House of Eratosthenes

There are several reasons why, already. This one is just icing on the cake, but all by itself it would be sufficient cause: They are not held to standards. Of any kind. Ethical, character, effectiveness, purity of motive…”truthiness”…sanity.

Seriously. Republicans are bludgeoned into stepping down because of teaspons of scandal, while democrats regularly imbibe gallons and barrels of the same stuff and manage to limp onward. It’s become such a regular event nobody bats an eyelash over it anymore.

The latest factor is that last one in my list, the sanity. The lack thereof. The becoming “unhinged.” Things are expected of conservatives that are not being expected of our liberals — but what else is news?

Leftist hypocrisy and the championing of same by the media

Glenn Reynolds, with brevity and brilliance:

So we’ve had nearly 8 years of lefty assassination fantasies about George W. Bush, and Bill Ayers’ bombing campaign is explained away as a consequence of him having just felt so strongly about social justice, but a few people yell things at McCain rallies and suddenly it’s a sign that anger is out of control in American politics? It’s nice of McCain to try to tamp that down, and James Taranto sounds a proper cautionary note — but, please, can we also note the staggering level of hypocrisy here? (And that’s before we get to the Obama campaign’s thuggish tactics aimed at silencing critics.)

The Angry Left has gotten away with all sorts of beyond-the-pale behavior throughout the Bush Administration. The double standards involved — particularly on the part of the press — are what are feeding this anger. (Indeed, as Ann Althouse and John Leo have noted, the reporting on this very issue is dubious). So while asking for McCain supporters to chill a bit, can we also ask the press to start doing its job rather than openly shilling for a Democratic victory? Self-control is for everybody, if it’s for anybody…

Blogger pal Rick goes on to observe, with linky goodness…

I continue to see the ignoring of Barack Obama’s past associations while those same people unashamedly focus on Sarah Palin’s.
:
It’s enough to set anyone’s teeth on edge and yet, no matter how upset or angry I might get, you’ll not see me wishing for the kinds of things the left have wished on Bush and Cheney now for the better part of 8 years.

Conservatives are simply tethered to a shorter leash. Liberals want it that way, so we give ’em what they want and then call it balanced thinking.

You know how we get here? The ripcord that puts all this machinery in motion, is an elite group claiming an exclusive privilege to whine. The feminists got it going first. Thirty years ago, they “backlashed” against any mens’-rights advocate by broadbrushing any objections to the radical feminist movement, as “whining.” They asked men to be intimidated by accusations of whining…men, not wanting to be accused of whining, complied. Now it’s three decades later. The feminist movement fails sometimes, succeeds at other times, but throughout it all nobody who possesses a high profile or a reputation worth defending, will ever call them out on their crap.

And so — if you’re getting divorced and you’re a dude, you can lose custody of your kids just for…nothing. Heck, you should want to lose custody of your kids because “kids are better off with the mother.” But if you’re a chick, you have to be engaging in some pretty hard drugs to lose custody of your kids. It’s about the most uneven playing field our society has, and it’s still going strong. Shows no signs of leveling out…not soon…not in my lifetime…not ever.

Who can blame liberal democrats for wanting to try the same thing?

And so conservative Republicans, if they dare utter a peep of protest about how things are getting covered in the media, are “whining.” Therefore any double standard that comes down the pike is allowed to stand. Oh sure, it’s criticized here-and-there in the “blogosphere” but by and large, the double standard survives unscathed. And so, a conservative Republican politician cheating on his wife is a scandal, potentially a career-ending one. Probably a career-ending one. Liberal democrats can cheat all they want…they get a scandal, maybe…they act like they’re suffering…but at the end of it their approval numbers go up.

The same goes for being unhinged. Some group comes out with a death threat, and suddenly we have to wring our hands together and indulge in platitudinous bullshit about “well, we don’t know for sure that’s connected with the Obama campaign…” Do we behave the same when someone, somewhere, says something “beyond the pale” about a democrat candidate? No, we don’t. Republicans have to apologize for everything, everywhere, all the time. It’s all connected together by implication.

My favorite example: George W. Bush’s campaign, and specifically Karl Rove, was behind this rumor that John McCain conceived a black child out of wedlock. So far as I’ve come to be aware, nobody knows about that. One way or t’other. In 2008, that is being reported as a fact, that the Bush campaign was behind it.

Somebody does something ugly to advance the liberal-democrat cause, and all of a sudden nothing is connected to anything else.

They are standard-less. They are no-accounts. What may be even worse is, they are no-accounts because that is what they want to be. What may be even worse than that is…they want to be unaccountable, because they want to win. And they say so little about what it is they want to do after they win.

