Actually, It’s Time for Republicans to Think!
Bill Quick

It’s Time For Republicans To Think Strategically – Derek Hunter – Page full

On Tuesday, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., revealed their budget plan to the world. I would say it was immediately met with complaints, but those complaints started before it was introduced. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But are there other plans? No.

No, because both the GOP and Democrat congressional leadership made damned sure there would be no other plans.

How come these geniuses of the press never seem to call for the Democrats to “think strategically?”

This entry was posted in Fellating Tools, Hack Propagandists by Bill Quick. Bookmark the permalink.
Bill Quick

About Bill Quick

I am a small-l libertarian. My primary concern is to increase individual liberty as much as possible in the face of statist efforts to restrict it from both the right and the left. If I had to sum up my beliefs as concisely as possible, I would say, "Stay out of my wallet and my bedroom," "your liberty stops at my nose," and "don't tread on me." I will believe that things are taking a turn for the better in America when married gays are able to, and do, maintain large arsenals of automatic weapons, and tax collectors are, and do, not.

Comments

Actually, It’s Time for Republicans to Think! — 12 Comments

  1. “How come these geniuses of the press never seem to call for the Democrats to ‘think strategically’?” Because the Democrats *do* think strategically. They have a clear long-range goal towards which they have been working, continuously and effectively, for over a hundred years now. They have a strategy, and it’s working well for them.

    Republicans don’t think strategically, they think tactically. And I think there’s a deep reason for this. The left’s fundamental value is equality, and that’s an abstraction they can build a strategy around. The conservative movement’s fundamental value, as I’ve noted before, is tradition — and you can’t build a strategy to work towards tradition. The only ‘strategy’ that follows from upholding tradition is William F. Buckley’s “standing athwart history, yelling ‘Stop’”, and that’s not a strategy at all.

    We need to build a movement dedicated to upholding its own positive vision of where it wants to take society — one that upholds *freedom*, not tradition. Only then will the advocates of freedom be able to think strategically.

    • My own take on this is, if you want to successfully combat the Left/Democrap (and RINO, of course)”status quo”, you really need to think logistically, and act tactically. The overall “strategery” should already be understood as: More Freedom = Less Gubmint, And Vice-Versa – and will come along quite nicely, if not perhaps always as visibly as one’s opponents might prefer…

      The only ‘strategy’ that follows from upholding tradition is William F. Buckley’s “standing athwart history, yelling ‘Stop’”, and that’s not a strategy at all.

      Absolutely agreed – it’s not even a useful tactic, of course; History has no sense of hearing, it’s only the recording of some of what allegedly happened, and is mostly recorded by the winners anyway. You can ignore it, but you can’t stop it in any event.

      And “tradition” was once recognizable as “innovation”, and is in no way either utterly sacred or unchangeable – much less a reliable basis for the future.

  2. I think what we have lost sight of is that tradition should not be upheld for just tradition’s sake. It is tradition because it has proven its worth. It is what works. Conservatives should understand that the world does slowly evolve. There are times where tradition should be questioned and if necessary, replaced. This should not be done cavalierly but only after careful consideration.

    After all, at one time it was considered tradition to sacrifice humans and animals to sun gods. For those societies it seemed to work and they did not see any alternatives.

  3. Liberty-minded conservatives generally regard the work of the American Founders and Framers as the height of Classical Liberalism, and a goal to which we should aspire at all times.

    That work was the most revolutionary in the history of government. How did we get from there to “standing athwart history, yelling stop?”

    By that standard, Bill Buckley should have opposed the work of the Founders and Framers.

  4. The conservative movement’s fundamental value, as I’ve noted before, is tradition — and you can’t build a strategy to work towards tradition.

    Which is why I’m not a conservative but rather a libertarian (small ‘l’) where the fundamental value is individual liberty and effort is directed toward building government to maximize individual liberty. I believe this is what the founders were about.

    Just as we have the Laffer curve for taxes, there is an equivalent liberty curve. Clearly with no government we have anarchy and zero individual liberty beyond the top thug gangs. With total government we also have zero individual liberty beyond the ruling class thug gangs.

    Mathematically, there must be a maximum point between these two. We small-l libertarians seek that maximum. We are clearly now way past it toward totalitarianism.

    • Clearly with no government we have anarchy and zero individual liberty beyond the top thug gangs. With total government we also have zero individual liberty beyond the ruling class thug gangs.

      Rather nicely put – and this continuum should, one would think, be rather apparent, especially for anyone who bothers to think the matter over at all. One would, of course, be wrong to think so – since, as has been most aptly pointed out numerous times, herein (on DP) and elsewhere, relatively few a) bother to think about such matters at all (preferring to “let their conscience [aka: their particular set of prejudices and/or "faiths"] be their guide” – saves one tremendously on that whole “thinking and reasoning” thingy, y’know), and b) actually are able to view the matter with useful objectivity if they do engage in thought on the subject (flaws in that “thinking and reasoning” stuff again, just at a somewhat-higher level).

      For most people, their “reality” isn’t – heh – “reality-based”, more than incidentally.

      Mathematically, there must be a maximum point between these two.

      True enough, I believe, with one minor quibble: The term I would prefer over “maximum” would be “optimal” – and would necessarily be a (rather narrow) range, rather than a single point. Human-interactive systems, if they are clearly viable, cannot remain steady-state – though the fluctuations/variations can be (and should be, I believe) kept within a quite-narrow range of “optimal/acceptable conditions”. The discussions/negotiations/argumentation, then, becomes a matter of where the system is within that range, and “ways and means” of keeping matters in said range.

      This is what I was trying to point at years ago, BTW, when (upon being asked) I would aver that my political personal philosophy was “Creative Anarchy” – meaning I was heavily in favor of having just as little government as we could possibly tolerate. I was, of course, being a smart-ass to a certain extent (I was an undergrad; “smart-ass” is generally part of the basic position description) – but I still hold that to be a valid view. More Freedom, Less Gubment isn’t always and forever the best policy, but it’s useful for a much longer stretch than the reverse.

      Debate over where that relatively-narrow range of “balance” should fall should be ongoing as well, of course.

  5. J.S. I agree with your notion of variation within a narrow range of the maximum. When I said we “seek” the maximum, I was thinking of an under-damped servo loop analogy which would overshoot/undershoot and oscillate about its set point. The founders were building in negative feedback loops via Constitution as explicated in Federalist Papers and motivated by Declaration of Independence.

Return to main page →
At this post →