Posted on 04/29/2002 9:43:56 AM PDT by Saundra Duffy
Righteous Anger: The only antidote for Conservative America
By Joel Brewer joelbrewer@politicalusa.com
4/29/2002
Get Updates
My friends, I am but a foot-soldier in the conservative army of America, still smarting from my first boot camp buzz-cut. At the age of 24, I have no political record, no campaign experience and certainly no vested interest in the political swamp of Washington. I’m a political rookie, pure and simple.
Despite these shortcomings, I believe I have the cure for what ails the conservative movement in this country. It’s not popular. It’s not fashionable. It’s not an attractive option, either. But it is the only option that our movement has if we have any hope of existing 20 years from now. Period.
I write of this cure for this reason only: I see our movement deteriorating quickly because of failed leadership at the highest levels.
The magical cure I speak of is this: Righteous Anger. These two words are the answer to all that currently besieges us. These terms must be taken in tandem; alone, neither is strong enough to survive. In order to put these two weapons to use, one must first understand their combined meanings.
First off, righteous means "in accordance with or conformable to law, justice or morality; proper and fitting." Anger is a "feeling of extreme hostility, rage; wanting to fight back."
Though Webster printed these definitions many years ago, his vice-grip on the meanings of these words is sadly lost on most modern conservative leaders.
Some of you are already dismissing me as a novice. You ask, "Why, Joel, are you so concerned? Don’t we (conservative Republicans) have control of the White House and the House of Representatives? Aren’t we in command of the nation’s agenda? Doesn’t President Bush currently enjoy unheard of levels of popularity?"
Yes, that’s all true, but who the hell cares?
Power, in and of itself, is corrupting. It does not intrinsically seek to influence what is good. The holding of power within our democratically elected government should merely be the means to an even more glorious end: The furthering of the conservative agenda; an agenda that holds the keys to America’s future: Free markets, individual freedom and responsibility, and a rejection of extremist, leftist, Marxist liberalism.
Folks, put all the details and complexities of politics aside. We conservatives are in a war…..a war with only two sides. A simple, yet titanic struggle between what is good and what is evil, what is American and what is un-American. Those are the stakes. There are no shades of gray. There is no room for compromise. The battle lines have been drawn. Which side are you on?
Why all of this rage, you ask? I tell you why. Our President, a man whom I respect and admire deeply has, like most conservative leaders of today, retreated. Retreated to the comfortable sofa of compromise. He talked a big game during the 2000 campaign, but he has failed to deliver.
The facts bear that out. Let me list them for all of you spineless conservatives out there who may be grabbing for your remotes because this channel makes you uncomfortable. Listen to me before you hit the mute button.
President Bush signed a blatantly un-Constitutional Campaign Finance Reform Package. He did so for political reasons. His only hope now is that the Supreme Court bails him out.
President Bush threw in the towel on drilling in ANWR, with scarcely a shot fired. Despite the fact that this new oil reserve would go a long way towards our own energy independence – despite the fact that drilling in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge can be done through environmentally safe methods - Mr. Bush has allowed the Leftist Senate, led by Tom Daschle, to torpedo this terrifically important provision in the current Energy Bill. The President has made little or no effort to highlight to the nation the gross irrationality and stupidity of the politically motivated Democrats who are responsible for the demise of ANWAR. He has remained on the sidelines during the entire debate even though scientific facts and the will of the American people strongly favors drilling in ANWR.
President Bush put his signature on a bad Education Bill last year. The bill contained huge spending increases and very little of what he had campaigned for, including private school vouchers. Again, he allowed liberal, socialist Democrats to frame this issue, an issue in which history and logic strongly favor President Bush’s own conservative views.
President Bush is actively pushing for the granting of amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants. President Bush is again doing so for political reasons. He wants so badly to bring over a few hundred thousand Hispanic votes, that he is willing to sacrifice the safety and sovereignty of America and her citizens. Mr. Bush should be ashamed and himself flogged for his outright anti-American stance on this issue.
I could go on and on. Steel Tariffs, faith-based initiatives, fence straddling in the Israeli-Palestinian morass, the refusal of Mr. Bush admit the cold, hard facts of racial profiling within the context of homeland security. Shall I continue?
Politically, Mr. Bush is reaping the benefits of his unprincipled compromises. His popularity is sky-high. He’s got the support of the nation for his war on terrorism. The economy is on the rebound. Things couldn’t be better for the President or Republicans, right?
Wrong!
Think I’m overreacting? I dare you to give me three instances in which Mr. Bush has fought on conservative principle. Heck, I’ll make it easy on you; just give me two instances. You have one hour……
Guess what? I could give you 24 hours and you wouldn’t be able to come up with even one instance in which President Bush has fought to preserve the conservative high ground. Why? Well, it’s simple: He has no internal righteous anger fueling his conservatism. His compassionate conservatism has no teeth. It has no passion, no drive, and certainly no win-at-all-cost mentality.
When was the last time you saw President Bush step up to the podium and deliver the conservative truth without any qualifying statements?
When was the last time you saw President Bush give the middle finger to all of his pollsters?
When was the last time you saw President Bush put principle over party?
