House of Eratosthenes

Reader cylarz wants our reaction to this guy‘s analysis of the upcoming elections in ’10 and ’12. And it would appear the interest is focused on this particular passage:

Given that two of my three predictions were wrong, it’s safe to say I suck at analysis. Which is actually good news because I don’t see the Republicans taking the House next year, and I can see Chairman Zero handily winning re-election. I’d only say all three races – NJ, VA, and NY-23 – have lessons in them for Republicans. 1. Connect conservative positions to practical policies that solve problems. 2. Choose candidates that appeal to the base.

My reaction? Good blog. I like it. It’s heading straight to the sidebar.

Regarding “Basically God” and His ability to win re-election in ’12, with a healthy reinforcing of His mandate in ’10, I would have to say…agree, with the “I can see” part of it. In fact, my opinion is going to be that if Republicans just dedicated themselves to running exactly the ticket they ran last year, from now until the end of time, then Holy Man will spend that eternity just beating ’em like a drum over and over again.

Why? Because the contender that was run a year ago was democrat-lite. The message was “We’re like those other guys in some ways, but not in other ways…but trust us, we’ve borrowed from all the parts of them you happen to like, and we’re different from them in all the ways you don’t like, or at least if you knew what you were doing you wouldn’t like it.”

It turned — it will turn into — a “Better the Devil You Know” thing. Yeah that’s right. Enjoying a greater opportunity to run for President and remain secretive about His policies at the same time, than anyone else since perhaps the founding of the nation…Barack Obama emerged as “The Devil You Know.” It’s not Him, it’s us. The way we’re put together. When we’re confused about our options and feel we don’t have the time or the inclination to learn about them, we look around and look at what everyone else is doing, then do that.

Most folks who’ve been to school practiced this pretty consistently from first grade through twelfth.

The advice that comes from “Teh Resitance” makes good sense. Appeal to the base first.

I can already hear the moans and groans. There’s Rick Moran and David Frum, both pretending to represent lots of people they really don’t represent…”but that’s not incluuuuuuusive!” And there’s this other long-time reader we have who has expressed a similar concern on more than one occasion. Newt Gingrich has joined them lately. They say if people are driven out of the party, the party’s numbers will dwindle and it will remain a loser party forever. If it at least makes the effort to reach across, then maybe the magic of the Reagan Democrats can be allowed to work once again.

Yeah, I remember Reagan. You know what stood out about Reagan? He was a real leader and it showed. If the bureaucracy said one thing and Reagan said something else, Reagan would decide things Reagan’s way. And no, it wasn’t Nancy’s astrologist deciding things, it was Ronald, and the result wasn’t unpredictable. It was the opposite. Ronald Reagan was going to do what Ronald Reagan said Ronald Reagan was going to do.

Folks, those days are gone. The bureaucracy has gotten much tougher; the American bureaucracy, as well as the party bureaucracy within the Republican and democrat parties. This machinery is m-u-c-h tougher than any of the individuals we have seen.

And the individuals aren’t even promising anything like this. Those who claim to be “moderate,” on both sides, are the very worst at this. John McCain, I think, is perhaps one of the best illustrations of the problem. Yes, he’d be a “maverick” and he’d decide things in a way that would tick off conservatives as well as liberals…he’d decide in whatever way made sense. Whatever made sense to John McCain. Predictable? Nah, not hardly. On abortion, maybe. Principled? Sad to say, no. “Why would you raise taxes on anyone in this economy?” was one of his golden moments. But he didn’t take it into The Smoke-Filled Cloakroom Where Things Are Decided…when it came time to have those meetings about bailouts & such. Nope, for just a few minutes Keynesian economics made perfect sense. They made sense to John. That was all maverick-y and so forth, but it wasn’t principled.

And so it goes with the whole stinkin’ lot of ’em. John Kerry would be the next-best example. His speeches were nothing more than rationales. Sen. Kerry already figured out what he wanted to do about this, that or the other…God only knows how. And then he showed off his remarkable talent at giving a speech to make whatever it was sound somewhat appealing. To morons, anyway. Different John, same story. Good ol’ John, he figured out this dry, boring subject matter that I can’t watch or read for too long, and now he knows what to do so I don’t need to worry about the details. Trust John. There must be something about that name.

John Kerry lost the election to the incumbent President…who, although his popularity was already in a decline, was for the most part predictable in how he would decide this matter or that one. You might not agree with what he was going to do, but you pretty much knew what it was. So 2004 was another “Devil You Know” election.

If Republicans buy into the nonsense about “you guys are just so un-hip right now” and go all centrist-y, they will do so to the detriment of their identity and become “The Devil You Don’t Know.” They’ll start to look like Charles Durning doing his dance in The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas. That’s a great way to hang on to a seat once you’ve got it, but it’s a lousy way to try & get in.

