Skip to comments.You Cannot Be More Liberal Than a Liberal
Posted on 01/17/2013 4:48:43 AM PST by expat1000
So after a long bout of mocking Mitt Romney for saying that he sought out binders full of qualified female appointees, complete with protesters outside one of his campaign offices dressed in binders, the appointed hour came and the new cabinet of the man who was too good for binders of women was white and male.
There was some awkward fidgeting in the media. A few suggestions that maybe there should be a little more diversity. And that was followed by the new official talking point that diversity doesn't matter, it's all about the impact of the policies. Suddenly the Party of Affirmative Action began making conservative arguments for merit and representation, over racial preferences.
To some this was proof that liberals don't really believe in anything. And that's true and it isn't.
Modern American Liberalism is the movement of a wealthy white upper class meant to suppress the working class and the mercantile class. Think of it as the revenge of the barons against the merchants and the wrath of the old New England elites against the Nouveau Riche. It adopted the Jewish and Catholic immigrants who accepted its values and codes. It even occasionally brings in more exotic figures, like Barack Obama, so long as they have gone to the right schools and share their values.
Liberals champion multiculturalism, they enact diversity requirements and push through immigration, and then they send their children to private schools and buy houses in white neighborhoods. They are mostly unaware that they are doing this. They're just doing what comes naturally. Like most people, liberals are most comfortable among their own kind.
Their kind is not so much a racial group, as it is a cultural one. If you've ever set foot in a liberal stronghold, then you can already recognize the very expensive casual wear, the cars with progressive bumper stickers, the beaming helicoptered children, the reusable bags and the other markings of the American upper class. The one that may spend 5 years slumming it in a big city, gathering tattoos and experiences, before retreating to the traditional comforts of a posh suburb and a high end do-nothing non-profit job.
They emphasize minorities, but most minorities, especially after the passing of the melting pot that another generation of liberals implemented, don't fit all that well into the cultural liberal landscape. It's why Obama plays golf, even though he's bad at it. It's why his campaign staff and his cabinet leans toward the same white males who still run most things, including liberalism.
Liberals have varying degrees of awareness of this, ranging from aggressive denial to passive denial, much as conservatives have some degree of awareness that FOX News personalities are likely more liberal than they pretend to be. And like most such conflicts, the information gets filed away in favor of focusing on a more immediate problem.
The diversity that could be seen in a photo of Cheney on September 11 or Romney's appointments are completely meaningless because you cannot win an argument with a liberal by being more liberal than him. It's fun to try, but it doesn't actually work for the same reason that you can't be more Catholic than the Pope.
The liberal program is not just diversity. It's a grander and vaster program. And those who promote the program can violate any single aspect of it, without facing any consequences or contradictions, so long as they remain valuable players.
Bill Clinton could act out the bad part in every sensitivity training video. Obama can pay women less. Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton can make racist jokes. Obama can govern through Executive Orders and start illegal wars. So can any Democrat. None of that matters because they're all plays in the big program. And the "Big Program" means a new world with good stuff for all. Accomplishing it means ignoring the little sins that would lead to any little person being lynched, jailed or denounced.
Liberals are busy lining up to defend Chuck Hagel, a former Republican who hated homosexuals, opposed abortion and on most issues, aside from foreign policy, was fairly conservative. But that doesn't matter because Hagel is now on Team Prog. Local interest groups may object, but the liberal purpose in having Jewish or Gay or Female auxiliaries is so that they can support the larger program. When they don't support it, they're told to shut the hell up.
Conservatives can be more diverse than Liberals, but that won't score them any points because it's not really about diversity. They can be more Feminist or more Gay-friendly or more environmentalist. And they will only be mocked for it. Because liberalism isn't about any of these things, it's about the package deal. The only way to out-liberal a liberal is not on any single value that he claims to profess, but on every single one of them. And at that point you become a liberal.
The left does not have any fixed values. It only has values of convenience. A conservative politician who has an affair is derided for breaking with a concrete moral code. But no such moral code is there for the opposite side. Not on any issue.
Radical groups cannot afford to be bound by morals. The 9/11 terrorists went to a strip club. Al Qaeda and Hezbollah run drugs. But those things are fine because they're working toward a big program. And when you work toward the big program, the little stuff falls away. Like everything else they do, it's just a little evil for the sake of a greater good.
The American left is mostly legal now, but it thinks like an insurgency. It keeps two sets of values, it lies to itself and to everyone else about what it is and what it is doing. And those bad habits, garnered from European radical movements have flowed into the cultural veins of American liberalism leading to consistent inconsistency and showy hypocrisy.
