Cutting Off Your Gangrenous Nose To Spite Your Hemorrhoids
By Mitch Berg
A number of people – from insufficiently-perceptive stalkerbloggers to people in my comment section – have reacted to my statement on the NARN last weekend that “defeating RINOs is almost more important than defeating DFLers”.
Some commentators have spun that, in their invincible ignorance, to read like an either-or scenario. It’s not, of course. Far from it; for the GOP to win, it has to provide an alternative to the DFL. Republicans who are indistinguishable from DFLers – as Rep. Peterson, who voted with the DFL 52% of the time – are not; they provide no alternative to the DFL, and indeed one would be hard put to answer the question “if Peterson were a DFLer, what would be different?”
Put another way – if it were revealed that the way for the GOP to pick up an additional 10% come election time was to embrace higher taxes, more intrusive government, abortion on demand, gun control and a continued state monopoly on education, would we?
No. The future of the GOP is to provide an alternative to the dominant vision of poltiics in this state.
Commenter MarianneS notes in my comments:
You’re right, of course, in that the viability of the GOP requires brand dependability, basic core principles the general public can come to rely on.
That’s right. The fringe benefit of providing the alternative tp the stultifying “moderate”/leftist vision is that it is, in the end, the only way to really affect politics in this state; the odd RINO may or may not win an election, sure – but when the party as a whole acts like Tics with better suits – the sixties, seventies, eighties, early nineties, and 2006 – we not only lose, but we become irrelevant.
Any chance you’d care to extrapolate that to the presidential race?
I tried!
Look – I’ll cop to it. I’m idealistically ideological, and pull like hell to pull the rope in the great electoral tug of war as far to the right as I can, on every issue.
But I think people need to balance their ideology and their idealism with some pragmatism. I’d have vastly preferred Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney to be the GOP standard-bearer at this point – but that’s not the way the break broke. We’ve got McCain – an imperfect conservative, to be sure (although not quite as imperfect as some of the more hysterical Republican commentators would have him; as bad has he is on immigration, immigration is not the only issue), but incomparably better on every single issue than the alternatives. The utility of a protest vote needs to be balanced against the fact that there’ll be three Supreme Court seats opening up – and if Hillary or Obama wins, they’ll go to a French transgender-issues theorist, a Ghanaian Maoist and Dennis Kucinich.
I’m not sure that I’d even say “holding my nose” applies to my support for John McCain – although I, and every conservative within the sound of my voice, should be working overtime to ensure Mac knows which way the wind really does blow in the party.
Some commentators have tittered and asked that since Marty Seifert – the best GOP leader we’ve had in the legislature in forever – is publicly supporting Representative Tingelstad, so why am I being such a hard-liner on the Override Six? It’s simple; Seifert’s job is to lead a party caucus; it’d be very bad form for him to be tossing his team – as crummy a bunch of teammates as they may be – under the bus. There are people in the party whose job it is to toss her under the bus – her district’s delegates. And they have done their job. As to the appeal to authority? Please. If I were wired to yell “off what?” every time a party leader says “jump”, I”d be a DFLer.
So to summarize: we need to expunge the RINOs – not instead of beating the DFL, but so that we can do it more effectively. Elections are the here and now – the party is the future. Individual elections are games; the party is the rules, our coach, and our team spirit all rolled into one.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:59 am
JMac isn’t quite as liberal as you’d think he is. And with some exceptions, he’s right on the non-negotiables.
What’s more entertaining (or disturbing) is watching the Democrats, who in the past supported the “maverick Republican” go nuts in attacking and defaming the Senator from Arizona.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Look – I’ll cop to it. I’m idealistically ideological, and pull like hell to pull the rope in the great electoral tug of war as far to the right as I can, on every issue.-
Well, except on Abortion and Capital Punishment.. but based on the above statement, I’m not quite sure how you could EVER describe yourself as “Center right” – you clearly are – using your words.. as far to the right as you can get things to be.
