Courage of Conviction

I read about the family fight over Clinton and Obama that ended in a stabbing.  You can read the story here.

This is not a good development for our society.  We are in bad shape when we come to a time in our history when we are trying to kill each other over politics.  Of course, this isn’t new in our country - we had a civil war of course.  But in modern history, our political history has been very tame to say the least and we’ve had a high level of success in our stable society - this stems from the fact that regardless of who wins office, people recognize that there will not be much change.  What I have been seeing over the last several presidential elections is the hyping of elections - in other words, “this is the most important election in our lifetime” language.  What do you think the effect of this sort of thing is? 

Take a look at the situation in Africa - violence is the norm after an election - not just any violence, but large killing sprees because elections there do become a matter of life and death.  You vote to ensure that your candidate wins so that your land isn’t taken away or you aren’t killed for supporting an opposition candidate.  These are also countries that have high voter turnout - again for good reason, you’d vote if your life literally depended on it.

Is this the direction we want to take in this country?  I certainly don’t.  I don’t want the presidential election to matter that much frankly and it really shouldn’t have that much importance that it drives people to stab one another.  We are losing our common sense if we start viewing politics as the most important thing in life.  We lose our sanity if we view elections as determinants to our success and happiness.  We lose our country if election become a matter of life or death for people. 

Let’s get back to reality - regardless of who wins, not much will change and that’s a good thing - it’s how our system was designed.  We don’t want an efficient government.  The most efficient governments are dictatorships.  Gridlock is a good thing - it means the people aren’t getting screwed as often.  If election won’t bring about all that much change, then having a low voter turnout is a good thing too - it means that everyday people are putting politics in its rightful place, in the background.  They are viewing politics as it should be.

Last week was quite the week for me.  Monday was tax preparation day, Tuesday was filled with travel and meetings, Wednesday I was sick as a dog, Thursday was a catch-up day, and Friday was another snow filled day.  Needless to say, this was not the typical week.

I’m one of those 90% who don’t care about the Oscars.  In fact, I couldn’t really tell you the difference between an Oscar, a Grammy, a People’s Choice Award, or any of the other awards that are given out.  I can tell you that the American Country Music Awards are for country music, but only because they made it easy for people like me who don’t pay attention to any of the awards.  

I appreciate Michael Medved’s piece on the fragmentation of our culture, but I somewhat disagree.  The segmentation of our society isn’t a result of the proliferation of media - media works on market forces (the profit motive works in Hollywood too), it doesn’t drive market forces.  People want, and have wanted a segmentation of media, just like all other products.  It’s the same way our political campaigns work - we look for “niche” voters and speak to their needs and wants.  Media does the same thing - provide products for niche audiences.  It’s next to impossible to have mass appeal, which is why we don’t have many blockbuster movies that have mass appeal.  From a strictly economic standpoint, you get a better return on investment by niching than you do in trying to have a broad appeal.  In a niche you recognize that a higher percentage of people will buy your niched product, and hence give you a better return, than if you try to appeal to the mass audience. 

This has been going on for a long time.  One could argue that with the advent of our society segmenting ourselves by our backgrounds, where we are as a society, our politics, our media, etc. makes perfect sense.  In other words, when we started to refer to ourselves as something-Americans, we were already on the way to segmentation of our society.  So do I think this hyphanated-American society is the cause of this - no, merely a symptom. 

Years ago, a book was written, that has been out of circulation for many decades now called Civilization.  I don’t recall the author’s name, it was something like Fitzpatrick or something of that nature.  The author wrote about the cycles of civilizations - their rise and fall.  He wrote that from his study of civilizations throughout time, they all experienced the same cycle.  At the beginning of a civilization the most important unit is the extended family unit, tribe, etc.  They provide all the needs of everyone in that community - defense, food, labor, love, etc.  As civilizations advance they become more individualized, losing attachments to other people.  The role of government increases as a civilization becomes more individualized.  It has to start providing the things that an earlier civilization no longer has the ability to provide.  When we individualize, we of course niche.  When a civilization is at the individualized point, it falls apart because there is no commonality, no common purpose and no reason to stay together, no personal care for others.  All that matters is the individual’s needs and wants. 

One could argue we are moving in that direction - is it bad?  Can it be stopped?  Should it be stopped?  It is what it is.  It is the cycle that every civilization goes through and has gone through throughout history.  It is the same cycle that every future civilization will go through as well. 

I would make this argument, we are no longer in a melting pot.  How can we be in a melting pot - our whole society serves the need of individuals.  Our media, our politics, our food, our jobs, our retirements, our every moment is specialized, personalized, and niched.  We are at the height of individual freedom, and yet it is that same yearning for individual freedom which will most likely bring the ultimate end of our civilization, just as every other great civilation has experienced.  It is our cycle and our human need to express individual freedom. 

What a nice speech that John McCain gave at CPAC.  I’m still not buying.  One speech saying things that appeal to conservatives and we’re all just supposed to jump aboard the the straight talk express because if we don’t it will supposedly be the end of the world as we know it.  What I find is that if someone goes around saying they are conservative and tries to convince you through words that they are - then they usually aren’t.  If he were conservative, he wouldn’t have to tells us he is, he would have ran as a conservative during this primary and eight years ago.  Besides, do you honestly think the NY Times would endorse a conservative?   Glenn Beck is right, we must be in a wormhole - it’s the only way to make sense of this year’s election. 

I’m not buying.  I’m tired of the rhetoric - where are the deeds to back it up?  As for the idea that this is the most important election in our lifetime, well sure, since the last presidential election, and the one before that, and the one before that, etc. 