We should just fire every single one right now, just for being one. In a country that prides itself on holding powerful public officials up to high standards — that was founded on the principle that it should do this, always, all the time, unrelentingly — they simply have no place here.

Thing I Know #237. Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference between being held accountable to a higher standard, which is an act of love, and being staked to the ground by a shorter leash, which is an act of hate. There aren’t too many ways to distinguish these things. I do know of one: Love is reserved for individuals. A class can’t be loved.

Two, connected thoughts. Civilization doesn’t work unless you follow the rules when no one is watching, and when they don’t help you. Republicans, as the party of Civilization, will of course, be holding themselves to a high standard. Democrats, the ones burning to bring back the Tribe, are not so bound. Second, one of the first lessons Civilization learned was “Crying Wolf” is bad. Republicans have internalized this lesson(although many seem to have lost it this election cycle….) and are careful in their accusations. Short term gains will be overwhelmed by the Long term losses. For Democrats, there is only the “Now” of the tribe. Every battle is the final battle. It is always “year one”. So “Crying Wolf” will be a favored tactic of the Left, and there’s not much you can do about that.
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 10/12/2008 @ 13:29
For Democrats, there is only the “Now” of the tribe. Every battle is the final battle. It is always “year one”. So “Crying Wolf” will be a favored tactic of the Left, and there’s not much you can do about that.

Good points. Partially disagree with the “not much you can do.”

Since there are built-in consequences to “crying wolf,” Republicans can always plow some sweat & elbow grease into exacerbating those. They’ve been negligent here. That the Republicans are the puppet representatives of some sinister corporate shadow-government of “wear neckties at midnight” TV-movie-bad-guy cabal, is a trope thoroughly worn down since Watergate. If it were a menacing dragon, it would be exceptionally thin on scaly armor and exceptionally thick on bloated defenseless underbelly.

The democrat party is the party of lawyers; most folks place lawyers on a lesser footing than the necktie-at-midnight corporate CEO type nowadays. Strike at that underbelly already.
- mkfreeberg | 10/12/2008 @ 13:43
The problem is, the consequences to “crying wolf” are not being ready when the wolf comes. A good example of that would be the current bailout. How much of it’s impact was lost because the markets weren’t sure Congress was serious? How much harm was done because the Republicans didn’t believe the Democrats were serious? I’m not sure the bailout was the right thing to do, but I am sure that the situation called for a steady hand, and we got a fight for the knife. The only real solution I can see to “crying wolf” is to treat those people as cheaters, and remove them from the game. I’m not ready to do that yet, and I don’t think you are either. Which is why I don’t think there is much we can do.
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 10/12/2008 @ 13:53
Thanks for link Morgan…

I ask a question as I watch this exchange in the comments.

At what point are the cheaters removed from the game?
- Ricksteroni | 10/12/2008 @ 14:26
Well, that’s the trick. When the cheaters are removed, the game is over. There will be a variable time of anarchy before a new game is started, we hope. Which is why I am not ready to remove the cheaters yet……
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 10/12/2008 @ 16:13
I’m seeing more and more “Who’s John Galt?” type stuff around now. Conservative frustration is palpable. Putting the Democrats in charge doesn’t seem like the best way to end their plans for forced collectivism, though.
- JohnJ | 10/12/2008 @ 18:02
We are the majority party, or would be if not for the clarion call of “John Galt”. Conservatives have gotten frustrated before, the problem is that they don’t play harder, they leave the game. That’s what fanning Conservative anger is counterproductive, the demand for purity comes to the front, and a new stillborn political party is formed. The other problem with conservative anger is the weird “Judge Dredd” trait many conservatives show when under stress. The Democrats have this great scam, where they pass vile laws, and then get voters by helping people who are getting hurt by the laws they passed. Look at illegal immigration, a problem caused by Ted Kennedy and the racist quotas he made law. Two ways to solve the problem. One, help people immigrate legally, and take every chance to crush the Evil, Racist, Corrupt INS. Watch them like a hawk, sue at the drop of a hat, generally make an INS job the worst in government. This would make you friends with a bunch of new citizens, and prove your “smaller government” street cred. Or, you could try to do the government’s storm trooper job for the Democrats. The Law is the Law, you know, and Illegal is Illegal. Complain about walls that need to be built, form groups to catch illegals, and report them. This would make enemies of new citizens, and put teeth in the lie that Republicans are “Nazis”. Guess which solution the Stupid party chose? Leave the anger to the Democrats, it doesn’t help our side.
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 10/12/2008 @ 18:36
We are the majority party, or would be if not for the clarion call of “John Galt”. Conservatives have gotten frustrated before, the problem is that they don’t play harder, they leave the game. That’s what fanning Conservative anger is counterproductive, the demand for purity comes to the front, and a new stillborn political party is formed. The other problem with conservative anger is the weird “Judge Dredd” trait many conservatives show when under stress. The Democrats have this great scam, where they pass vile laws, and then get voters by helping people who are getting hurt by the laws they passed.