When you’re trying to get in, people want to know what you’re going to do. When you’re a “moderate,” it means you use your own “common sense for each decision that comes down the line”…which sounds good, but it also means people don’t know what you’re going to do. Plus, the other guy, being the incumbent, enjoys an attribute of familiarity.

So in that scenario, President Obama enjoys the incumbency and the familiarity that goes with it. Plus He’ll still have oodles and oodles of that charisma-or-whatever. So the blogger would be right then.

But here’s a question for the moderates and reach-across guys: Can you name one single issue which is a better example than all the others of how this reaching-across will work? Don’t tell me…let me guess…same-sex marriage, right? If Republicans will just roll over and get behind marriage-definition-creep, why, the homosexuals and activists and sympathizers will just desert the democrat party in droves! Right? You’ll win them over with the “We vote that way too” move.

Wake up, fellas. Seriously. Attempts have now been made to legalize same-sex marriage in…I dunno how many states by now. More than twenty I think. The score is oh-for-whatever. The states that allow it, have been strong-armed into allowing it by their court systems. Thus ends that argument. This is not a political loser for Republicans, and it damn sure isn’t a way for Republicans to pick up “Reagan Democrats” by pretending to be something they aren’t. That wouldn’t work any better in ’10 and ’12 than it did in ’08.

Such a strategy would necessarily argue the following: “We think we look more appealing than that other guy, when we pick out the elements to our party you’ll find abhorrent, and take steps to hide them from you.” That simply isn’t persuasive.

I’ll tell you what will be persuasive, though: Principled policies. Don’t just appeal to the base; put the base in charge, and start with an honest and decent respect to the individual. Tell people how you’ll let them keep more of their — not just money, but — autonomy. To make their decisions and live their lives.

Talk some more about cause-and-effect: When you let people negotiate their own transactions, the economy takes off. When you handcuff them with a lot of nonsensical rules, when you take their money away and channel it into hairbrained Keynesian scemes, the economy sputters and dies.

People lose interest in cause-and-effect when they can afford to. In 2008, things had just turned sour,but people could still afford to do this. In 2010 and 2012, we’ll all be much more interested in cause-and-effect.

Take advantage of that, and the blogger will be wrong. The campaign slogan should be something to the effect of “When you sacrifice all else to be popular, you fail at everything including that.” Is that too long? Probably…because I came up with it myself. So let’s steal one: Elections Have Consequences — there, that’s perfect.

Don’t show Barack Obama as stupid, or weak…since He isn’t. The criticism toward Obama should be that He is an extraordinarily competent and polished packaging of all the ideas we don’t need right now. Talk about Swindle-Us packages; talk about the Fort Hood massacre, show some video clips of Holy Man’s reaction to it, and discuss how political correctness hurts real people. Talk about Afghanistan. Explore the difference between thinking like a toddler, and thinking like a grown-up. Underscore the point with footage of indoctrinated youths singing songs of worship to He Who Argues With The Dictionaries. Talk about things leading to other things, and you have to think with some maturity in order to see it. This is the problem with Obama. He represents a departure from adult thinking, and this country needs now like never before to engage in adult thinking.

In my mind’s eye, I see video of small businesses putting “NO HELP WANTED” signs in their windows, with “The Candyman Can” playing as background music. But the final note should always be optimistic. Optimistic and sincere. Thinking like a baby got us into this fix, thinking like a grown-up will get us out.

The whole argument has a way of relegating the marriage issue to back-seat status, doesn’t it?

Cross-posted at Cassy.

[…] Cross-posted at House of Eratosthenes. […]
- Cassy Fiano » Irony and Lessons Learned | 11/12/2009 @ 07:54
Thanks for taking the question, Morgan. I’m a bit disappointed to see that you didn’t simply say, “BOLLOCKS! Obama is toast, and we ARE taking back the Congress next year, no two ways about it.” (I was also disappointed that your cross-posted article hasn’t generated any comments at Cassy’s site.)

On further review, however, your analysis is spot-on. If we don’t knock it off with the Democrat-Lite crap, we’ll never get back into power. Why would people vote for that when they can have the real thing by marking an inch further down on their ballot?

Seriously. How complicated is this? Why do only a handful of elected GOP politicians (Palin, Sen DeMint, etc) seem to “get it?” The Left is going to sling its ridiculous slurs at us no matter what we do. Might as well just come out and advocate unapologetically for smaller government, instead of continually watering-down our message.

The future of our party – and the nation – depends on nothing less.
- cylarz | 11/13/2009 @ 01:35
One more thing, Morgan. The blogger who runs Teh Resistance (known only as “Gregory of Yardale”) doesn’t actually post there much anymore. Instead, he does most of his writing over at http://www.moonbattery.com, along with Van Helsing and someone named The Mary Hunter. If you want to link to Gregory, you’re better off putting that site in your sidebar instead of Teh Resistance.
- cylarz | 11/13/2009 @ 01:37

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Irony and Lessons LearnedThursday, November 12th, 2009

Irony and Lessons Learned
Thursday, November 12th, 2009