Posted on 03/07/2007 6:28:29 AM PST by MadIvan
In the run-up to the fateful election of 2008, conservatives face a clear-cut choice: we can rebuild our movement as a broad-ranging, mainstream coalition and restore our governing majority, or else settle for a semi-permanent role as angry, doom-speaking complainers on the fringes of American politics and culture.
We can either invite doubters and moderates to join with us in new efforts to affirm American values, or we can push them away because they fail to measure up to our own standards of indignation and ideological purity.
In short, we must choose between addition and subtraction: either building our cause by adding to our numbers or destroying it by discouraging all but the fiercest ideologues.
No political party or faction has ever thrived based on purges and insults and internal warfare, but too many activists on the right seem determined to reduce the conservative cause to self-righteous irrelevance.
The most recent outrage involving Ann Coulter provides a revealing example of the self-destructive tendencies of some dedicated partisans on the right. Addressing the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C., the best-selling author and glamorous Time magazine cover girl declared: “I was going to have a few comments about the other Democratic candidate for President, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot’ so I’m kind of at an impasse. I can’t really talk about Edwards.”
Some members of the audience gasped as she deployed the forbidden slur, but many others laughed and applauded. Naturally, Democratic Chair Howard Dean and many others pounced on the incident as another example of conservative viciousness and bigotry, demanding that all Republican Presidential candidates dissociate themselves from Coulter’s comments.
This challenge creates a miserable dilemma for every GOP contender. If the candidate ignores the controversy, he looks gutless and paralyzed in the face of obviously inappropriate and over-the-top insults. If he condemns Coulter, he looks like he’s wimping out to the liberal establishment and offends right-wing true believers who feel instinctively protective of Ann the Outrageous. Any comment by a presidential candidate also refocuses the national conversation on the absurd and unacceptable suggestion that John Edwards is secretly gay.
To paraphrase the old line attributed to Talleyrand: this smear amounts to worse than a crime, it is a blunder. John Edwards deserves contempt and derision on many counts, and I go after him (regularly) on my radio show for his extreme left wing positions on foreign policy and health care, his shameless opportunism, even his long history as a fabulously wealthy and floridly hypocritical ambulance-chasing attorney. Ann Coulter could have found plenty to say about the former North Carolina Senator without invoking the dreaded f-word (all right, the other dreaded f-word).
In fact, Edwards has been a visibly loyal husband to Elizabeth, his wife of more than 29 years, who’s currently battling breast cancer. Together, they’ve brought five children into the world, including a son who died in a tragic traffic accident at age 16. Drawing attention to Edwards’ personal life and away from his policies only helps Edwards and harms conservatives.
In other words, the lame attempt to question the Senator’s sexual orientation is precisely the wrong attack, and Coulter herself is most certainly the wrong attacker. If this issue continues to attract attention, indignant liberals will no doubt point out that the devoted family man from North Carolina exemplifies traditional values far more notably than the mini-skirted, never-married provocateur from the right.
Personally, I like and admire Ann Coulter, and I’ve always defended her in the past – even when liberals gleefully quoted out-of-context from her recent bestseller “Godless” to make it sound as if she suggested that 9/11 widows wanted their own husbands to die and celebrated their fiery deaths. Her caustic humor often upstages her serious and substantive political points, as did the notorious headline “They Shot the Wrong Lincoln” appended to her column attacking her fellow Republican, Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee. That one opinion piece didn’t doom Chafee’s re-election bid, but movement conservatives like Coulter and many others expressed the desire for his defeat—a loss that insured the Democrats’ one-vote margin in the Senate.
Reasonable people can disagree about the wisdom of concentrating fire on a fellow Republican (even a liberal GOP’er like Linc Chafee) but there can be no argument about the purely destructive impact of Coulter’s sneering slur against Edwards. How could such a nasty shot possibly assist the conservative cause? Which potential Republican supporters would feel motivated or mobilized by her casual use of the term “faggot”? How could a smart woman expect anything other than a disgusted and negative response for her implication that a long-married father of five deserved outing as a homosexual?
The Coulter commentary (and the subsequent applause) reinforced the public image of conservatives as unreasonably hostile to gay people in general, not just opposed to the dubious particulars of the so-called “gay rights” agenda. In fact, exit polls showed that self-identified gay people made up 4% of the total electorate in the incomparably close election of 2000, and nearly one third of those homosexual voters cast their ballots for George W. Bush. In other words, more than a million gay citizens voted for Bush-Cheney, in a race that ultimately turned on a mere 527 votes in Florida, and a national margin in the popular vote of just 537,000 for Gore.
What sense does it make for a featured speaker at a conservative conference to deliver gratuitous insult and offense to that stalwart minority of homosexuals who still choose to cast their lot with Republicans, despite the party’s impassioned (and appropriate) opposition to gay marriage?
