How the Center Does Not Hold

[alicewonders]

Skinner could use yours.  Or are you already a donating member and are only here to make this forum undesirable to lurkers that were thinking of joining?

I think pretty much everyone here with a functioning brain has already figured @WTF out.   

[Jazzhead]

I think pretty much everyone here with a functioning brain has already figured @WTF out.

Indeed - he's one of the pillars of intelligent discourse here.   The snowflakes and Trumpsters who brook no dissent can utilize the ignore function. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Indeed - he's one of the pillars of intelligent discourse here.   The snowflakes and Trumpsters who brook no dissent can utilize the ignore function.

Thank you Jazzheard. All these clowns can do is yell "leftist" in impotent anger. Not a fun forum to be on if you value anything even slightly resembling intelligent discourse.

[skeeter]

Indeed - he's one of the pillars of intelligent discourse here.   The snowflakes and Trumpsters who brook no dissent can utilize the ignore function.

Sure. If you think 'read my signature' is intelligent discourse.

[Mod2]

Let's stay on topic and avoid getting this thread shut down.

Worth repeating.  Lets all play nice.

[r9etb]

Let's stay on topic and avoid getting this thread shut down.

Ironically, all of the insults and wailing and gnashing of teeth are on topic for this particular article.

As Goldberg points out:

This is how the center does not hold. Democracies — never mind civilizations — depend on a minimal amount of buy-in to rules of conduct and behavior. It’s no different than good sportsmanship. If you claim that every bad call by the ref is illegitimate because “the fix is in,” and this behavior pays off, the incentive for the other side to play by the rules evaporates.

[alicewonders]

Ironically, all of the insults and wailing and gnashing of teeth are on topic for this particular article.

As Goldberg points out:

Absolutely right!  The responses on this thread ARE on topic!  If it's getting too hot for some - maybe they should just move on.

[Mod1]

Ironically, all of the insults and wailing and gnashing of teeth are on topic for this particular article.

As Goldberg points out:

Point taken and accepted.

We still expect no personal insults, as we do expect the minimal courtesies to be maintained.

[alicewonders]

Worth repeating.  Lets all play nice.

Play nice?

Is that what we're here for?

[r9etb]

We still expect no personal insults, as we do expect the minimal courtesies to be maintained.

Rational discourse isn't possible otherwise.

[Frank Cannon]

Thank you Jazzheard. All these clowns can do is yell "leftist" in impotent anger. Not a fun forum to be on if you value anything even slightly resembling intelligent discourse.

Oh yeah? I'm still waiting for you to respond to my post specifically showing that Goldberg has no idea what he is talking about, thus rendering his opinions worthless.

[anubias]

I posted an article, nothing more, nothing less. I was immediately set upon by the forum howler monkeys.

You are so innocent aren't you, WTF?  Out of that entire article, you pick something from the bottom to quote that just happened to have a remark about Ted Cruz.  Despicable. 

[r9etb]

Oh yeah? I'm still waiting for you to respond to my post specifically showing that Goldberg has no idea what he is talking about, thus rendering his opinions worthless.

"Ahh, but the strawberries that's... that's where I had them.
They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the
shadow of a doubt and with... geometric logic... "

[Wingnut]

Three Mods sitting on a thread?  You guys have at it.  I'm finding another thread to expose myself on.

[Cripplecreek]

@r9etb

This is how the center does not hold. Democracies — never mind civilizations — depend on a minimal amount of buy-in to rules of conduct and behavior. It’s no different than good sportsmanship. If you claim that every bad call by the ref is illegitimate because “the fix is in,” and this behavior pays off, the incentive for the other side to play by the rules evaporates.

One of my earliest comments here at TBR was about my longtime opposition to playing by the Alinsky rules and the warning that it would destroy us and lead us to the left. (which was immediately met with some comment about me being a loser and nobody cares what losers think) In my opinion its worked like a charm and done exactly what I warned it would do.

Conservatives began to believe that we could be as immoral and obnoxious as the left because our goal was noble. (The ends justify the means) "The ends", Federalism, less spending, lower taxes, less government, have all faded away and been replaced with a raging desire for revenge at any cost.

