophies, organic, free-range everything. That’s “nice”. Which means ineffectual and/or useless. Conservatives speak and show truth. More bluntly by the day…Maybe the ‘Country Class’ needs to start showing the ‘country club set’ how it’s done?
That’s the point. If conservatives are so sure of themselves, why do they not have some thing to show for it? Why cannot one state be the example of conservatism & the pride of the nation?
Nanda – I would suggest that sin and redemption is not quite the same as what conservatives practice.
Seems to me that conservatives don’t fight hard and tough. Look at Romney. His approach was to NOT clobber Obama when he had him on the ropes. In the debates he had the chance to shine. He could have clobbered Crowley and done it more nicely that I might, but it would have shown him a good bit tougher and less willing to take guff. His response personifies conservatives all over.
Note how congress is unwilling to pass a repeal of Obamacare. Mitch McConnell could just as easily invoke the Reid rules and make such things a majority vote. He could also get rid of the ridiculous senate rule about “cloture”. If someone wants to filibuster, let them. But make them actually DO it. Else the vote goes on. None of this BS 60 votes rule. The libs were totally willing to do what was necessary, but the conservatives won’t now do the same.
Agree, Dev! But I still think we’re talking ‘country club’ here – not ‘conservative’…Maybe it’s the labels getting in the way? Anyway, we don’t disagree here; count on it. (Still not sure whether Cruz is fighting or feathering his own nest, though. I guess he rubs me the wrong way: He seems “All hat and no cattle” to me.)
Perhaps you have a point. “Conservatives” have long been the establishment. The “others” out there have merely been fodder for them to be elected and then continue on their previous ways.
I like Ted. I think he is unwilling to simply go along to get along. He has been willing to buck the trend and take unpopular stands – at least among the establishment types. Not sure what “feathering his nest” he is doing.
Cruz’ biggest drawback is that the pitch of his voice is a bit grating. His ideas are fine, but he sounds “grating”.
…Maybe more “preening and puffing” – using strategies that put him at the center – whether or not they achieve anything else…I have to say, I admire the nose-to-the-grindstone attitude of Paul Ryan…I’d like to see Carly get somewhere…I s’pose my squeamishness about labels is what made me leave R> in the first place…
Well, I left Rico because they had really terrible “leadership” – if one can even apply that term to them. When things got tough, they acted like they didn’t have a clue.
Don’t really miss it either. Some of the people were interesting, but a lot were mostly not. Kind of miss Simon’s story telling. But this is overall a relatively serious site, perhaps too much so for Simon.
?What is it that you don’t like about Cruz.
He has a sense of show-boating about him; seeking the limelight…engaging in political theater that doesn’t accomplish much…Maybe his time as a prosecutor contributes to this? I have no negative feelings about him as a person. One of Simon’s latter posts included a clip from a sermon by Sen. Cruz’s father – powerful!
I wouldn’t accuse Simon of a complete lack of seriousness…In fact, just the opposite…Prior to that series of deliberately-provocative posts re: the current “Commander-of-Chief” [BHO actually said it.], he gallantly attempted to wake me and others up to current realities: I wasn’t ready for it then, in fact, I was frightened and nearly-despairing. No more. He was right, I was wrong…But he, you, and I all know that our Redeemer lives; and that He asks faithfulness, not success of us…Thus, I can make my efforts – in the company of my Leatherneck and Shipmate brothers and sisters: “S/F”
I agree about the reason to suspect Sen. Cruz. It’s been years: Where are his allies? Whom has he persuaded to join him? Lots of folks do–but they’re not running anything in politics… Politics is about coalitions & alliances. You don’t like the Sen. Maj. Leader? Fine–find somebody else. You don’t like the party organizations? Fine–organize something new. Give Americans some evidence you can do anything!
As for the other part–folks, the situation is not desperate. We do ourselves no favors turning to despair or fear. We need some hope that there is an electoral majority of Americans who share our opinions & who could be persuaded to vote like you even if their reasoning is different–& find means to speak to them.
I do not believe Sen. Cruz is really trying to do that. I do not fault the man so much–I do not believe he is doing much harm, or any lasting harm, nor do I believe he has the wrong intentions. I’m just not sure he gets how politics works.
S/F to you, too, Nanda.
Fair winds and following seas, Dev…I bet Simon could “learn” some among us a thing or two, no? Grin. S/F
I wouldn’t say Simon is unserious. He just may not be interested in the kinds of things Titus talks about, whereas I am fascinated.
Well, maybe we can interest TT in things Leathernecks like, too, no? [Bigger grin]
Actually I think Titus IS interested. He comments positively on some of the old stories I tell. Don’t think he was in service. But then, if he’s in Rumania, being in service would imply being part of the regime or cannon fodder. Military time behind the Iron Curtain was a different experience.
No military service for me. I’ve considered it–what man hasn’t?–but I did not see any options &, yeah, where I’m from there’s no reason to esteem the armed forces. No reason necessarily to hate them, except the general officers &, I suppose, more than a few field officers, who were creatures of the tyranny.
But yeah, I like stories about the American army & I’ve read more than a bit of political history, so I’ve read about armies & wars. My undergrad work in pol.sci was on Xenophon, the greatest ancient general & one of the few philosophers who grew up as friends to Socrates.
