David Horowitz: Uniting the Right

National Review ^ | November 4, 2013 | David Horowitz

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Anyone who pays attention to politics can see that when Democrats attack, they speak from the same text, and when they vote, they march in lockstep. If one Democrat says the wealthy must pay their “fair share,” all Democrats do — regardless of the merits of the charge. If their leaders say Republicans want to shut down the government in order to deny Americans affordable care, the rest of the party will follow their lead — whether the claim is true or not. When a key program like Obamacare is the issue, not only do Democrats back it with one voice, but every player on the political left — journalists, professors, talk-show hosts, union heads, MoveOn radicals, and Occupy anarchists — falls into line and promotes it with virtually identical words. They act in “solidarity” in fair political weather and foul, and they do it even for a program like Obamacare, which (as some of them must surely see) is ill-conceived, falsely presented, incompetently executed, and fiscally unsustainable.

When the voices of the Left all come together, the amplification is stupefying. The result is that a morally bankrupt, politically tyrannical, economically destructive party is able to set the course of an entire nation and put it on the road to disaster.

Republicans, in contrast, speak with multiple voices, and in words that often have no relation to each other. If one Republican says “defund Obamacare,” another says, “fund the government,” even if that might mean funding Obamacare. The argument and the dissension are over tactics, not substance, since all Republicans oppose Obamacare. If one Republican says “don’t intervene in Syria,” another says “don’t hesitate”; if one says “Obama-supported immigration reform is a dagger aimed at American sovereignty,” another says “opposition to immigration reform is a death-knell for our party.” This, again, is a tactical division, since all Republicans support enforceable borders.

These contending party voices are multiplied by conservative talking heads in the nation’s media who march to their own political drums. The result is a cacophony of talking points, which in the end point nowhere. Because Republicans speak with many voices, their message is often difficult, if not impossible, to make out.

Internal dissension not only blunts the Republican attack; it hands Democrats a convenient stick with which to beat them. No one on the right, whether conservative or Republican, thinks this is a healthy situation. Why, then, is it the case? What is it that unites Democrats that Republicans lack?

It’s not a party whip to enforce discipline, since both parties have them. Moreover, there are no whips to rein in factions like the grassroots, or media voices that command larger audiences than members of Congress. That goes for both sides. Democrats also lack a formal means to bring their media sympathizers and grassroots allies into line. So how do they do it? What unites them as they go to battle?

It is the power of a unifying idea. A unifying idea is not a consensus over policy or an agreement on tactics; unanimity in these matters is difficult to achieve and impossible to sustain. Instead, their unity is inspired — forged actually — by a missionary idea. On the eve of his election in 2008, Barack Obama said to his followers: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” That idea of transformation is what unites the Left. Unity in embracing a future goal — the fundamental transformation of society — is what motivates them to march together. It is what makes them “progressives” in the first place. It is their identity in the same way “Christian” and “Jew” are identities of people with a religious faith.

“Progressive,” “socialist,” and “liberal” are interchangeable terms that describe members of a moral crusade. The goal of the crusade is “social justice,” or its equivalent: equality. The quest for this utopia of social and economic equality is what forges their alliances, defines their allegiances, and justifies the means they use to get there. They may differ on particular policies and tactics to advance the cause, but if they are Democrats or supporters of the Democrats, they see the party as the practical vehicle for making the idea a reality.

To transform society, you need the power of the state; it is the only way their future can be achieved. That is why they are willing to follow the marching orders of a party that can control the state, and that is why they want to advance its fortunes. The Democrats’ perennial campaign message — Republicans are conducting a war on minorities, women, working Americans, and the poor — rests on the central idea that unites progressives behind the party: We are for equality, they are against it.

The reasoning behind such behavior was revealed by Leon Trotsky when he explained why he would not leave the Bolshevik party even after Stalin — who would eventually murder him — became its absolute leader: “We can only be right with and by the Party,” Trotsky said, “for history has provided no other way of being in the right.” “If the Party adopts a decision which one or other of us thinks unjust, he will say, just or unjust, it is my party, and I shall support the consequences of the decision to the end.”