Well said.

Trouble is, though, it seems to me this “great scam” is dependent on help from the Republicans to work. The democrat party wanted to force banks to make bad mortgages. Now everyone’s going to get hurt by it. The Republican narrative ought to be, then, “We gave the democrat party what they wanted in ’78, then we gave them what they wanted in ’95, now there’s trillions of dollars missing we’ll never get back…let’s follow Will Roger’s (democrat, btw) advice and quit digging.”

Here’s what I see happening, Bob. Republicans meet in some smoky backroom with democrats somewhere; the democrats say “You know and we know this is all our fault, but you’ll never sell that.” And the Republicans say “Crickey! They’re right!” Then they reform the Republican platform into democrat-lite. Enter your John Galt stillborn parties. Republicans then lose elections…then the party loyalists blame the John Galt parties.

That’s just not right. The JG parties are a symptom, not a cause. And you can’t fault the electorate for refusing to make a choice, that’s already been taken away from them in the first place.

To my way of thinking, the blame all lies with the Republican cloakroom negotiators. When they’re told “you’ll never sell it to the American People that this is all our fault, even though it is” — their response should be two words: “Prove it!” Give the electorate a choice for them to make, they’ll make the right one, every time.
- mkfreeberg | 10/12/2008 @ 19:03
The only help from Republicans the scam needs to work is for Republicans to not respond first. Conservatives are too prone to sitting back and letting people get what they deserve. Great fun, and just, but bad politics. “I told you so” has never made friends. That is Bush’s genius, that he rarely blames anyone, he comes up with a solution, far more conservative then anything the Democrats would ever come up with.

As to the “smoky backroom”, we should be so lucky. We are not that organized. No, a mess happens, a quarter of the party wants to do nothing, a quarter of the parry wants to blame the Democrats(five will get you ten it was the Democrat’s flame), a quarter wants to work with the Democrats, because it’s important, this time, and a quarter is undecided, and the other quarters get into a fight courting the undecideds. We have never been good at lockstep. That’s a Leftist game.

As to “selling it to the American People”, it’s been tried before, and is being tried now. But the Leftists have almost complete control of the Media. There’s only so much time in the day, and if you spend it fighting the press, you’ll have no time to do anything else.

The JG parties are a big cause of our current problems. If they all came back to the Republicans, we would have a big enough majority that we could afford to loss 10% on a vote, which we haven’t been able to do. Since Republicans are so much harder to “pay off”, we need a larger majority then the Democrats do. The people who form JG parties are knowledgeable about politics, they know the system is winner take all, why shouldn’t I blame them for throwing elections to Socialists? They treat politics like a restaurant, and throw tantrums when the meal isn’t just so. “I’ll never eat here again!”.
Politics is pot luck/barbecue. If you want to get a particular dish, start cooking early, and often. Remember Perot? We had to eat a bunch of “pudding” because “John Galt” Perot split the vote and got Clinton elected, twice. I don’t like eating “pudding”. If the Right offers three choices, and the Left offers one, the Left will win every time. The cold equations say “winner take all”.
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 10/12/2008 @ 20:12
You’re right about the Republicans not being good at lock-step. That’s the price of standing up for order. The democrat party can afford to work by increments, AND to march in lockstep together, because they stand for chaos, not order.

Suppose the situation is we’re considering complete socialism. Calculate the number of adults in the country, figure up the number of dollars in assets in debt, and divide accordingly. The democrat party says let’s do it, the Republican position says, let’s not. A “Great Compromiser” emerges from the Republican ranks and says hey…let’s do it halfway! Rich people give up half their stuff, they still have the other half. Rich people are therefore still somewhat rich…poor people are still somewhat poor. What a great compromise!

(That’s pretty much exactly what the bailout was.)

The point is, here as well as in many other areas, those who pitch the “compromise” illustrate with their proposed compromise that they’ve completely missed the point. Somewhere lately (can’t remember where at the moment) I scribbled down the idea that the parties are too meaningfully divided and compromise between the two of them is nonsensical — it’s a compromise between life and death. Overall, we’re looking at one side saying “People who earned what they have should be able to keep it” and the other side saying “no, they shouldn’t.” Now seriously, how do you find a middle ground between those two. You don’t. Not really.