Like Communism, there is only one big program and no mandatory practices that might get in its way. There are a billion rules, regulations, laws, guidelines, mandates and assorted rubbish heaps of paper listing the things that you are supposed to do and in what orders, but none of it really matters except to the little people who are forced to obey.
Membership has its privileges. Not at the lowest ranks, but moving up the ladder means that you are valuable enough not to have to follow your own movement's idiotic rules. The peons may spend more than they can afford to keep down their heating bills, but their betters take jet planes around the world to lecture on the dangers of global warming. The peons may worry over whether they have sufficient awareness of their privilege, but their betters will make racist jokes and chase every woman in the room.
Hypocrisy is the outcome, but in a totalitarian system it's also the point. When there are too many rules, then power becomes the privilege of not having to abide by them. And hypocrites are usually the loudest shouters on any given issue, because loudly denouncing everyone else is the surest way to advance up the ladder and to avoid being denounced for their own shortcomings.
This pattern of hypocrisy is accepted on operational grounds. An official position on sexual harassment is replaced with one that focuses on the outcome of making feminist policies possible. An official position on diversity is traded in, once again, for the outcome. And under the rule of hypocrites, the outcome is all that counts. It's always the ends justifying the means until it turns out that the ends are power and the means are also power and the circle has closed itself.
Liberalism has a myriad of standards, but no single fixed standard. You can be a liberal who has Nazi sympathies. You can be a liberal war criminal. You can be a liberal racist. You can be a liberal rapist. You can be a liberal polluter, profiteer, union-buster, abuser of employees and assorted things of that nature and none of it ever flunks you or your party or your movement because it's all about the ends.
What you cannot be, however, is more liberal than a liberal on any issue because there is no such thing. The issue is a means. Diversity is a means of creating a base that is dependent on the liberal elite and loyal to them. So are unions, and just about every liberal policy there is. And the means cannot be used to subvert the ends.
The diversity of Bush or Romney is viewed as a means, a collection of tokens, because that is what it is on the liberal side. And even if liberals believe that Bush and Romney are sincere about diversity, diversity, a mere means, cannot be used to subvert an end, that being the entire liberal program.
Republicans who try to adapt to liberal values are pursuing a dead end. Liberal values only serve liberals, especially in the teeth of a liberal media. They cannot be used to serve or promote someone who is not. And consciously adopting those values and highlighting that adoption is a dead end. It's worth doing if it's the right thing, but the other side will just sneer and mock because values to them are not tests of character, but weapons, a means of producing programmed responses.
Liberal values are not a creed, but an attitude. They are a manner and a hipness. They are a matter of having read the right books and gone to the right schools. They are not about what you do, but how you go about doing it. They are a show of conspicuous morality made cool by the glare of the flash. And the moment you think you know what their codes of behavior are, they will change them to be even more progressive, because the one thing that old elites stick to is finding ways to keep the nouveau riche out.
Liberalism is not so much about knowing, as it is about not knowing. It is about the knowingness of pretending to know more than you do. It is about the empty gesture, the loud protest and the snide remark. It is knowing that you are better than everyone else because of your humility. It is about committing to something so big that nothing else matters and so nothing else does.
You cannot beat a liberal with a liberal, just as you can't try to outcool the sneering standing outside a 7-11 waiting for someone to come by so he can sneer at him. Trying it, wastes time and cedes valuable values territory to people who have none of their own. And like arguing with an idiot, trying to win a values contest with someone who has no values, only ends up making the man with values seem like a fool.
The binder issue is instructive. It is NOT a real issue yet dems had no trouble playing with it.
Republicans are afraid to do this even with real issues.
Great read, since I have been a conservative in the failing liberal tarpits of Madison Wisconsin my whole life, everything you’ve written rings true.
“Liberalism is not so much about knowing, as it is about not knowing. It is about the knowingness of pretending to know more than you do. It is about the empty gesture, the loud protest and the snide remark.”
This is so spot on. I’m involved in a discussion about gun control with some Liberals right now. The rank ignorance of basic facts about hardware and law and efficacy is breathtaking, but that doesn’t stop or even slow grand pronouncements about What Should Be Done!
>>This is so spot on. Im involved in a discussion about gun control with some Liberals right now. The rank ignorance of basic facts about hardware and law and efficacy is breathtaking, but that doesnt stop or even slow grand pronouncements about What Should Be Done!
Reminds me of the jackass journalist Project Veritas caught on video saying that instead of going after guns the guvmint should force magazines to have a capacity of 1 round!!! It’s not possible to have an intelligent conversation with these people...