Non-Bolsheviks may not share Trotsky’s metaphysical certitude, but they will recognize the principle. If the cause is about changing the world and there is only one party that can acquire the means to do it, then even though it may be wrong on this or that matter, its fortunes must be advanced and its power defended. This commitment is magnified when the opposition party is viewed as the enemy of the noble cause. If Republicans are seen as the party of privilege at war with minorities, women, and the poor, then their ideas are not only wrong but evil. As President Obama’s political mentor, Saul Alinsky, put it in Rules for Radicals: “One acts decisively only in the conviction that all of the angels are on one side and the devils are on the other.”.......

Page 2

Page 3

..........National-security issues are off the political radar because the Left wants to keep them off and because conservatives who are focused on economic-policy issues have simply let them do it. But in a democracy like ours, national security is first of all about freedom and its defense. That is why the Left is not particularly happy with national-security matters and wants to shrink our military and open our borders. It does so in the name of equality — of nations.

The attack on our military and our borders is an existential threat to our freedom, the first in our modern history with such a strong domestic component. Unfortunately, conservatives and Republicans have been reluctant to frame national security as an issue in that way. Meanwhile we are confronted by a new totalitarian enemy in political Islam as promoted by the Muslim Brotherhood and the regimes in Syria and Iran. It is no accident that our president and his party have supported the Brotherhood — the spearhead of political Islam — at home and abroad, and appeased our Islamist enemies in Egypt, Syria, Libya, and Iran.

The very struggle that inspired the Right in the Cold War era — the battle between tyranny and freedom — is once again staring us in the face, but we are reluctant to name it. We have gone almost silent instead. The silence must end. It is time to connect the battle for individual freedom at home and the defense of our free society abroad, and to make them one. That is the way to advance the conservative message and unify the political forces on which the future of our nation depends.

[BenLurkin]

There is no “right wing” in American politics — except maybe the handful of skinheads who joined with Occupy Wall Street.

Using the term “Right” to describe conservatives is a grotesque misnomer.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Horowitz never uses the term “right-wing” in this OpEd about how conservatives and Republicans must rally around the unifying idea of FREEDOM vs progressives who rally around EQUALITY. It is quite good. Take a few minutes and read it.

[jim_trent]

It would be a whole lot easier to herd cats.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

“......The progressive agenda is the systematic constriction of the realm of freedom — the private sector — and its replacement by the power of the state.

Economic redistribution is not “fairness.” It is a war on property rights and individual freedom. Massive deficits are not accounting problems; they are a war on the freedom of the individuals — particularly the young — who must work to pay off the government debt instead of working to enhance their lives. Massive welfare projects that make individuals dependent on government are not implementations of “social justice” but wars on the independence and freedom of the underclass that progressive policies have served to create. Obamacare mandates are not merely harbingers of increased medical costs and diminished medical care; they are infringements on the freedom of individuals to pursue their best possible lives. The Democrats’ failing public-school systems and opposition to school choice are infringements on the freedom of minorities and the poor to pursue the American dream. This is the moral language that Republicans should use to indict their opponents as enemies of justice and social fairness, and to unite their political base.

Framing the political argument in moral terms takes the battle to the adversary’s camp, while at the same time communicating to conservatives that they are all in the same fight. It was the fight for freedom that gave Republicans national majorities during the Cold War with the Communist bloc and liberated a billion captive people. Since 1988, which was the last presidential contest before the Communist collapse, Republicans have won a majority of the popular vote in only one national election. During the Cold War, national security was the key to Republican victories because it framed the conservative cause as a moral crusade in defense of freedom. Now national security is virtually absent from the political debate.”.......

[Thidwick]

It’s much more difficult to unite free thinking individuals than automatons.