By the same token, how does it help for one of the nation’s highest profile conservative talk hosts to use his broadcast on the Martin Luther King holiday to insult the fallen hero as unworthy of federal commemoration? Yes, the overwhelming majority of African-Americans votes incurably Democratic, but in 2004, Bush still drew well over a million-and-a-half black votes. It doesn’t help these courageous dissenters from politically correct orthodoxy if loud voices on the right make them wonder whether Jesse Jackson and Howard Dean are right about the racism of Republicans.
Finally, the most serious challenge of all involves the rapidly growing and increasingly prosperous Latino communities. Were it not for his competitive showing among Hispanics (with some 35% of their votes in 2000, and above 40% in 2004), Bush wouldn’t even have come close to victory, either time.
Meanwhile, elements of the President’s party seem perversely determined to make sure that no future Republican repeats this success with the nation’s fastest growing minority group. Imagine how naturalized Hispanic citizens, or even native-born Latinos might feel, at the suggestion that their cousins amount to an “invading army” bent on destroying America, or the common equation of terrorists (who have all been legal U.S. entrants by the way) and those who enter the country to care for our children and mow our lawns. Anti-immigrant rhetoric (which increasingly dispenses with any distinction between legal and illegal arrivals) provoked a disastrous shift of Latino voters away from the GOP in 2006. If Republicans continue to draw just 20% of Hispanic votes they will never regain control of Congress and stand scant chance of retaining the White House. Nativist posturing (like Congressman Tom Tancredo’s obnoxious slogan, “America Is Full”) may play well with some elements of the conservative base but it could easily doom Republicans to permanent minority status.
Obviously, the future of the conservative movement and of the Republic itself requires GOP recruitment of more Latinos, Blacks and gays, and anything that stands in the way of such participation fatally undermines the party’s future.
The situation hardly requires retreat and retrenchment on key issues of principle in the vague hope of winning more minority support.
Republicans don’t need to drop our implacable opposition to gay marriage in order reach out to gays.
We don’t need to reverse our criticism of race-based quotas in order to bring more black involvement in the party.
And we certainly don’t need to endorse automatic amnesty or “open borders” as a way to connect with Latino voters – but we might want to avoid widespread public advertising for games like “Find the Illegal Immigrant” (devised by a College Republicans chapter in New York City) or giving undeserved respect to crackpot fringe groups like the scandal-tainted “Minute Man Civil Defense Corps.”.
On all the important issues, it’s not substance that needs to change, it’s style.
Republicans need to return to the open, expansive conservatism of Ronald Reagan: more concerned with bringing in newcomers than driving out dissenters, more committed to winning elections than to scoring points in arguments, more determined to steer the government in the right direction than to sit at the sidelines carping about inevitable decline. We should make skeptics feel welcome as Republicans and urge them to fight the issues inside the party where they can have the most impact.
Every major event, every potential speaker, every resolution, every specific approach, deserves evaluation in terms of effectiveness in party building—winning new adherents to the cause.
We should ask a crucial question before we speak or act: will this draw people to conservative ideas and ideals, or will it serve to turn them off and push them away?
It’s not a matter of pandering; it’s an expression of practical politics. At this crucial juncture, conservatives need to recall the obvious point that you strengthen your cause most effectively when you’re appealing, not appalling.
No one is 'throwing her under the bus'.
The "point" here is a small % of people -- on both side, obviously -- wants the political debate to be full of rude, tacky insults. The Mike Savage type people. A small group of folks are so partisan that when "one of ours" makes a mistake they'll excuse it with their last breath.
The rest of us, still the majority, want *BOTH SIDES* to cut out the childishness.
We can't object to D name calling if we excuse it by our own. It's that simple.
Sure we can.
As in any war, as soon as hostilities cease, we can all return to civilized behavior.
"Man in the street" interviews always claim this, but the results rarely support it.
:-D
Oh, of course you *can* continue to be partisan hyporites, criticizing the other side while excuse your own side for the same behavior . . . it's a free country.
But the rest of us -- the vast majority -- are also free to shake our heads at you and wonder why some people just don't get it.
By your reasoning it is therefore partisan hypocricy for a nation to loose the dogs of war whilst still enforcing laws on the domestic front.
I wouldn't pontificate too much about "people who just don't get it" if I were you. You run the risk of becoming one of the aforementioned "useful idiots."
I think this is the specific difference here. Most folks would say that elections are still peace-time, and that the other party are just people we disagree with. We should treat people who disagree with us with decency and respect, when discussing serious issues.
Then you have the Mike Savages, the partisan extremists, who seem to think that any people who disagree with you are "the enemy", to be insulted, verbally abused and denigrated, and mocked. "Liberalism is a mental disease", and the like. Is that helpful in winning the debate? No. Does that make his audience happy? Absolutely.
It's funny when Ann calls someone a faggot in a comedy routine, or in her book. It is inappropriate when she does it at a 'Conservative Forum' where she is supposedly speaking for people who believe in a conservative use of federal power.
She appealed to her core market, the folks who want people who disagree with them insulted. She actually hurt the conservtive movement a little, and she made it clear she doesn't speak for the majority of us.
