Articles

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

"Extremists" and "Moderates" and the Future of the Republican Party

For 7 years after 9/11, American concerns about "extremism" were usually preceded by the word, "Muslim". Today the Dems are back in power and "extremism" is once again preceded by "Right-Wing". But buying into the notion that our focus should be on "Right-Wing Extremism" means buying into a 9/10 mentality. And for anyone regardless of their political affiliation, who had their eyes opened on 9/11, this cynical attempt to divert attention from the real threat of Islamic Terrorism, in order to scapegoat the political opposition should be easy enough to reject.

From early on part of Obama's strategy has been to pit the so-called moderate Republicans against the party's conservative core. This has been less of an electoral strategy, than one focused on getting his political opponents to fight among themselves. Liberal Republicans form a small part of the party's electoral base, but a large number of its public face. Conversely Conservative Republicans form the broadest part of the party's electoral base, but a small part of its public face. Pitting one against the other has meant pitting a vocal and public minority against the party's silent majority. All the while Obama's tame press corps could stand back and pen articles on how the Republicans were tearing themselves apart, knowing that some of the dimmer Meghan McCain Republicans would happily come on board to give them some choice quotes.

But the Republican party isn't tearing itself apart. Neither is the blogsphere. There is a division happening between those who are getting back to the issues and standing up to a corrupt out of control administration-- and those who are spending all their time criticizing them for it. That division is between the relevant and the irrelevant. The mitosis that leaves one dead cell and one active and living cell. That is of course what grass roots movements are all about.

Contrary to the official press coverage, this isn't a split between the right and the left. It is a split between the self-defined moderates who have nothing to offer but alarmist campaigns against the "right wing threat" and a grass roots movement that is sick of an out of touch Republican party that has swung too far to the left and compromised core beliefs on government spending, government power, immigration, individual freedoms and the war on terror.

Grass roots means a public movement pushing for reform. The so-called "moderates" by contrast represent the old way that has failed, resistant to change and incapable of rationally arguing their position, they instead resort to mud slinging and demonization of their opponents as dangerous and violent.

The 2008 Republican candidate gave the "moderates" just about everything they could want. McCain was socially liberal, pro-illegal immigration, opposed to the religious right and could easily pass as a Conservative Democrat at a casual glance. And he failed and the way of the moderates failed with him. No one can forget McCain repeating "My friends" over and over again, or going on about bipartisanship. And few really want a repeat of that in 2010 or 2012.

The "moderates" had their chance and they blew it. Now the Meghan McCain side of the party, rather than meaningfully participating in resisting the wrongheaded policies of the Obama Administration, is busy trying to delegitimize those who are actually returning to the roots to build a movement that can reshape the party and give it the edge it needs to take back America from big government spending, terrorist appeasement and politically correct tyranny.

But all that the Meghan McCain side of the party has accomplished is to make themselves irrelevant. The only people listening to them now are fellow liberals and whoever still watches CNN. Their regular denunciations have no meaning because they are destructive, rather than constructive. The only thing their rhetoric accomplishes is to marginalize them from any role in the party's future. And while the grass roots may often be abrasive or vocal, if you have to choose between the Glenn Beck side of the party of the Meghan McCain side of the party. It's not a very difficult choice.

There is a far right, but it doesn't consist of Beck or Limbaugh. It consists of people who may occasionally play Republicans on TV, but who are little more than fascists and terrorist supporters in suits and ties. Their actual views overlap heavily with their left wing counterparts. The likes of Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan have more in common with Ward Churchill and Ed Schultz, than they do with where the Republican party is headed. Their supporters have big plans to infiltrate, manipulate and control-- but just as in the primaries their reach has a way of exceeding their grasp.

"Right Wing Extremism" is of course a threat. But it is a threat mainly to the political establishment that led the Republican party to defeat. It is a threat to the Obama Administration and to his cronies. It is mainly a threat to those who insist that Republicans be Democrats with more homey appeal and slightly tougher rhetoric. That worked well enough for Bush, but the people demand more.

In 2008 it wasn't the moderate Democrats who won. It was the extremists. If the Republicans win in 2012, it won't be the moderates who will win either.

That is why responding to the Meghan McCain side of the party is a waste of time and a distraction. It accomplishes nothing except to give Obama's people another victory. The future will not be built through civil war, but by those who see the issues that matter and fight for them.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

True enough. Time to focus on the issues; smaller govt; lower taxes and 2nd amendment. Step aside Meghan as you wrote she's only of interest to the cnn crowd.
Thanks!!
from the land of the combine, ozero, jeremy, rahmbo, blago, axelrod, etc....

Anonymous said...

I want the kind of world presented in The Fountainhead. period.

Lemon said...

Neither party is worth much anymore.
Dhimmicrats have become weird, very weird.
Reproblemcans can't stand up like men and defend the constitution, so there is no one.

Anonymous said...

I see my original response to Lemon's comment was not posted so let me clear up what I should have said in case I offended her.
What we need to do Lemon is remove the power government has to coerce, bribe, reward and bail out irrational decisions. This is not my response but one made by Yaron Brook of ARI.

Sultan Knish said...

I posted all the comments I received today.

Anonymous said...

Then I stand corrected. Sorry for the hasty assumption. As always, Sultan, you run a very fine blog.

Keli Ata said...

The good news is that fed up Americans are getting politically active in actions such as the many tea parties. The Reublican party will have to listen to them.

While some have tried to marginalize these groups I see it as a formidable force in the next election.

Tom said...

I would like to say that fascism is not even a right wing phenomenon. We get the word fascism from the Italian word "Fascio", meaning bundle, which referenced the Roman symbol of power, the "Fasces", a bundle of sticks tied around an axe. It is the word that Mussolini's party used in the name of its socialist party. The liberals use the term fascism in reference to people such as Hitler, and Mussolini because they are afraid that they will be associated with socialism as they should. Nazi was short for the National Socialist Workers Party. They try to the right because they fear associate such individuals with the right wing to avoid giving "Socialism" the negative meaning that "Communism" has acquired.
Apart from this, great blog; it hits the mark dead on.

Keli Ata said...

Tom: The Socialist label is something that really makes Obama nervous. Recall how he phoned several reporters to insist that he wasn't a Socialist after a newspaper asked him if he was one.

The word Socialist should be used quite a lot in the next campaign, and the full name of the Nazi party as well as it being a transition to Communism.

Post a Comment