Saul Alinsky knew exactly who he was serving when he dedicated his works to Satan. He was in the business of getting people to reverse mortgage their souls.

    1. One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue.

    2. The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.

    3. In war the end justifies almost any means.

    4. Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.

    5. Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.

    6. The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.

    7. Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.

    8. The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.

    9. Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.

    10. You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.

    11. Goals must be phrased in general terms like “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” “Of the Common Welfare,” “Pursuit of Happiness,” or “Bread and Peace.”

[endicom]

Well I think you all suck and should all go back to Vox and Stormfront and all of those nasty places. So there!

[r9etb]

@r9etb
Conservatives began to believe that we could be as immoral and obnoxious as the left because our goal was noble. (The ends justify the means) "The ends", Federalism, less spending, lower taxes, less government, have all faded away and been replaced with a raging desire for revenge at any cost.

Good post.  I highlight the above because I think maybe you've over-thought it a little.  For conservatives in general, I think what you're seeing is maybe not so much due to adoption of Alinski tactics, as it is due to a lack of understanding of our own philosophy. 

Alinksi tactics are designed for political hyenas who prey on those people and ideas that are least easy to defend.  They're not concerned with political principles per se; they're designed to create 'victory' by destroying the opponent.  Alinski tactics use people's own manners and principles against them, and they're really not concerned about the collateral damage of 'victory.'

I really don't see that sort of cynicism or political focus among conservatives.  Rather, what I generally see is frustration and anger at being unable, for various reasons, to make a cogent case for conservatism, much less to stem the tide of the authoritarian left. 

And so we fall into the trap of trying to destroy our opponents in the same way they always seem to destroy us.  Unfortunately, they understand what they're doing and why, and we're just reacting to it.

Trump's central political insight for the election was to recognize and exploit the frustration and anger of regular people against a system that really is broken.  Perhaps a demagogue was the only sort of candidate who could have done that.  Unfortunately, as we seem to be seeing, demagoguery is not a good strategy for governing effectively in a system like ours.

[Oceander]

Good post.  I highlight the above because I think maybe you've over-thought it a little.  For conservatives in general, I think what you're seeing is maybe not so much due to adoption of Alinski tactics, as it is due to a lack of understanding of our own philosophy. 

Alinksi tactics are designed for political hyenas who prey on those people and ideas that are least easy to defend.  They're not concerned with political principles per se; they're designed to create 'victory' by destroying the opponent.  Alinski tactics use people's own manners and principles against them, and they're really not concerned about the collateral damage of 'victory.'

I really don't see that sort of cynicism or political focus among conservatives.  Rather, what I generally see is frustration and anger at being unable, for various reasons, to make a cogent case for conservatism, much less to stem the tide of the authoritarian left. 

And so we fall into the trap of trying to destroy our opponents in the same way they always seem to destroy us.  Unfortunately, they understand what they're doing and why, and we're just reacting to it.

Trump's central political insight for the election was to recognize and exploit the frustration and anger of regular people against a system that really is broken.  Perhaps a demagogue was the only sort of candidate who could have done that.  Unfortunately, as we seem to be seeing, demagoguery is not a good strategy for governing effectively in a system like ours.

@r9etb

Good post!!!!  Thanks!

[skeeter]

Good post.  I highlight the above because I think maybe you've over-thought it a little.  For conservatives in general, I think what you're seeing is maybe not so much due to adoption of Alinski tactics, as it is due to a lack of understanding of our own philosophy. 

Alinksi tactics are designed for political hyenas who prey on those people and ideas that are least easy to defend.  They're not concerned with political principles per se; they're designed to create 'victory' by destroying the opponent.  Alinski tactics use people's own manners and principles against them, and they're really not concerned about the collateral damage of 'victory.'

I really don't see that sort of cynicism or political focus among conservatives.  Rather, what I generally see is frustration and anger at being unable, for various reasons, to make a cogent case for conservatism, much less to stem the tide of the authoritarian left. 