In all honestly, you’d have to dig up some old debate clips from his 2000 rendezvous with Gore to find evidence of the original Bush, conservative warts and all.
The President’s speeches now are cloaked in ambiguous generalities. Rarely, does Mr. Bush deliver a message of unabashed conservative values. Everything, much like that of his predecessor, seems to be handled according to the polls. Mr. Bush has become the very antithesis of what he campaigned against in 2000. He is now operating as a Politician rather than a Statesman.
There is a huge difference between the two. A politician concerns himself solely with power and re-election. His only cares surround keeping his party in control of the federal purse strings. As a means to this end, the politician more often than not engages in political doubletalk, telling the voters what they want to hear; what he believes will offend the least number of voters and garner the greatest number of their ballots.
A statesman on the other hand operates out of obligation to his cause. He cares not about public opinion, but rather doing what is best for his constituents. He speaks with a purpose. He disregards the marginal minority interest groups his values might offend, and instead, concentrates on doing what he believes is right. His mind is not burdened with the thought of re-election. Getting re-elected is to him the natural result of successfully getting his message out.
In possession of power, the Statesman does not go out of his way to work with the minority party. He makes it known that those without the purse strings can work with him or get the hell out of the way. There is no unprincipled bipartisanship or "noble" compromise.
A statesman knows how to handle power. He is decisive, yet thoughtful. Principled, yet open to suggestion. His decisions are his, and his alone with exclusive input and influence devolving only from those like-minded counselors around him.
Finally, and most importantly, a Statesman’s most potent weapon is his never-ending reservoir of Righteous Anger. He fights for what he believes in. He is a fierce warrior, resolved to do what he believes is right, regardless of the consequences. He is unashamed of his values, and he takes every opportunity to ridicule and marginalize the values of his opponents. He is under no illusions. He understands the stakes. The game of politics is a long, treacherous war, and the Statesman understands the difference between winning individual battles and winning the long arduous war. For the Statesman, one’s values should never be sacrificed for political gain.
In recent political history, I can think of only one conservative warrior. His name is Newt Gingrich. Mr. Gingrich, if you’ll remember, was the orchestrator of the Republican Revolution of 1994. Through sheer force and power of persuasion, he helped push through seven of the Contract With America’s 10 items. He dominated the House of Representatives throughout the early to mid-90s because he fought for what he believed in and made no bones about it. He understood, unlike Mr. Bush, that if you lead based on principle, no matter how controversial, you will succeed. People will follow you. He did it with welfare reform. He helped congress balance the budget for the first time in a generation. He owed his success to his own hard work and the valuable contributions of his like-minded fellow congressmen.
My friends, as I conclude, I ask you to ask yourself this question: Are you happy to merely stem the liberal tide or do you want to make real headway? Are you content with President Bush’s incessant spirit of compromise and his refusal to stand up for conservative values, whatever the cost?
Or are you ready to finally make some headway? I tell you the truth when I say that real success for the conservative movement can only come when we allow true conservatives to become our leaders and spokesmen. I know I’m tired of leaders who talk the big talk, only to sacrifice their conservative values on the altar of political gain.
So, will you join me in fighting for real conservatism? Will you stand behind those who have Righteous Anger or will you continue to back spineless, whichever-way-the-wind-blows "conservatives"? You tell me.
Approval ratings don't mean jack.
Almost agree. Rightous Anger doesn't do a damn thing. I see a lot of TALKERS out there.
Joel, are you a talker, or a doer? At 24, you say you are a political novice and a rookie. I'm 23. I'm treasurer of MCRGO-PAC. I'm treasurer of a campaign(he withdrew). I've been on several other campaigns and am working on a couple here. I'm a member of the MSU and Livingston County GOP(I joined the party last year after being an indy). I'm running for precinct delegate right now. I'm a liason between MCRGO and other campaigns.
Rants don't do it. Action does. Too many conservatives are all talk and no action. Writing rants isn't action.
The comparison of the politician and the statesman is worth developing. But even the statesman knows that if he is not elected or reelected he can achieve nothing. And a statesman is not the same thing as an ideological warrior. The statesman has to have an idea of the country as a whole beyond this or that ideology.
It would be interesting to know just who the author's ideal statesmen are. We tend to take someone like Churchill as a model statesman because of his principled stand against Hitler. But that involves foreign policy. We forget that in his domestic political battles Churchill was ineffective when he stood firm on principle or ideology, and was not firm and uncompromising when he was effective. In 1945 Churchill stood firm on the issue of freedom versus socialism and lost by a landslide. When he came back to power, he compromised, fudged or finessed every ideological conflict. A half century earlier, at the beginning of his ministerial career, Churchill the Liberal did indeed stand on principle and for a time succeed, but they were the wrong principles.
If I had worked any harder, it would have killed me. We all worked hard. We are talking about a congressional district. The other two candidates were able to HIRE people to walk precincts. HIRE people. Our candidate was the only one with only volunteers. I told you; we did everything right. Money talks, pal. Maybe if our candidate had done the RIGHTEOUS ANGER thing, it would have made a difference. Oh, well, live and learn. For victory & freedom!!!
Amen to that!!
Best of luck. I hope you win!!!!!!
My opinion of you just rose even higher! Good for you. For victory & freedom!!!
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.