[nathanbedford]

… from Rules for Radicals: “We are always moral and our enemies always immoral.” The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the immorality of the opposition,

For at least six years the leadership of the Republican Party and that means the establishment of the Republican Party has declined to "morally" destroy Barack Obama, as so many of us consistently called for, while our own ranks have been decimated by the tactic quoted above.

Instead, as reflected in a companion thread, Republicans blame wrongheaded thinking such as redistributive tax system rather than individual villains such as a radical leftist, Barack Obama.

David Horowitz knows what he is talking about when he speaks of the motivations which dominate leftists. I would add one more that he has documented, the money for leftists is in the control of very few hands, George Soros especially among them, and David Horowitz and his website "shadow government" has laid out the interlocking nature of Soros' control.

There is also very much the element of the cult represented in the Democrat party and, at its extreme examples of Trotsky and Stalin, the surrender to the cult is psychologically dominant. I think this phenomenon should be explored much more than it has been because it is the glue that holds the Democrat party together and it is also the Teflon which permits it to resist reason. Reason has no influence over a cult member: The issue is never the issue

[Jedidah]

Excellent article. Thanks for posting.

Common sense and unity must prevail if we are to save this country, but a cohesive and well-communicated message seems to be beyond us.

Purists, the my-way-or-the-highway crowd, stayed home in 2008 and gave us another four years of Obamanation.

[Cincinatus]

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." – Edmund Burke, Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents, 82-83 (1770).

[Cringing Negativism Network]

What (everyone) is completely ignoring, is American jobs.

GOP get with the program, or the Dems will.

Bring back American jobs.

[Washi]

Democrats speak with one voice because they have one goal: "the fundamental transformation of America" (i.e. socialism).

The Republican party has been infiltrated with some from that same camp, some media whores who just want to be popular with the socialist press, and some actual conservatives. We can't speak with one voice because we have different goals.

[winner3000]

This could be one of the most important articles posted on FreeRepublic ever if we as conservatives embrace the proper moral language. We are so good at divining the logical consequence of leftist policies, but to the Left, since their goal is equality, they don’t care if the pie is smaller as long as people are equal economically (except for the liberal elites of course). And they don’t care if they achieve this equality by oppressing people. We on the right should be consistent in our fight as a moral one as we are fighting for freedom. We should not be shy to say that we are fighting against fascists who show no compunction about taking people’s freedoms away.

[C. Edmund Wright]

And we’re seeing it in Va right now…the issue is never the issue…..Cucinelli is a mean spirited warrior on women because he has seven kids and is married to his first wife…meaning he must be out trying to stop little lib women from having casual sex……

[C. Edmund Wright]

ONE

TRICK

PONY

[Cringing Negativism Network]

It’s a very big trick.

America is collapsing, currently 17 trillion in debt and climbing.

We are offshoring our manufacturing.

Bring it back.

[Walrus]

Ronald Reagan fully understood the unifying power of a moral crusade. He identified the Soviet Union as an “evil empire”’ ; not “misguided”, not “dangerous” but EVIL.

Who in the leadership of the Republican Party will, at long last, have the courage to openly characterize the liberal / progressive Democrats as inherently evil?

[Hardraade]

Horowitz came from the left, so he knows what he’s talking about. Just as Reagan came from the Democrats. With no background in what makes these people tick, you don’t stand a chance.

And Soros isn’t the controller behind it all. Bill Clinton owns Soros the pawn. And you can trace his ownership to all of the Democrat party organizations working in lockstep.

[Foundahardheadedwoman]

The moral crusade described in this article is nothing more then a sham, used to mislead well intentioned but foolish people.

How do you convince these folks that their beliefs are destroying the greatest experiment ever undertaken by man?

I have tried and have had little success. If you have this answer, let me know, I'm all ears.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

1964 - Ronald Reagan: YouTube A Time For Choosing

[deadrock]

Did I ever tell you the definition of insanity?

Did I ever tell you the definition of insanity?

Did I ever tell you the definition of insanity?

Did I ever tell you the definition of insanity?

Did I ever tell you the definition of insanity?