And so we fall into the trap of trying to destroy our opponents in the same way they always seem to destroy us.  Unfortunately, they understand what they're doing and why, and we're just reacting to it.

Trump's central political insight for the election was to recognize and exploit the frustration and anger of regular people against a system that really is broken.  Perhaps a demagogue was the only sort of candidate who could have done that.  Unfortunately, as we seem to be seeing, demagoguery is not a good strategy for governing effectively in a system like ours.

Assuming you are correct...

I do not believe fully half of the country is open to any case for conservatism. Not the bureaucracy currently holding a death grip on the levers of state power, nor their clients in all their various incarnations.

They don't want to stem the authoritarian tide, they welcome it.

So, matters of style aside, what other constitutional means are available to those of us who want to reverse the current slide towards despotism, which is what it is, the country is on?

[r9etb]

I do not believe fully half of the country is open to any case for conservatism. Not the bureaucracy currently holding a death grip on the levers of state power, nor their clients in all their various incarnations.

They don't want to stem the authoritarian tide, they welcome it.

Perhaps.  However, given that we conservatives can't seem to agree on what constitutes "conservatism," I'd venture to suggest that we don't know if people are "open to any case for conservatism."  We can't present one, beside a few catch-phrases and signature issues we have trouble defending.  How would they possibly decide for or against it?

So, matters of style aside, what other constitutional means are available to those of us who want to reverse the current slide towards despotism, which is what it is, the country is on?

If you say "other" means, one assumes you have something in mind.  What specific constitutional means are you proposing in the first place, and how would you define/defend them as "conservative?"

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

"Ahh, but the strawberries that's... that's where I had them.
They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the
shadow of a doubt and with... geometric logic... "

I really need to see this movie because I've seen it referenced again and again the past few days.

[skeeter]

Perhaps.  However, given that we conservatives can't seem to agree on what constitutes "conservatism," I'd venture to suggest that we don't know if people are "open to any case for conservatism."  We can't present one, beside a few catch-phrases and signature issues we have trouble defending.  How would they possibly decide for or against it?

If you say "other" means, one assumes you have something in mind.  What specific constitutional means are you proposing in the first place, and how would you define/defend them as "conservative?"

Im talking about what you are criticizing - the approach trump has adapted with regard to the press and his political opponents. im suggesting that this approach might be the only way these days to reach a critical mass of popular opinion. We know what doesn't work.

Conservatism meaning an adherence to constitutional principles and original intent. I think there's general agreement among conservatives that this is the bedrock of their ideology.

[Oceander]

Perhaps.  However, given that we conservatives can't seem to agree on what constitutes "conservatism," I'd venture to suggest that we don't know if people are "open to any case for conservatism."  We can't present one, beside a few catch-phrases and signature issues we have trouble defending.  How would they possibly decide for or against it?

If you say "other" means, one assumes you have something in mind.  What specific constitutional means are you proposing in the first place, and how would you define/defend them as "conservative?"

[Bigun]

I think pretty much everyone here with a functioning brain has already figured @WTF out.   

They have indeed!  But it's still a pain in the @$$ to have to wade through all his BS!

[r9etb]

Im talking about what you are criticizing - the approach trump has adapted with regard to the press and his political opponents. im suggesting that this approach might be the only way these days to reach a critical mass of popular opinion. We know what doesn't work.

I guess the question is: does Trump's approach generate the necessary consensus for serious change?  Trump does a lot of talking about what he's against, and his approach is useful for that purpose.  But it's essentially destructive.  It's not an effective method for building a replacement.

Conservatism meaning an adherence to constitutional principles and original intent. I think there's general agreement among conservatives that this is the bedrock of their ideology.

Practically speaking that's a meaningless statement.  Even if you and I broadly agree, what you mean by it is probably different in many respects from how I would describe it.  And for people who generally don't think about such things in the first place it has no meaning at all.  The question is: what principles and ideas would we want/need to present to them, in order to bring them to our point of view?

For example, what "constitutional principles" are you talking about?  What is "original intent," and why is it important, and why should we adhere to it in a world that in many respects is immeasurably different from the one in which the Founders wrote the Constitution?