So, again, your John Galt parties are not a cause. They are a symptom. They are what happens, when the party bosses give away the substance, and try to keep the packaging. They think the electorate is more easily fooled than it really is.
- mkfreeberg | 10/12/2008 @ 21:30
You are so close when you speak of us not being good at lock-step. Then you start talking about “party bosses”. We don’t have those, the Democrats do. We don’t a a “Great Compromiser”, we get a couple of our razor slim coalition split off for various reasons. He thinks it’s a good idea, his voters think it’s a good idea, the Democrats are protecting a vital industry in his state, something. When we try to fight back, we are too pure to touch the base clay. We suck at earmarks(lost congress over that one. Good job guys!). We suck at logrolling. I know you don’t like this things. I don’t like them either. But you need dirty, smelly, grease to keep any machine going. Too many Republicans have swore off grease, and either stop getting involved in politics or form John Galt parties. Too many knights tilting at windmills, and no Sanchos on the horizon. Someone has to herd the cats. We need a Great Compromiser, but if he showed up, he would be drummed out of the party as a RINO. We don’t have a parliamentary system, you have to form your coalition inside the party. We have plenty of Oaks. We need some Reeds. And the electorate is 300 million + strong, and divided on every issue. Don’t have to fool all of them, just some. That’s why the Democrats are still driving.
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 10/12/2008 @ 21:48
So in the “Gang o’Fourteen” situation, isn’t McCain exactly the kind of “razor slim coalition split off” you’re talking about? Seems to me that’s a mathematically supportable way of looking at the situation.

I don’t understand how Republican orthodoxy continues to be re-defined as faux-democrat. Why aren’t the stalwarts, the orthodoxy? Who made this rule that anyone stalwart, on the Republican side, has to be a fringe kook? In Gang o’Fourteen — and with the bailout — the fringe kooks were the ones who reached across the aisle. That’s the point I’m making, sometimes a compromise is nothing more than a Frankenstein-monster bastardization. We’re living in an age in which the chickens of socialism are coming home to roost, so to forsake socialism entirely would be a winning proposition. And I think it would be. The cause-and-effect lines are so easy to draw right now with this latest crisis. In our lifetimes, I don’t think the message will ever be easier to express.
- mkfreeberg | 10/12/2008 @ 22:03
Republicans aren’t good at lock-step marching because Republicans are the party of individual freedom. That does not tend to work well with lock-step marching. The John Galt purists are having a really difficult time understanding that progress is incremental. Many people don’t seem to understand that socialism can be incrementally deconstructed. It’s theoretically possible, of course, although I suppose it may not be realistic. Unfortunately, the only other alternative is to destroy the system and rebuild. I guess we’ll find out come November whether or not the system will have to be destroyed. I know that I’m ready to shrug, to the degree that law school allows me.

Of course Republicans have party bosses. Republicans are factionalized in a very different way than Democrats are. Democrats have a much different social consciousness that I think you’ve summarized pretty well, Freeburg.

Republicans didn’t lose Congress over earmarks. If that were true, Democrats would lose Congress this year. And McCain is a “Great Compromiser” (though there are other, more derogatory terms for that). And many conservatives did try to run him out as a RINO.

Let me try to put it another way: While all progress is a form of compromise, not all compromises are progress. Just because some compromises are bad doesn’t mean all compromises are bad. That’s what our John Galt purists need to learn.
- JohnJ | 10/12/2008 @ 22:29
Republicans don’t have Party bosses in the sense of giving orders. The Democrats do, because they have control of the bureaucracy, and can crush those who get out of line. Other then that, Amen, brother!
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 10/12/2008 @ 23:28
Republicans, standing up for principle (people wealthier than you should keep their stuff even if it makes you mad), treat those who betray the principle at the expense of “compromise” as if they’re the orthodoxy, and those who consistently uphold the principle as fringe kooks. democrats, on the other hand, stand for anarchy and do not stand for principles. They treat those who consistently uphold the anarchy as the orthodoxy…and those who betray the anarchy at the expense of “compromise” with the Republicans, as fringe kooks.

One of many things in life that, if it worked completely 180 degrees backward from the way it does, would make much more sense.

Dr. Helen has raised the question — what if you really do want to become John Galt? How do you get that done? Legally? — over here.
- mkfreeberg | 10/13/2008 @ 09:54

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

We Should Fire Every democrat Right NowSunday, October 12th, 2008

We Should Fire Every democrat Right Now
Sunday, October 12th, 2008