In all seriousness (outside the subterfuge of describing yourself as center-right – which I’ll equate to RINO)… the policies you advocate have and will return the US to a country more like what it was in 1890 than 1950. Take all the rhetoric aside about side issues, the great tug of war you describe has been about taxation and regulation, and in that, taxation on the wealthy, and regulation of business. Taxes on the middle class have been slightly lowered since 1980, but not significantly, yet they’ve been cut by more than half on the wealthy. The one observable reality has been an explosion in the numbers of ultra-wealthy, while the ‘rising tide lifting all boats’ hasn’t, for a moment, occured. Whether cutting taxes on the wealthy resulted in that explosion you might or might not debate – but as far as policies go, we’ve cut discretionary spending and support for the middle class since 1980, and since GWB, used the federal treasury as an on-going loan to large multinationals – other than that, policies, expenditures, etc.. haven’t changed much – outside regulation, where regulation has been greatly curtailed – especially in the area of labor law – by the lack of enforcement. Union membership has fallen to 11%, from 33% in 1978, of the total population of workers. Labor negotiating power has fallen along with it (both organized and individual), and real wealth and pay has fallen, while the assets and income of the upper 1% exploded.
Boiling the words away Mitch, the policies you advocate have been pursued for nearly 30 years, and in nearly every measure for the working man, the consequence has been a degredation in income, free time, educational access, enviornmental and infrastructural health – but hey, we pay about 4% less in taxes..great.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:43 am
That’s right, wingnuts. It’s your awesome kooky right-wing ideas that will get people to vote for you! Ban abortion, low taxes – heck, no taxes! No government services except war-making. Guns for all and compulsory Jesus-worship in school. Two wars – hey, lets make it three!
So get out there and kill those so-called “moderate” RINOs. We need real wingnuts: popular guys like Newt, Bob Barr, Tom DeLay. That’s the ticket!
May 6th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Bob Barr: 4 term congressman.
Tom Delay: 10 term congressman
Newt Gingrich: 10 term congressman
I guess if the clown don’t like’em, they ain’t popular!
May 6th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Well, except on Abortion and Capital Punishment..
I am pro-life, and I oppose Capital Punishment for reasons that I find fundamentally conservative.
I’m not quite sure how you could EVER describe yourself as “Center right” – you clearly are – using your words.. as far to the right as you can get things to be.
Where “Center Right” is a mnemonic for a fairly detailed worldview, while “pulling the rope to the right” is a quick analogy that doesn’t pretend to go into deep ideological detail.
In all seriousness (outside the subterfuge of describing yourself as center-right – which I’ll equate to RINO)…
…wrongly…
the policies you advocate have and will return the US to a country more like what it was in 1890 than 1950.
Rubbish. Nobody’s talking about repealing voting rights, women’s suffrage, rolling back civil liberties. The present day has its salutary benefits – and conservatism is all about keeping the parts of the past that are proven, trustworthy, and worth carrying forward. And rejecting the rest.
The one observable reality has been an explosion in the numbers of ultra-wealthy, while the ‘rising tide lifting all boats’ hasn’t, for a moment, occured.
Untrue. Mobility upward through and out of the lowest quintile of income has accelerated greatly in the past thirty years.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:41 am
People have a problem with you on this, Mitch???
May 6th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Amnesty Jmac is scheduled to speak with La Raza (The Race). I don’t think he will be getting tough on immigration there. As this campaign continues he will drift leftward because he sees conservatives as having no alternative. Not just on amnesty but look for leftward leanings on nearly every issue before this race is over.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Sen. McCain is right, in that conservatives do NOT have another choice, as much as the more blinded-by-ideology among us might believe otherwise. The Democrats are going so far to the left that they leave plenty of room for McCain to capture the vast (“unprincipled”) middle of the electorate. Complain if you want, but from where I sit it’s all good.
