No More Mr. Nice Con... Kurt Schlichter

[mystery-ak]

No More Mr. Nice Con

Kurt Schlichter
 |  Feb 20, 2023

The hideous notion that conservatives should always be nice is rearing its ugly and misshapen head again, and we need to crush its skull with a Louisville Slugger. Recently, Matt Walsh went off on some womanface imposter who looks like a wimpy boy pretending to be a fugly girl, and some alleged conservatives clutched the same pearls he/she likes to wear. Why, Matt was mean. Mean! And Senator Tim Scott seems poised to enter the presidential race on a platform of being nice. He is a nice guy too, and that’s fine, except like many conservatives he misunderstands the purposes of being nice. Being nice is not an end unto itself.

Neither being nice or being mean is the objective. The objective is defeating these communist demons and reestablishing a free, strong, and prosperous America. Niceness and meanness are mere tactics. But by focusing on the tactic, the weak and the feckless can avoid facing up to the hard work of attaining the objective. If your metric is how nice or mean you are, you never have to explain why you don’t ever seem to attain the objective. America got worse from 2001 to 2008, but W was a gentleman, so it was fine. This is pretty much the entire GOP modus operandi up until 2016, when the base chose mean and victory over nice and defeat.

“A thousand points of light.” “Kinder, gentler.” “Compassionate conservatism.” Ugh. This is the point of failure. How nice we are or how mean we are is not the issue. The issue is how effective we are. These spineless losers managed America’s decline for decades while retreating to the purported moral high ground of niceness. Those of us unconcerned with the Margaret Dumonts and their “Oh well, I never-ing” are left to clean up the mess. But it’s always like that. Some of us have to do the dirty work to make the world safe for the sissies, and then the sissies moan about how uncouth we are.

more
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2023/02/20/no-more-mr-nice-con-n2619715

[Kamaji]

[andy58-in-nh]

Republicans need to grow a pair and stop trying to cooperate with people who literally want to destroy us.

[Fishrrman]

Andy wrote:
"Republicans need to grow a pair and stop trying to cooperate with people who literally want to destroy us."

Unfortunately, even a DeSantis isn't going to be able to accomplish this.

Perhaps we'd be better off with "an American Pinochet".
Do "what needs to be done", and ... in time... restore representative government.
(and NO, I'm NOT kidding about that)

[LMAO]

Perhaps we'd be better off with "an American Pinochet".

I fear it may come to that

The problem with that is that we will lose basic freedoms. And it’s unlikely many of those freedoms would return. Remember the “just a 15 day lockdown to flatten the curve?”

[Right_in_Virginia]

Republicans need to grow a pair

Agree.  But, what the heck do we do with the half that takes to his fainting couch after reading a "mean" tweet?   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

There is a huge difference between offending others simply by sticking to your principles, and offending others needlessly just because it amuses you.  Schlichter fails to recognize that distinction, and why it is so important.

Ronald Reagan navigated that distinction perfectly, and it was one of the reasons why he was so successful. He never backed off stating hard truths or sticking to his principles. But at the same time, he did not make it a habit to needlessly antagonize critical swing voters through his choice of language.

It was the Democrats who tried to eliminate that distinction when Reagan ran for office in 1980, by painting him as a mean, nasty, war-mongering guy.  What was so critical about Reagan's debate performance is that he came across as a pleasant, normal guy, but never compromised on his conservative principles.

That turned out to be a winning combination with a majority of the country's voters.  Because whether we like it or not, there are a significant number of voters who actually care more about the personality of the candidate than they do about policies. I suspect most of us here think that's pretty stupid, but that doesn't make the votes of those people count any less. 

The issue is not trying to win over leftists who are going to hate us no matter how nice we are because they hate our policies and what we represent.  The issue is trying not to needlessly alienate winnable swing voters just because it may amuse us to troll and offend the leftists.

A good recent example is how DeSantis has handled the transgender issue in Florida.  He has come out very strongly against children being subjected to transgenderism, and specifically called out the use of the "euphemism" of "gender affirming care" to hide the fact that they were actually performing castrations, mastectomies, and sterilizations of children.  That was a very strong, very direct, and completely non-compromising statement on transgenderism that greatly offended the left. 

But at the same time, DeSantis did not mock or ridicule transgender people themselves, which would have served no useful purpose other than to amuse some conservative supporters.  But it may have alienated some swing voters who otherwise agreed with DeSantis' argument.  DeSantis stated hard truths, stuck to his guns on a very controversial issue, and still won by 19%.

