"ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" !
Take a good long look at where "Establishment Republicans" ALWAYS take us.
The "Establishment Republicans" can GO TO HELL !
Posted on 03/18/2015 11:35:54 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Last week, I kvetched about the way the national political press was covering the Hillary Clinton e-mail pseudo-scandal. To me, it was a strikingly clear example of the media succumbing to its worst instincts by allowing itself to become part of the story and engaging in the kind of meta reporting that Paul Krugman has rightly compared to theater criticism. “Instead of telling us what candidates are actually saying,” Krugman wrote, the political journalists guilty of theater criticism “tell us how it went over, and how they think it affects the horse race.” In other words, they answer a question readers never asked.
I still believe everything I wrote in that piece, but I realize now that there is one crucial element of the relationship between Clinton and the press that I accidentally left out. It’s a complaint for which I’ll confess to harbor some sympathy. Namely, it is the dread and anger that overcomes many campaign journalists when they’re confronted with the prospect of spending the next 2 years of their lives following around a Bush and a Clinton vying to be president. That’s something many campaign reporters have spent more than enough time doing already, and they’re not happy about having to do it again.
As annoying and dispiriting as the most-likely presidential matchup is, though, it’s hardly an excuse for bad work. Besides, there’s plenty of time between now and November 2016; and there are plenty of interesting stories to be written about the social and economic forces that often determine who gets to be president. Like the escalating tension over immigration between the Republican Party’s grassroots and elite, for example. That’s been paralyzing the GOP for a while now already, but as we get closer to Iowa caucuses, it’ll only get worse.
Now, when people talk about the GOP’s internal schism over immigration, they usually break it down using this essential framework: The Tea Party wing hates reform because it thinks it’s an elaborate Democratic plot to secure Latino-American votes and grow the state. The establishment wing, meanwhile, supports reform because large corporations and Chamber of Commerce types like the idea of getting even more cheap labor without the legal headaches. Right now, Jeb Bush is the reformers’ preferred presidential nominee. And it’s looking like Gov. Scott Walker, who recently flip-flopped to oppose immigration reform, will be the anti-reformers’ champion.
That general schema contains a lot of truth. But reality is, as always, a bit more complicated. For one thing, there’s a significant chunk of the Tea Party that is either in favor of reform or at least not particularly opposed to it; the Koch brothers fit that bill. Ditto Rand Paul. For another, while there’s no doubt an amoral economic motivation behind much of the establishment’s pro-reform lobbying, they’re also motivated by more cosmopolitan concerns. The GOPers who favor reform are more like the kind of conservatives you’ll meet on New York’s Upper East Side than the ones you’ll find in the Arizona exurbs. To put it bluntly, they find the anti-reformers’ brand of populism to be rather gauche.
The most important aspect to the GOP divide over immigration that the conventional wisdom misses, however, is this: Both sides hold the position they do because they are, in their minds, trying to fend off an existential threat to the Republican Party as they know it. But they reach opposite conclusions because they can’t agree about what, exactly, the Republican Party is. Does the GOP exist as a traditional political party, in the sense that it is a collection of different groups that have shared interests and who seek to make them real through public policy? Or is the GOP an ethno-nationalist vehicle designed to save, preserve and, ultimately, redeem the U.S.’s besieged population of “Real Americans”?
If the answer is the former, if the Republican Party is more or less a normal Western political party, then the argument for immigration reform is obvious. Bush might be benefitting from comparisons to his brother (one could say he’s floating on the soft bigotry of low expectations) but he’s not stupid. And as Michael Schiavo will tell you, he’s no bleeding heart. But he can read demographic projections and Electoral College charts just like anyone else. He knows that if the GOP is to be the national party it’s been throughout most of his life — i.e., one that is competitive in the one truly national race, which is that for president — it’s got to get right with Latino voters.
But if the GOP is what most of the Tea Party thinks, if it’s indeed a kind of militant, Christian and ethno-nationalist vehicle for Real Americans (or, as an historian might call them, the “volk”) then the argument for opposing “amnesty” is no less intuitive. If America cannot be America unless its population looks the same way it did in the 1980s, then ushering in millions of Latino citizens — and encouraging the arrival of millions more — is indeed a “game over” threat. And any Republican who argues otherwise is not only wrong but is indeed a traitor to conservatism, which, in this mindset, has become synonymous with America itself.
How does this play out in the real world? Well, until the campaign is really happening in earnest, it’ll manifest through tempest in a teapot stories like this one about a conservative political operative who got booted from the Walker team for complaining about the outsize influence of Iowa in the GOP primary, a lily-white state where immigration reform is especially unpopular. Or this one about onetime Slate blogger and professional contrarian Mickey Kaus, who quit his gig at the Daily Caller because his boss, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, didn’t want him writing pieces attacking Roger Ailes’s channel for not being anti-immigrant enough. And remember: The campaign hasn’t even really started.
So, yes, I get why my colleagues are exasperated already with Campaign 2016. As one friend said to me with knowing hyperbole, the idea of spending 2 years on Jeb vs. Hillary appears to him to be the journalistic equivalent of a slow march toward certain death. But in the months and years to come, there will be a lot of bloodshed in the GOP over the party’s stance on immigration. And it’ll be a lot more interesting than bickering over e-mails.
The rules:
1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.
2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.
8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
10. “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
11. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
12. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions
False comparison.
Search on “Cruz”.
Not Found.
"left" it is not.
You didn’t even read this before commenting. Why?
The tea party man is Cruz, and this writer never even mentioned him.
Walker will be PRESIDENT. I feel very strongly, just as strongly as I did about Reagan back in '80. Got that SAME feelin'!!!! Can't stop God's plan!
You are correct.
That wasn’t the purpose of his piece.
It was written to defect from Hillary’s criminal behavior by calling conservatives racists and Nazis.
So now you know my reading comprehension level and speed? Hahahahaha! Delicious!
I can read a time stamp.
I can live with Walker.
I prefer Cruz.
Conservatives may differ on the point, reasonably.
Bushes suck.
“Proudly posting without reading the article since 1999!”
;-)
And I can read articles quickly (and also at their source before you post them to Free Republic). Ever think of that? Just because you posted a thread doesn’t mean I haven’t already read that article. I post more threads than almost anyone, so I read A LOT of articles and post those I find interesting. I’m over 27,000, where are you at?
Lol!!
: )
I’m impressed.
He is young and like Rubio who I do like very much despite his mistake being used by the D's, both men had Ronald Reagan posters on their bedroom walls when in school!
That's a lot of post!
was covering the Hillary Clinton e-mail pseudo-scandal.
These people will NEVER admit their heroes have done wrong.
Scandal? No not a scandal a broken law, a crininal action. Still they lie and attack others and cover for the criminals
This guy is so far to the left that he is horizontal!
He's a liberal - writing for a liberal rag... he must know a liberal or two he can talk to.... Or is Elias Isquith saying 'progressives' like stealing jobs from American workers - especially entry level stuff blacks would love to have...
Let's be a tad honest there Isquith... share some of the dem divide with the rest of us. We're waiting, waiting, waiting...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.