Mitch, I will disagree on one thing. I would rather have a 48% Republican than a Democrat, if that was my only choice, particularly if that 1 Republican was the difference between minority and majority status, which ALL of the seats really are. Having the majority means controlling the agenda, which matters greatly. Having the majority tends to draw the “weaker” partisans along with the majority. Having a BIG majority means you don’t care if a few of them fall off on a few votes.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
J,
I agree about elections and the case-by-case determination who’s best.
But now – caucus and primary season – is the time to try to shoot for better than 48%. It’s time time to try to drive the party’s agenda toward the right. And in many races, that’s what’s happening.
Now, there’s the little matter of getting conservatives as well as their message out to work for these people.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Mitch, you can say “rubbish” but people with a great deal more economic savvy and expertise than you are saying EXACTLY what has been said. I didn’t talk about the lowest quintile, you framed the debate to that, when it NEVER was that. I gave you specific examples, and those examples are factually irrefutable. Median wages are flat, and when things that are off the CPI are imputed, median wages fell, for all but the highest 10%, and that was only dragged up by the richest 1% by and large.
Let’s stay on point,mmkay. Also, there is no such thing as being center-right in a world view that also aligns with your avowedly radically right stance on all other issues. Your views on the world stage are no less right-wing, and you DON’T caveat your ‘center-right’ commentary to say ‘it applies to a worldview while my social/domestic agenda is ultra-conservative’. These things aren’t in agreement front to back. First, your foriegn policy stance is decidedly aggressive, decidedly NOT center on the world stage, is not what you cop to when discussions of center right come up, and is a nuance you are just now equivocating on.
Bottom line Mitch – is that the middle-class is DECIDEDLY less well off today than it was in 1978. It earns less, has less free time, has less negotiating power, has a lower likelyhood of financial security in old-age, has less economic support for college.. the list goes on. You brought up irrelevancies (women’s suffrage etc..) that have little to NOTHING to do with the economic comparatives between 1890 and today… and you chide me for irrelevanceis.. sheesh..
The country you are pushing for is FAR more like America circa 1890 than 1950. The income gaps are FAR more similar to that time, the split of profits, the sneering contempt and assumptive intellectual ‘rightness’ of conservatism shares the same lexicon today as it did then. All of you who support conservatism should read “What’s the Matter with Kansas” or “Concience of Liberal” – it outlines the economic unfairness of our current environment, where ownership now gets 62% of profits (during expansion), when it previously got 32% – and the people who lost, were the middle class.
Warren Buffet, Paul Krugman, Thomas Franks, Bill Gates, I’m sure all are FOOLS as compared to you Mitch, I’m sure they are spewing rubbish – but candidly, it’s easy to see in every day America. From credit crises to the crunch of gas prices, to the changing of the goal posts on unemployment statistics, to the disolution of pensions, to the massive federal debt to pay for a war of choice, conservatism advocates a sneering contempt for those who ‘aren’t smart enough to become rich’ – and the impacts are irrefutable and obvious.
Put it another way Mitch, is the middle-class better off, after 30 years of conservatism – economically here Mitch- stay on point – and if you say ‘yes’, based on what? All indicators say otherwise.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Mitch, you can say “rubbish” but people with a great deal more economic savvy and expertise than you are saying EXACTLY what has been said.
For starters, “false appeal to authority” is a fairly crippling logical fallacy. People with much more expertise and savvy that either of us (and your “experts”) have said for a quarter-century now that what you say is EXACTLY wrong.
I didn’t talk about the lowest quintile, you framed the debate to that, when it NEVER was that.
Peev, you need to learn civil argument. I wasn’t “Framing” anything; it’s merely a fact that shows that your extremely broad statement was at least partially wrong.
and those examples are factually irrefutable.
OK, Peev, again – saying “my side can’t be refuted” is both a sign of rhetorical arrogance masking insecurity – that you’re trying to win through volume and hyperbole what your facts can’t win for you – and a sign that you really have no idea how to construct a coherent argument.
Argument is very, very rarely about “refuting” individual bits of evidence. You asserted some things stated by your pet economists and pundits; suffice to say that there is countervailing evidence on every single point.