You nailed it!!!! The game is narratives, and the GOP establishment loses every single narrative war. The GOPe won’t fight theirs, and the GOPe won’t run with our own potential narratives.
We won’t do for the truth, what the other side will do for a lie....which is to repeat repeat repeat
Greenfield pens masterpiece and after masterpiece AGAIN!
I just gets better and better!
Thanks for the ping!
Hypocrisy is the outcome, but in a totalitarian system it's also the point.
Wish there was some way to get this message to most Unitarians, Tom Brokaw, ABC News, MSNBC, and the 'Meet the Press lite' guy....
A little long, but a good read. The theme is that the end justify the means. But what is the end? I can’t discern anything aside from “I want free stuff” and “Kill the rich.” I guess the French Revolution wasn’t based on much else, so there is precedent for pointless revolutions.
But the Liberals are surely helped by their ownership of the microphone.
I often wonder if Conservatives aren’t out there making great arguments. I imagine that if it sounds good and compelling, the “journalist” just shuts off the camera and re-uses the tape. It’s only if it’s “binders” that it makes the evening news.
Just power, apparently. That smooth, cool feeling of being one of the important people.
For some people this precludes intelligent thought, or wholeness. ‘Wholeness’ not being a great word but all I can think of for the moment.
Because it’s early and I have to go feed the redbone hounds and stir the cornmeal mush and put in my false teeth and load the Mossberg.
thanks O exhalted Sultan!
Not money, but power. Soros, Pelosi, Reid, now Obama, they all have more than enough money for several lifetimes.
But power, there's no concept of enough with these people.
Yes, you’re right - it rings true.
That said, how do we overcome the totalitarian aspects of liberalism? Identifying is important - and thank God for Greenfield on that score - but where to from here? How much worse will it get? Will white liberal elites destroy the country to maintain their own power? How do we stand up to them?
Daniel Greenfield needs to write a book - this battle’s going to go on for years... Our best hope is to be armed with strong ideas.
Sure they do - the desire for power, absolute power, the ability to rule by imperial decree, the ability to command "Off with their heads" and have it carried out.
The liberals are indeed helped by the ownership of microphones, but our establishment blows the opportunities they have. Paul Ryan agrees that Obama “inherited” a mess from Bush in a national debate. Romney agrees that “Obama is a nice guy” as a major theme of his campaign. Boehner agrees “the election is over” and that “Obama Care is the law of the land” post election. This has nothing to do with who owns the mics.
It has everything to do with an establishment that is prissy and out of touch with reality. Liberals NEVER stop campaigning, NEVER think an election is over, and NEVER admit anything is the law of the land they don’t like. Damn a microphone, I am talking reality.
Speaking of MSNBC, the clip below was being played on all the MSNBC programs last night and this mornings Morning Joe. They introduce it as ‘The NRA president...” but if you watch the clip (start at about 1:00) it is just Michel's accusation and question, NBC cut (edited) the clip off almost before Keene answered the question, in the middle of his sentence.
MSNBC text over video : “ David Keene, president of the National Rifle Association, responds to the latest NRA ad, which emphasizes that President Obamas children are protected by armed guards. Keene tells NBCs Andrea Mitchell the gun advocacy organization never specifically mentioned the names of Obamas daughters”.
I presume they just aren’t making ANY noise at all. I am, you can’t tell me Fox and/or any conservative radio host wouldn’t love to fill up airtime with ideas, especially if those voices were switched off by the MSM.
You get a few of ‘em out at the same time, together, with one/two self-owned video cams and goto town. Anyone says nobody showed you have proof positive that can be used against the libs/MSM....No rocket science; but we are discussing the GOPe here.
You are absolutely correct in that the people you mention in your post are fundamentally Liberal in many ways and so can’t make a good Conservative argument even when given a microphone.
I was wondering more about the likes of Allen West, however. When he had an office, he may have been making excellent Conservative arguments...to an empty room.
Selective coverage means that the Liberals get to cull the articulate Conservatives from our ranks by simple omission. I also wonder if it doesn’t “train” a politician to speak in the stupid manner you articulated. He must learn which recorded statements of his are getting air-time and which are not. If he speaks “sharply” it never sees the light of day. So, he dulls the message, using lib-speak, that he knows at least will get reported.
Every time I think he has written his best essay yet, and perhaps the best essay humanly possible on a given topic, he writes another essay on another topic -- even better! Thank you, Daniel!!
How is Obama different from Jimmy Carter?
Now we are all hostages
With due respect, you keep missing my main point. For example, I know Romney Ryan was not a very conservative ticket. I get that. That’s not the point.