I think that approach works far better than Schlichter's advocacy of rhetorical scorched earth.

[LMAO]

There is a huge difference between offending others simply by sticking to your principles, and offending others needlessly just because it amuses you.  Schlichter fails to recognize that distinction, and why it is so important.

Ronald Reagan navigated that distinction perfectly, and it was one of the reasons why he was so successful. He never backed off stating hard truths or sticking to his principles. But at the same time, he did not make it a habit to needlessly antagonize critical swing voters through his choice of language.

It was the Democrats who tried to eliminate that distinction when Reagan ran for office in 1980, by painting him as a mean, nasty, war-mongering guy.  What was so critical about Reagan's debate performance is that he came across as a pleasant, normal guy, but never compromised on his conservative principles.

That turned out to be a winning combination with a majority of the country's voters.  Because whether we like it or not, there are a significant number of voters who actually care more about the personality of the candidate than they do about policies. I suspect most of us here think that's pretty stupid, but that doesn't make the votes of those people count any less. 

The issue is not trying to win over leftists who are going to hate us no matter how nice we are because they hate our policies and what we represent.  The issue is trying not to needlessly alienate winnable swing voters just because it may amuse us to troll and offend the leftists.

A good recent example is how DeSantis has handled the transgender issue in Florida.  He has come out very strongly against children being subjected to transgenderism, and specifically called out the use of the "euphemism" of "gender affirming care" to hide the fact that they were actually performing castrations, mastectomies, and sterilizations of children.  That was a very strong, very direct, and completely non-compromising statement on transgenderism that greatly offended the left. 

But at the same time, DeSantis did not mock or ridicule transgender people themselves, which would have served no useful purpose other than to amuse some conservative supporters.  But it may have alienated some swing voters who otherwise agreed with DeSantis' argument.  DeSantis stated hard truths, stuck to his guns on a very controversial issue, and still won by 19%.

I think that approach works far better than Schlichter's advocacy of rhetorical scorched earth.

Good post

But I've tried explaining the difference between fighting for principles vs Twitter wars with Stormy Daniels to Trumpers and it's been futile

All you get from them is comments about wealth envy and “orange man rude”

[Kamaji]

There is a huge difference between offending others simply by sticking to your principles, and offending others needlessly just because it amuses you.  Schlichter fails to recognize that distinction, and why it is so important.

Ronald Reagan navigated that distinction perfectly, and it was one of the reasons why he was so successful. He never backed off stating hard truths or sticking to his principles. But at the same time, he did not make it a habit to needlessly antagonize critical swing voters through his choice of language.

It was the Democrats who tried to eliminate that distinction when Reagan ran for office in 1980, by painting him as a mean, nasty, war-mongering guy.  What was so critical about Reagan's debate performance is that he came across as a pleasant, normal guy, but never compromised on his conservative principles.

That turned out to be a winning combination with a majority of the country's voters.  Because whether we like it or not, there are a significant number of voters who actually care more about the personality of the candidate than they do about policies. I suspect most of us here think that's pretty stupid, but that doesn't make the votes of those people count any less. 

The issue is not trying to win over leftists who are going to hate us no matter how nice we are because they hate our policies and what we represent.  The issue is trying not to needlessly alienate winnable swing voters just because it may amuse us to troll and offend the leftists.

A good recent example is how DeSantis has handled the transgender issue in Florida.  He has come out very strongly against children being subjected to transgenderism, and specifically called out the use of the "euphemism" of "gender affirming care" to hide the fact that they were actually performing castrations, mastectomies, and sterilizations of children.  That was a very strong, very direct, and completely non-compromising statement on transgenderism that greatly offended the left. 

But at the same time, DeSantis did not mock or ridicule transgender people themselves, which would have served no useful purpose other than to amuse some conservative supporters.  But it may have alienated some swing voters who otherwise agreed with DeSantis' argument.  DeSantis stated hard truths, stuck to his guns on a very controversial issue, and still won by 19%.

I think that approach works far better than Schlichter's advocacy of rhetorical scorched earth.

Generally I agree, but one should be ready to tweak a few noses when doing so will not cause damage to one's own side.  The left get away with a substantial amount of such attacks, that largely go unaddressed, and the GOP should be pushing back - not in the sense of flailing out at all and sundry, as a certain ex-president is wont to do, but I feel that Reagan's approach is a little too laid back for today, and assumes a little too much good will on the part of one's opponents, goodwill that no longer exists on the left.  That being said, I do agree that Reagan's basic approach is one that should form the foundation for anyone's current approach.