Let’s stay on point,mmkay.
Actually, you’re the one who is off point, mmmmkay? The “point” is about Republicans finding a message for our party, and keeping on it, mmmmkay? By your leave, mmmmmonkay?
Also, there is no such thing as being center-right in a world view that also aligns with your avowedly radically right stance on all other issues.
Point of order, Peev. You can not declare me to be “avowedly” anything, since you can not swear a “vow” on my behalf, and it’s deeply intellectually dishonest to claim I’ve sworn vows I haven’t.
And for you to call anything I believe “radical” merely shows either your myopia, your rhetorical laziness, or your intellectual dishonestly; if you were a clearer, more effective writer, I might be able to tell which.
Your views on the world stage are no less right-wing, and you DON’T caveat your ‘center-right’ commentary to say ‘it applies to a worldview while my social/domestic agenda is ultra-conservative’.
So? I don’t have to footnote everything I write to defend myself against obtuse parsing. Any reasonable person knew what I meant – which is why you keep parsing it for really obtuse, childish rhetorical effect!
And if I ordered a pizza in the woods and you didn’t hear it, would I still be “ultra-conservative”?
These things aren’t in agreement front to back.
According to you. And you are truly no authority.
First, your foriegn policy stance is decidedly aggressive,
Nope.
decidedly NOT center on the world stage
The “World stage” is irrelevant.
is not what you cop to when discussions of center right come up,
I have no idea what you mean, and I’m pretty sure you don’t either.
and is a nuance you are just now equivocating on.
Wrong!
Warren Buffet, Paul Krugman, Thomas Franks, Bill Gates, I’m sure all are FOOLS as compared to you Mitch,
No, but anyone who tosses rafts of names around without context pretty much is.
Put it another way Mitch, is the middle-class better off, after 30 years of conservatism – economically here Mitch- stay on point
WRONG!
The “point” is the expunging of RINOs.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Seriously, Mitch… he’s beyond help. Let him go.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Mitch –
By the by, your point about mobility in the lowest quintile –
Talk about obfuscating..
Are you for a moment suggesting that there are fewer poor today, as a percentage?
Also, just an FYI for ya bud, the US ranks 3rd in being the least economically mobile society in the world, we are better than South Afica, and Great Britain.
One other point Mitch, if you expect me to read through your pointilistic responses, where you take things utterly out of context.. I’ve told you that your manner of debate is horribly poor – I’d like you to act in a way you ask for…but,
Warren Buffet – “There IS a class war, and the rich have won”
Paul Krugman – We’ve entered the second gilded age – “Concience of a Liberal”
Thomas Franks – “People in Kansas have been duped into voting against their economic interest”
Bill Gates – The rich in this country aren’t paying their fair share.
Is that sufficient context for you.. btw screaming Wrong.. doesn’t make it so.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
peevish said:
“All indicators say otherwise.”
All? Really? Wow. You really know how to “remove all doubt”, peevish.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Warren Buffet – Rich Guy and former DNC chairman.
Paul Krugman – Economist (D), NYT.
Thomas Frank – Author of ‘What’s the Matter with Kansas?’.
Bill Gates – Rich Guy and Tic business beat down recipient.
Wow. That’s…OK, it is not impressive at all. There is not a guy on the list that I would say “Gosh, I wonder what he thinks on this subject”, nor any I would regard as an authority. Not one.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
This coming from the guy who screamed that I am an extremist, doesn’t explain what that means, and provides no evidence.
Peev, you’re way beyond self-parody.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Oh, good lord:
Are you for a moment suggesting that there are fewer poor today, as a percentage?
I’m going to pause for a moment. Let that whole notion rattle around in my head a little bit. Marinade in its glorious mypic majesty.
Jeez, Peev. No. The bottom “QUINTILE” is by definition “The Bottom 20%”.
It’s even part of the word; “Quint” = “five”.
(Shakes head to clear it. It fails. Shakes head to try again).
