Right Wing Fighter

Category: Ideologues

How the Right can Succeed

For the Right to succeed in politics, it has got to align itself completely with the people. For decades, it has refused to do so. It has always considered populism as something dirty or uncontrollable, and has shied away from it. The fact is, many on the Right would rather lose to the liberals than win with the common, everyday people of America. Why?

To start with, some of them are just snobs. They prefer the refined, “cultural” things in life that most Americans, myself included, don’t care about. Art, classical novels, and so forth, are nice and all but they don’t pay the bills. The right wingers that prefer such things I’ve dubbed the “High Right.” They’re basically American and patriotic, but they don’t like to descend below a certain level that they have in their minds. Their thinking tends to be abstract, intellectual, and completely useless. They can’t get anything done, because they never come down from the clouds of philosophy long enough to do it. They tend to be the gatekeepers of opinion on the right, since they give more time to intellectualism.

On the other hand, there’s what you might call the “Low Right.” To these people, the heart and soul of America is simply doing whatever you want, as long as nobody gets hurt. Many talk show hosts are part of the Low Right. Basically, their whole “philosophy” can be summed up as: do what you want, and let others do the same. They can’t fight the liberals at all, since liberalism is basically a headless, immoral version of their own philosophy. And so they mostly stagger around like slightly confused monkeys, not sure what to say or do next. Their minds and thoughts are never clear.

The average American, like yours truly, for instance, doesn’t care about the Right’s obsession with either (A), artistic living; or (B), freedom to do anything that doesn’t impede other people. Most of us know, for instance, that drugs must be illegal because they are destructive. The High Right sneers at drugs, as being dirty. The Low Right is a little worried about drugs, mostly from habit, but at bottom doesn’t oppose them as long as the user doesn’t hurt anybody. Of course, this is stupid. Whatever we do affects everyone around us. And to pretend that it doesn’t is just sticking their heads in the sand and humming loudly. Besides, there is no right to self-destruction.

In order for the Right to win, it must come back to normal, practical reality and look at the world the way the average American does. The Right needs to be both practical and tough, not whimsical and airheaded. There are real problems that must be solved. Some of them have to be solved by the government. Trump is succeeding because he’s being practical and tought. He’s looking problems in the face and dealing with them. He doesn’t care about the Right’s obsession with “liberty” or art. If the Right wants to win, it must learn from his example.

Advertisements

David Limbaugh, and the “Constitutional Conservatives”

From David Limbaugh’s column from today:

Apart from the endless question of who always will, who probably will, who may and who never will vote for Donald Trump, I’d like to call a temporary truce between the believers and the skeptics and warn against any conscious abandonment or neglect of our founding principles.

I sense that the Trump movement in some ways presents a false choice — that we either temporarily abandon our principles to save America or preserve our principles and lose America. To the contrary, even if we take drastic action, we must always do so within the constraints of the Constitution — being mindful that to restore America’s greatness, we must reclaim our founding principles.

[…]

Even if you disagree, Trump supporters, please humor us and understand we will always believe, like Larry Arnn, that neglecting our founding principles has imperiled our liberties and that learning and aspiring to what is noble and virtuous is necessary to perpetuate our freedom and our justice.

What has all this talk about founding principles done over the past few decades? Has America become more moral? Has it strengthened its economy? Has it built a wall and secured its borders? Has it punished bad, activist judges and replaced them with good judges? Has it, at bottom, done anything other than lose?

What power does constitutionalism have in politics? Have the constitutionalists won anything in the last 30 years? Of course I love the constitution. But this battle plan of “blather about the constitution, and the founding, and [awe filled sigh] limited government” hasn’t worked at all. The only time the conservatives have managed to win anything was with Reagan, and he left office 30 years ago. These guys should wake up, realize that their method isn’t working, and try nationalism instead.

And why don’t they? Why is nationalism beyond them? They love to blather about limited government, capitalism, and “founding principles.” But they should realize that all of these things are meant to serve the people. That is their mistake: they put the wagon before the horse. They think American voters should vote, not what is good for them, but for what will fulfill “conservative principles.” That, and no other reason, is why the conservatives fail. They don’t realize what most of the electorate realizes: that principles exist to serve people; people don’t exist to serve principles.

But listen to this crowd, and that is all you’ll get. Never a word about serving the people of America. Instead, it is always about voting for their principles. At bottom, principles, and not people, are all that matter to this crowd. That is why they fail.

 

The Ideologues

The ideologues are people that value a particular principle above everything else.

For instance, there are ideologues that value the principle of equality over everything else. No consideration of practicality, or sometimes basic humanity, will stop them. They want to reorder society to fulfill their principle.

Needless to say their heedlessness to any other consideration can make them dangerous. Not always, of course. It depends on the principle in question and the ideologue’s particular circumstances.

Say for instance you’ve got a pacifist leading a country that is at war. Disaster is clearly on the way.

But say you’ve got someone that values kindness as the supreme principle, and he is the director of a ward in a children’s hospital. His desire for kindness may be impractical at times, but clearly it will do very little harm, and probably a lot of good, in such a circumstance.

Today, there are more than a few wackos that are running around with their lousy “principles.” The radical environmentalists, for instance, with their radical anti-humanism. They want to end all industry, and wish to reduce the world to a state of “nature,” which is to say, carnage and disease.

Then there are the radical feminists, that literally regard childbirth as some kind of conspiracy against woman. Seeing as it is the females of every animal species that give birth to children, I wonder why they should consider their situation such a departure from the norm. But nevertheless they have their principle, and year by year they fight to divide men and women, parents and children, to forward their “principle.” Some principle! Some goal! Some legacy!

Then there are the radical individualists that think any kind of authority is tyrannic. Never mind the public good. Heck, they don’t even recognize the public good. “That’s just a lie to chain the individual!” Again, these ideologues don’t consider anything other than their particular “principle.” No matter how absurd it is, they stick to it and devote their lives to it.

There are two problems with ideologues when they come to power.

First, is that they frequently sacrifice every other important consideration on the altar of their “principle.” So for instance, Thomas Jefferson and his anti-authority principle led us to be so totally unprepared for war that in the war of 1812, most of our battles with Britain were shameful disasters “fought” by militias that didn’t have half the discipline they needed to fight a battle.

Second, because ideologues are single-minded, they ignore everything not related to their “principle.” So that if they are elected, they are out of their depth in everything not related to their principle. They are then either (a), incompetents nevertheless in charge of very important portions of the national interest; or (b), the pets of “advisors” who are completely unaccountable to the public. It is a question which is worse: rule by an incompetent or an unaccountable clique.