Are you guys sure Simon wouldn’t wanna join BDB?
No, I am not at all sure he wouldn’t want to join BDB. But he hasn’t.
You do what you want to do. If he had the inclination to join, he would. We shall see if that becomes real.
So this business with the underclass–it was never really voluntary. Now, it’s kids with no fathers raised by women who are young & uneducated.
You could say, Irish immigrants 150 years ago did not really have it better. That’s not quite true, but there is something to it. But one hopes leaving the weak to suffer, go insane, & start race riots is not the way Americans understand politics anymore…
As for two generations ago, when the welfare state started getting underway–people did not know. They could not know: America was embarking on a new course, with massive bipartisan &, I think, popular support.
Educated people in power should have known better, but they wanted more democracy because that’s what progressives wanted. Aside from all sorts of mistakes & some insane ideas (Progressive racism, for example), progressives are responsible for all sorts of things conservatives now love: Populist measures like recall elections; the civil service as opposed to the previous spoils system. They were people who hated the inefficiency & corruption of government: Conservatives today really do have a lot in common with them–not least the occasional passion for vengeance…
TT, are you referencing so-called “democratically-elected” despots and/or kleptocrats – or other sorts of fanatics? “Democracy” makes an excellent smokescreen, doesn’t it?
(I’ve let Simon know where I am – here with the grownups, just fyi.)
TT; There’s an article re: “fatherless families” as a meme on FB; I’ll see if I can find it again…Will msg a link…Interesting. (Might’ve been from The Federalist?)
I can read the article–thanks for sharing it. I did not understand what your question refers to exactly–to when I said ‘some insane ideas’? Something else?
TT, the article’s from the WSJ: “The Flawed ‘Missing Men’ Theory”; shared a link on your FB timeline…If it’s pay-walled. let me know, and I’ll synopsize for you. Hope it adds to the discussion!
It is behind the paywall, N. but if you google the title you can ofttimes find a go around.
Excerpted from City Journal…
So I read the article. I’m no expert on these matters, so I cannot speak to the numbers. It seems obvious to me that it gets some things right: Social collapse is made of several moving parts the causes of which are obscure: 1. An enormous rise in violent crime in the late 60s & more or less throughout the ’70s. (That in certain cases, like NYC, only peaked actually around 1990.) 2. A gradual, also enormous (threefold at least) rise in fatherlessness–almost three quarters of black kids borng to single mothers now! This is somewhat parallel to the crime problem, but distinct. 3. Massive incarceration–this is obviously a much later phenomenon.
There are also other things to keep in mind, from changing demographics (as people get older, there’s less crime; so also with populations–violent crime, at least, is a young man’s game) to the changing economic situation (I don’t know how various poor communities got poorer or richer in the last two generations; talking about the poor as a category is problematic, given all the poor immigrants who are a new demographic, to say nothing of the changes in the poor communities already in America.)
*
I’m not sure what can be done about these things. It seems obvious, where crime is a great problem, the sort of policing made famous in NYC should be studied & applied wherever it seems likely to succeed. But that does not change political facts. The communities that faced the awful slaughters of the 70s-90s in NYC did not changes their opinions & votes, did they? The massive improvements in those bad neighborhoods once violent crime was reduced enormously were not accompanied by any significant voting changes, were they?
So this means that the political basis of policy changes is really unreliable & this makes pol.sci talk somewhat deceptive. Good policies do not matter if they cannot be installed, implemented, & improved & maintained…
*
Then there is another problem. Americans have to deal with the terrible stuff that goes on among the underclass now. What are some good ideas to deal with this problem? People are born into that world & live there–they have no other world to view so they can change their worldview…
TT, the ‘underclass’ descriptor brought the article to mind – and the bandwagon concentration on “absent fathers”. Excuse the lack of clarity.
And so we get back to the original posting – worldview and its importance.
Progressives have held their worldview with clenched hands. Nothing and no one will shake them, short of a significant shift in the culture they have mostly developed. I was talking today with a Marine friend after a luncheon. What we came to was that the culture of the nation has shifted. When we were kids, there was an expected standard of behavior. Today one could say there are no standards of any kind. Pretty much anything goes. Bob remarked that back in his early days as a copper, he and a priest and DA would enter a store and peruse the books. If they found even one with the word “F…” in it, Bob would promptly march the owner off in handcuffs for publishing smut. Today that word, outside of the Marine Corps where it has long been a mere punctuation mark, has now gained common usage – public or private. Sex has increased its appearance – in movies, books, pictures, stage performances, beaches, videos, posters, publications, etc. It is now ubiquitous.
The problem with all this is that the modern “worldview”, the worldview of the progressives, has no underpinning but government. And government is by nature fickle. So the explosion of single motherhood has led, IMO, to the creation of the feral male. With no male example to civilize them, males act feral. They revert to the basest behavior of jungle rule. Along with this comes rule of the strongest, and legitimizing the value of women. They now become all “ho’s”.
No need to apologize! I agree that the blame for fatherlessness is not primarily the states’ or the feds’, in re drugs. But the fact remains. That is how kids grow up & what communities are like…