Civility Isn’t Surrender

National Review ^ | March 9, 2018 | David French

[C19fan]

America’s two great ideological tribes are in the midst of a similar conflict. It’s the battle over civility, and all too often reason, compassion, and grace are on the losing side. On the left, aggressive social-justice activists scorn engagement and dialogue as “respectability politics” and instead favor the shout-down, the boycott, and the online shame campaign.

On the right, online pugilists mock more mainstream or “establishment” conservatives as unwilling to do what it takes to win. They mock conservatives who refuse to make Trump-style attacks and decry Trump-style rhetoric as obsessed with “muh principles.” In the face of a ferocious Left, we just don’t have what it takes — or, as Milo Yiannopoulos said earlier this week in a long piece calling me “the most reliably frustrating person in conservative media,” we’re more prepared to “lose gracefully” than to “be seen as lacking in manners.”

[C19fan]

Not boxing when the other sides refused to follow the Marquess of Queensberry rules. Punch back twice as hard.

[rktman]

It's just so easy. All they want is for US to compromise on some minor issues. Apply as needed to whichever plan they present. Only works one way though.👹

[miss marmelstein]

President French chimes in.

[FlipWilson]

Some guy with the name “French” lecturing me on surrender.

[Nifster]

David French....yet another useless suited GOPe

[cdcdawg]

I recall that Buckley was capable of taking off the gloves from time to time. National Review is just a sad relic these days.

[Rurudyne]

Compromise is agreeing with progressives.

Kinda like the seriousness of the charges only affects the (R)set of us.

“Civility” is also not going to be mere civility if we in any way play the PC game, and that IS giving ground, even if only on minor issues. But don’t play the PC game and we won’t be viewed as civil no matter how nominally civil we are.

Frankly, when dealing with Cultural Marxist both civility and tolerance are way overrated.

Conan had the correct attitude: “To crush your enemies. See them driven before you. And to hear the lamentations of their Soyboys.”.

[DesertRhino]

“online pugilists mock more mainstream or “establishment” conservatives as unwilling to do what it takes to win”

Well, we DO have a three decade track record to examine.

[Opinionated Blowhard]

I really hate these “conservative” both sides are horrible articles. While some on the right aren’t civil, over the past 20 years, it is the Left that has loudly, obnoxiously and thuggishly pushed its point. Its the Left that has engaged in intimidation, assault and physical violence on a systematic basis, not the right. So French conflates systematic Leftwing thug tactics with the Right finally pushing back a little. I’ll take right with boorishness over George Bush’s pathetic “turn the other cheek” passivity any day.

[Ted Grant]

To be fair, this wing of the conservative movement (I call them ‘professional conservatives,’ and aligned with GOP Inc.) would have a lot more credibility about this if they had absolutely anything to show for almost three decades of their preferred vision of “conservatism.”

Conservatives lose ground whether the liberals win or the liberals lose.

If they had a coherent philosophy and anything significant to hang their hat on over the last 30 years, more people might listen to them. But they don’t.

Their sales approach is “You don’t like the other guys? Hire us!” They suck and their track record is indefensible, but they seem to have no idea how poorly they come across to people that ostensibly are aligned with them.

[jonascord]

Turning the other cheek buys you two black eyes, instead of one.

This loser WANTS to surrender, rather than win, so that he can be comfortable on his knees. He's happy being a sheep, since the wool is warm, and the blade across his throat doesn't hurt half as much as he expected...

[Ohioan]

The writer totally discredits himself as the arbiter he would feign to be, when he applies the term "social justice" to some on the militant Left, without putting it in quotation marks. The Leftist activists have no concept of social justice, and apply the term to demands that have no concept of what is just or social.

See Not "Social" & Not "Just". Those activists to whom he refers are not intellectually able to offer any civil argument. I have met almost none who will even try, in many decades of defending traditional American values against the compulsion driven types, including four years in one of the highest rated colleges (academically) in America, which is well known as a bastion of egalitarian silliness.

[factoryrat]

Bullshit!

It’s hand wringing pearl clutching meek squishes like this guy that get people killed.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks so much for your support to this point... I personally apprecaite it...
FReepers, it's far beyond time to wrap up this FReep-a-thon.  Lets do it today.  Please chip in.

President Donald J. Trump and the Free Republic of the United States of America
President Donald J. Trump's address to the United Nations on 09/19/2017.

Ramirez political cartoon:  Trade War LARGE VERSION 03/12/2018: LINK  LINK to regular sized versions of his political cartoons (archive).
Garrison political cartoon:  Gun Control Supporters LARGE VERSION 03/13/2018: LINK  LINK (scroll down) to regular sized versions of his political cartoons (archive).

FReepers, 89.776% of the First Quarter FReep-a-thon goal has been met.  Click above and pencil in your donation now.  Please folks, lets end this FReepathon.  Thank you!
...this is a general all-purpose message, and should not be seen as targeting any individual I am responding to...

Just $197.00 dollars to 90.00%

[LurkedLongEnough]

Nice article, but as my son tells me, be ready to punch hippies in the throat.

[rockrr]

politics ain’t beanbag - 1896 quote

[Col Freeper]

David French ....... a Surrender Monkey!

[donna]

David French is mistaken about what sort of rhetoric is offensive. A direct straight-talk insult to cut through the lies is masculine and scares the elites, as it should. Truth is everything, pretty lies are death.

The question: “Why should I not do as I please within the law, so long as I harm no-one else?” would, at all earlier times, have drawn one or both of the answers: “Because it offends God” or “Because you will become a social outcast”.

The first of these has no force for our new elites, who do not believe in God; the second is not only without force for them, it is without meaning. To exclude a person from one’s drawing-room because their personal pleasures are aberrant would be “discrimination”.
- John Derbyshire

[Ken H]

Yeah. Like the “We’re above all that” and “That’s not who we are” crap.

[RedStateRocker]

In a broader sense, you can see almost the exact same set of arguments on FR and DU every election:

“Nominate someone who can win” vs. “Nominate somebody who actually believes in and will fight for our conservative/liberal principles”.

The dynamics are the same and have been in any two party (or more) system where the differences are ideological.

Rare indeed is the candidate who both articulates and genuinely believes in something *and* can win; even rarer the ideologue who can actually accomplish something if they do win, since horse trading and quid pro quo are really ingrained into the political process and always have been.