Against 'Principled Loserdom'

Townhall.com ^ | April 22, 2022 | Josh Hammer

[Kaslin]

I was in New Haven this past week for a couple of events at Yale, one of which was a William F. Buckley, Jr. Program debate for a primarily college-age audience on "common good conservatism." During the debate, I argued on behalf of the more "muscular," more forceful and less "liberal" approach to political economy and political gamesmanship frequently associated with the ascendant "New Right."

My interlocutor, the amiable lawyer and National Review writer Dan McLaughlin, offered a substantive defense of orthodox "Reaganism" and an attitudinal appeal for conservatives to remain the "grown-ups in the room." According to this logic, it is incumbent upon conservatives -- actually, right-liberals -- to act as righteous stewards of civic decency and defenders of the sacrosanct norms of liberal proceduralism, no matter how much our political foes have strayed.

To drive home the point, it was only a day after the Yale debate that McLaughlin and his National Review colleague Charles C.W. Cooke publicly criticized Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and his fellow Sunshine State Republicans for acting this week to dissolve The Walt Disney Company's autonomous Reedy Creek Improvement District near Orlando -- a move Republicans ushered through as just comeuppance for Disney's voluble opposition to Florida's recent Parental Rights in Education law. To spike the football in such a fashion, so goes the narrative, would be "indecent." To punish a high-profile enemy within the confines of the rule of law, making a woke corporate behemoth pay for its advocacy of the civilizational arson of corroded childhood sexual innocence, would be gratuitous and -- egad! -- "illiberal."

[PeterPrinciple]

But “principled loserdom” is wrong. The American Founders were not content to fight against the British Crown and accept losing, so long as their lofty principles were followed along the way; on the contrary, they pledged their “lives ... fortunes and ... sacred honor” to the cause in the Declaration of Independence. Abraham Lincoln was not content, either, to fight to preserve Union and accept losing, so long as his high-minded principles were followed along the way; on the contrary, he was motivated by his great moral conviction, as espoused in his 1854 Peoria Speech, “that there can be no moral right in connection with one man’s making a slave of another.”

---

If I shake you awake in the middle of the night and ask “what are you fighting for?” After you reach for your gun, what do you tell me?

For some of you that don’t get it. what we are fighting for should be so ingrained we don’t have to even think about it. But thinking about is also good too.

[dynachrome]

Nice guys finish last end up in the gulag.

[Macoozie]

Freepers have known this to be true for many, many moons.

Kind of Preaching to the Choir with this one.

It’s past time to call the Establishment/RINO/Uniparty Pubbies what they really are:
The Enemy.

[Basket_of_Deplorables]

This.

[robowombat]

We know we are being screwed, the question is ‘what can be done about it?. Real question. So called conservatives are talk and no action. Just trying to get self identified conservatives to listen to the reasons for a ‘don’t vote for Steve Scalise’ movement is infuriating. These include, ‘he was shot’, ‘a Dem would win’, yes, that is the goal. The rat will only last one term. In 2024 a non uniparty candidate would have a shot at the nomination due to Louisiana’s very open primary system. and my favorite ‘it would make us look bad’. The communists are going to take our country over because they fight for keeps and will do anything to win. So called conservatives are just middle class people who believe in nothing. Real conservatives are like the fellow who fixed my tire the other day. Knows what inflation is doing, served in Iraq and loathed it and those who can’t stop finding places for people they despise to risk their lives for K Street, etc. He of course does not wear a coat and tie and doesn’t have a signed picture of George W Bush in his office. He doesn’t have an office anyway.

[DiogenesLamp]

Abraham Lincoln was not content, either, to fight to preserve Union and accept losing, so long as his high-minded principles were followed along the way;

This is very interesting. What were his "high-minded principles"?

[PeterPrinciple]

But “principled loserdom” is wrong. The American Founders were not content to fight against the British Crown and accept losing, so long as their lofty principles were followed along the way; on the contrary, they pledged their “lives ... fortunes and ... sacred honor” to the cause in the Declaration of Independence. Abraham Lincoln was not content, either, to fight to preserve Union and accept losing, so long as his high-minded principles were followed along the way; on the contrary, he was motivated by his great moral conviction, as espoused in his 1854 Peoria Speech, “that there can be no moral right in connection with one man’s making a slave of another.”

---

I think the higher principle was slavery over the union?

but something is missing in the above

[DiogenesLamp]

I think the higher principle was slavery over the union?

That is what we have always been told to think, but the truth is a lot uglier than that.

From Lincoln's first inaugural address.

" I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

This is the Amendment that he is calling to be passed.

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

This amendment guarantees permanent slavery, and his intent was that this amendment would "preserve the Union" by encouraging the Southern states to remain in it.

This amendment did pass both houses of Congress and was ratified by five Northern states before efforts to continue ratifying it were interrupted by the start of the Civil War.

Lincoln personally wrote letters to the governors of the seceded states informing them that the Corwin Amendment had passed a Northern Republican controlled congress, and was only needing ratification from the States.

This personal letter writing to the Governors about an amendment is not a part of the Amendment process, and it simply indicates Lincoln's attempt to win those states back in by guaranteeing them permanent slavery.

So Lincoln's "principles" on the matter are somewhat fungible depending on what he saw as in his political best interest.

So yes, Lincoln tried to help amend the Constitution to keep slavery.

[PeterPrinciple]

I quoted the article.

My point is know what your are fighting for.

[DiogenesLamp]

I quoted the article.

My point is know what your are fighting for.

This is true, but the Author shouldn't hold up Lincoln as an example when the reality contradicts what he is claiming.

The message is good, but the example is bad.