Herein lies your fundamental error.
It is when men of goodwill are treated so, that they take up the practice.
By your lights, the mugger and the victim should try for an amicable settlement.
It is what weak men and women do when others insult them.
We're not talking about war, violence being committed against us. Muggers, etc.
We're talking about simple political debate.
When the other side slanders, stick to your points. Be respectful. Disagree firmly and persuasively. Don't sink the the level of the dawgs. Be a man. Stand up and fight for what you believe, and do it with dignity.
Or, don't. Up to you. No one can force another to act with class.
We're talking about simple political debate.
Tell that to Scooter Libby. Violence comes in many forms, and some of them are legal.
And calling Fitzgerald a faggot will help Libby?
That's the point you refuse to address. When hanging out, cracking jokes, writing funny articles, that kind of thing is fine.
But at CPAC? When the focus is on Conservatives, and political issues?
She made me, and others like me who believe in a conserative use of federal power, want to distance myself from CPAC. Therefore hurting the cause of CPAC.
Ronald Reagan never once said, "oh yeah faggot!"
Strong men don't do that. Only weak men with no character stoop to the level of a D.
I believe we conservatives are above that.
I believe we conservatives are above that.
So you keep saying, like repetition will make it true. You're a regular doctrinaire of philosophy.
It rather reminds my of how my mom used to tell me never to throw the first punch...of course, not knowing a damned thing about fistfights, she didn't know the one that draws first blood is usually the winner.
Tell me, who won the Revolutionary War? Was it those dastardly Americans, hiding behind trees and rocks, or was it the noble British, who stood there and took it like men?
Again with the violence analogy!
Look, if folks like you insist on pretending that honest political debate is a war, and those who disagree with us are the enemy, then so be it.
We just disagree, friend. People like *me* are somehow able to win debates by sticking to facts and reason. If you lack that ability, then I s'pose I can't fault you for looking for another way to vent. It won't bring you success, but if it's all you got . . .
Folks like yourself and Ann in the last election when talking to anti-war Ds called them "Traitors" and "cowards" and such. Folks like myself would instead focus on saying things like, "We lost 6,000 dead, 25,000 wounded in 30 days of fighting for Iwo Jima, and that was a victory!"
Guess which approach is more effective? If you want to be effective, then measure your words. If you want to just vent, then name-call.
Up to you, it makes no never mind to me. I am who I am, you are who you are.
Look, if folks like you insist on pretending that honest political debate is a war, and those who disagree with us are the enemy, then so be it.
The problem is folks like you insist on pretending it's an honest political debate.
We're all Americans here. They think we want things that are bad for America. We think the same about them.
They vote, we vote. Majority rules. So our job is to convince them to vote our way. Some of them are like you -- partisan to their core, and immune to reason. But the majority of them are open to good points, made with reason.
I have had a *lot* of luck discussing these issues with 1/2 a dozen Ds I know, including my parents-in-law.
Real discussion is possible.
And while you are patting yourself on the back for possibly convincing a half dozen liberals to entertain discussion with you, the broader culture is falling to their dirty tricks aided by your insistance no one on your side get their hands dirty.
The pro-life faction has been comforting themselves with such drivel for almost 40 years, all the while ignoring the fact forty million children have been killed and the fact they have LOST the policy debate.
Well in large part, possilby that's cuz people like me, who are both pro-choice and effective in communicating?
I am pro-choice. And I'd never call a pro-life person a name. I respect your opinions, and debate ya'll openly and honestly. Calling you names would *not* help.
And my side has won the debate, for now.
Just reflect on your tactics, and look back and ask yourself, "How's that workin' for ya?"
Your side has not won the debate, only the political placement.
In the meantime, the effects of abortion on demand on the demographics of the United States and Western Europe are NOT pretty.
Implosion of the Social Security trust fund and dhimmitude for Western Europe are just two of the side effects.
No cheers, unfortunately.
Hardly. It's because your side obtained an illegitimate ruling from the SCOTUS, then managed to make every effective tactic your opposition used, illegal.
That communication skill is real effective when you can use RICO statutes against nonviolent protesters practicing civil disobedience...which by the way wouldn't even be civil disobedience if you hadn 't managed to stripped them of their civil rights around abortion clinics.
Well, interestingly enough, we certainly don't know the full consequences of this policy.
Did you ever read 'Freakonomics'? One of the topics covered was an analysis of abortion figures, as compared to crime rates.
This guy argued that abortions are overwhelmingly had by young, low-income, problem girls. And a high % of those children grow up to be criminals.
He used his figures to suggest that the lowering crime rates starting in 1991, 18 years after Roe v. Wade, are in part due to abortion.
It was a fascinating theory, but it's only a theory.
You have to this point lost the public debate.
I do believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. I believe this is a state's issue, there should be no federal ruling on it at all.
But I think that it should remain an option for women who want to excersize it.
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.