No, Peev. What I said – and if you’d stifle your preconceptions and your galloping sense of invincible rectitude on all things, you might follow this – was that the mobility up FROM the bottom quintile has accelerated in the past 30 years. People used to stay on the bottom longer. Now they – those, at least, not impaired by drugs, crime or alcoholism – move up and out to the Fourth quintiles and points north faster than they did.
Also, just an FYI for ya bud, the US ranks 3rd in being the least economically mobile society in the world, we are better than South Afica, and Great Britain.
OK, Peev. I call bullshit. Give me that citation NOW. Because either you’re making it up, or the “fact” is cobbled together by the most selective possible mugging of fact imaginable. There is NO WAY IN HELL that that is true. None.
One other point Mitch, if you expect me to read through your pointilistic responses,
No, I expect you to learn to write more clearly.
As to Buffett, Krugman, Gates and Franks – what Troy said. Gates is a plutocrat with a political agenda. Franks is a hack polemicist (and “What’s The Matter With Kansas” is patronizing, context-challenged, and intensely wrong – perhaps the stupidist book I’ve ever read). Krugman cashed in his credibility when he became a bought-off flak for the left.
Is that sufficient context for you..
Sufficient to prove you’re out of your depth? Yes.
btw screaming Wrong.. doesn’t make it so.
No. The fact that you’re wrong – that YOU are off-topic – makes it so.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Bill Gates is NOT an economist. He’s a computer geek who happened to be in the right places at the right times, and was motivated enough to capitalize on it. His economic punditry credentials are about as worthy as A-Rod’s or Brad Pitt’s. Having money doesn’t make you an economist.
When the richest 10% or the richest 1% start paying 10% or 1% of the income taxes, THEN you can bitch about tax cuts for the wealthy. When the richest 1% pay 39% of the taxes, the richest 10% pay 70% of the taxes, and the bottom 50% in total pay only 3% of the income taxes, anyone who claims the rich are walking away with the store is so hopelessly mired in the politics of envy that their credibility is laughable at best. The rich are walking away with the store because they’re the ones PAYING for it.
Table 1 on this page: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
I WANT the rich people to pay less taxes, because it is the rich people who create wealth thru private sector jobs that contribute to the economy. The more taxes the rich pay, the less the rest of us work and earn. Paying more taxes simply because you have more to pay, is about as fundamentally unfair as you can get.
But that’s the world of the leftist liberal….and some “moderates” as well, apparently.
May 6th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Troy, if you think Warren Buffett doesn’t know much, I can only guess you’ll never get that promotion to manager down at the Jiffy Lube.
May 6th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Buffet – “WaBu”, as we call him – knows plenty.
But his act of having an opinion doesn’t make that opinion dispositive. It has some weight (compared to Gates and Franks, and Krugman whenever he gets outside of purely-academic economics, anyway), but his proclamations hardly shut down all debate.
Much as Peev would like us to think they do.
May 6th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
He speaks against the rich… that’s all folks like AC and Peev need. (Sorry to AC for lumping him in with Peev, but thems the breaks kid.)
May 6th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Didn’t exactly say that, angryclown.
I sincerely do hope they promote someone else to manage your local Jiffy Lube. A Jiffy Lube employee perhaps. I guess only Warren Buffet would know what is best though, right angryclown?
May 7th, 2008 at 12:10 am
Oh, for Pete’s sake, or Warren’s, or Bill’s. If you think those guys are smarter than the rest of us, economics-wise, then ask yourself what they do with their vast fortunes. Do they offer to pay more taxes than they owe? Heck no, they form foundations and do private charity with their own money. They have zero right to tell the rest of us we ought to give more to the government to “care for the pooor.” Not government’s job, and if the bureaucrats were working in the private sector they’d be fired for gross incompetence, if not in jail for embezzlement.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Mitch, BTW, you’re exactly right about protecting the Republican brand and the importance of good “spokespeople.” The time is rapidly disappearing, though, when we have those choices. Sometimes you have to go to election with the candidate you have.