I’m tired of the rhetoric.  Jack Wheeler wrote a great piece on Jan. 4th which sums up my view.  You can read the whole thing here.

It is about the history lesson taught so arrestingly by Tommy Lee Jones as Agent K in Men In Black.

2008 is going to be a stressful year for a lot of folks.  The fate of America, the fate of Western Civilization, the fate of mankind, will be decided this year - as far as folks who enjoy being Drama Queens are concerned.

As we plunge forward into the fateful unknown of 2008, let us, then, take a deep, calming breath and listen to the soothing words of Agent K.

His partner, Agent J played by Will Smith, is freaking out as a newbie man-in-black, unglued over the alien threat that will destroy the Earth in the next half-hour.

Agent J:  Man, we ain’t got time for this…  I don’t know whether or not you’ve forgotten, but there’s an Arquillian Battle Cruiser that’s about to…

Agent K: Kid, there’s always an Arquillian Battle Cruiser, or a Corillian Death Ray, or an intergalactic plague that is about to wipe out all life on this little planet, and the only way these people can get on with their happy lives is that they… do… not… know about it!

Welcome to the history of the world.

See, the argument is being made that today’s Arquillian Battle Cruiser is the war in Iraq.  When Arlen Specter was up for election it was the judges, when Dole ran it was something else, etc.  There will never be a perfect time.  There will always be some imminent threat in which the establishment tells us that we must be “pragmatic” and accept something or someone below our standards.  I’m tired of lowering my standards.  What ultimately changes when we do this, over and over and over again?  Nothing and who do we have to blame for this - ourselves for buying the rhetoric and the promises - empty promises made that have no intention of being kept. 

Success comes to those who refuse to lower their standards, who stay focused, who don’t allow distractions in, who perserver, who understand their “why” for doing something and go after it with an attitude of “failure is not an option.” 

So the question becomes, what’s the goal for the conservative movement?  Is it to just survive for the next 4 years by slowing down our accent to who knows where?  Well, then John McCains the guy if that is the goal.  If the goal is a vision of America that looks a certain way, a government that functions a certain way, a people who act a certain way, then he most certainly isn’t the guy - he’s a distraction.  

If we lose sight of what the conservative vision is, we have political ADD.  We’ll always be in reaction mode and always be complaining.  Carrying out the conservative vision is about being proactive, staying focused, understanding our “why” and realizing that “failure is not an option.” 

Chuck Muth, a conservative activist who writes a regular e-mail newsletter on conservativism wrote the following:

Slit a Vein or Vote for McCain?
By Chuck Muth
February 3, 2008

On the eve of Super-Duper Tuesday, some Drive-By Muthings.

* While the conservative knock against Mitt Romney is that he started out as a moderate and has since moved to the right, John McCain started out on the right but has since moved to the left.  Which is worse?

* That McCain is now successfully campaigning as a conservative apparently proves you can fool an awful lot of Republicans an awful lot of the time.

* GOP party pooh-bahs are now pushing McCain under the assumption that he’s the one Republican who can keep “that woman” out of the Oval Office.  But he’s also the one Republican with a Ross Perot-like temper problem who could similarly suffer a meltdown next fall and hand the election to her on a silver platter.  Talk about a “risky scheme.”

* Conservative columnist Ann Coulter said this week she’d vote for Hillary rather than vote for John McCain.  Sounds pretty extreme, right?  But guess what?  She’s not alone.  I overheard a Republican woman at a GOP event yesterday who said, “I’d rather slit a vein than vote for John McCain.”  Nice bumper sticker.  Many conservatives aren’t just saying “No” to John McCain.  They’re saying, “Hell, no!”

* So tell me again why McCain is the best Republican to defeat Hillary in November?

* As long as Mike Huckabee stays in the race, he’s helping John McCain by taking conservative votes away from Mitt Romney, the only remaining GOP candidate with a shot at stopping the Double-Talk Express.  So the question for Huckabee supporters on Tuesday will be this simple: Do I vote for McCain by voting for Huckabee.or Romney?

* Jason Wright over at Political Derby notes this week that “it seems (Huckabee will) be as satisfied with a McCain win as he would his own.”  One of the early criticisms of Huckabee was that he could care less about the conservative movement or the Republican Party; that’s it’s always all about Mike.  Looks like those reports were pretty accurate. 

* Some conservatives have come to the conclusion that the ONLY hope for the conservative movement this election cycle is a brokered GOP convention in which a dark-horse consensus candidate can ride in to save the day.  Desperate times call for desperate measures.  And these are desperate times for the Right.

* In the unlikely event conservatives can somehow force a brokered convention, who might the dark-horse savior be?  Many, of course, are talking about Newt Gingrich.  But others are quietly suggesting a candidate who they believe could unite all the factions of the Reagan center-right coalition without inflaming the Left the way the former House Speaker would: South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford.  And Sanford is someone even the Ron Paul folks could support.

*  Do it!  Do it!  Do it!

* It’s been pointed out that no nominee coming out of a brokered convention has ever gone on to win the White House in November.  True.  But as my friend Phil Sheldon notes, that was before Al Gore invented the Internet.  Point taken.

* And finally, even if Newt or Sanford lost in November the way Gerald Ford lost to Jimmy Carter in ‘76 after the conservative GOP primary challenge by Reagan, at least conservatives would be united in their opposition to Hillary (or Barack) for the next four years.  That would probably result in regaining at least one, and maybe even both houses of Congress in 2010, followed by a Reagan-like win against a failed Democrat incumbent president in 2012 by a true conservative.

I can think of worse scenarios.  So can a growing number of other conservatives.