The point is that they are scared to even articulate what they do believe. Ryan KNOWS that Obama did not “inherit” a mess made by conservatism, yet he agreed with Biden that was the case. Romney KNOWS Obama is not a nice guy, yet that was the basis of his main message. This is my point, even when our guys, and by our guys, I mean those runnning against Democrats, even when they DO know the right things, and DO have the microphone, they STILL screw it up.
And there is no excuse for that.
I am not so sure of the media outlets. I canceled my cable. I only used it for FOX, and I became sick of them. They, and talk-radio seem to mostly want to cover what is being covered in the MSM. It’s like a giant echo-chamber.
I still had FOX when they were alone in covering Benghazi. They would love to scoop the MSM and lead a national story, and have done it a few times. But, I think the MSM has learned. They never picked up Benghazi, and FOX just lost interest. If it doesn’t appear outside of FOX, it’s just “those crazy right-wingers” and I don’t think FOX thinks that helps them.
Ann Coulter has raised many hackles, even on FR, lately. But her books are still gems, because she is always ahead of the curve on defining liberalism and what lies behind it. Her next-to-latest book, Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America (2011), details the parallels to the French Revolution.
By the way, her latest book, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama, is also excellent, and was pretty much buried by the media in the run-up to the election.
I take your point, and I agree. Those dorks screw-up the rare opportunities they get to make an argument.
Why don’t we have Allen West, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich or their like active at a national level? There are Conservatives who can argue conservatively without screwing it up.
I remember Sarah Palin in her first exposure to the national scene. The precise reason for her overwhelming popularity was her ability to articulate.
I think the MSM has learned their lesson from Ronald Reagan. They covered what he said BECAUSE it was articulate, and that DOES make good print and nightly-news sound-bites. It also cost the Democrats the White House, so that mistake will never be repeated with another articulate Conservative.
Multiculturalism = Fear of being alone
Well now you’re tapping into the exact problem, which is that our own establishment - the folks who ran Romney’s campaign for example, are scared of real sharp truth based discourse.
Therefore, our own establishment fights against all three you mentioned. Newt was clearly the best in the debates, but the GOPe killed his campaign. They have helped the Jurassic media kill Palin as a national figure buy pretending she is stupid. All I can say, is that for someone who is so stupid, her decisions somehow all end up brilliant.
And they failed to support West in his recount too. Our establishment is the problem.
You will like this: please go to: www.gone2012book.com
I agree with you. Ann Coulter’s “straight” books, as opposed to her collections of columns (not that those are all bad) are terrific. She sees right through the fog to the reality.
Why she acts so unpredictably nutty in the day-to-day, I couldn’t say.
That has become my #1 criteria for a Republican candidate - ability to go around the media and articulate a vision. It is why in the last election I first was for Herman Cain, and later was for Newt.
No one else showed any ability in this area at all. It is the core of why Romney was such a terrible candidate. He might well have been the worst of the primary bunch in this area.
I have just read three pertinent articles this morning (Noonan and Strassel in the WSJ and Krauthammer). In several ways, they each tap into the exact problem - the GOP's split, or ineptness, is tactical, not philosophical; short-term, not fundamental. And therefore, quite solvable. (Kraut)
And what has been tried, governing from the House, is an utter failure.
Dingy Harry has "lawlessly" refused to produce a budget in four years. He prevents a full and open Senate debate on the important issues. And the GOPe strategists let him gets away with it?!
0bama is a small nasty dividing man, devoid of leadership. He regularly alienates half the country whenever he speaks (and his campaign killed mitty over his alienation of the '47%'!).
This is the enemy. They have overplayed their hand (always). It's time for a new and successful tactical strategy to deployed by the GOP. Hopefully, there was someone with half a brain making this case at the retreat in Williamsburg.
It is time for a "real sharp truth based discourse" and message from every prominent GOP voice. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are moving in the right direction.
Freedom Poster - Great minds think alike...I was Cain, then Newt as well, and my main concern with Romney was his messaging. I figured he’d probably be a decent President with a conservative congress, but I worried about him running an awful campaign ,which he did.
You will like the book, and it’s SOON to be released!
Can you send me all three links?
I do not understand why conservatives - and you can see this right here on FR - if the subject is battlefield warfare, pretty much agree that you do what you have to do to win. Even if it's torture, lots of collateral damage and all that, if it comes down to winning or losing, do what needs to be done. Yet political warfare, it's all “We have to be better than them.” That will not win elections. IMO, Reagan would have lost to Obama.
Greenfield has laid out some tactics in other essays and I wish he would put them in a book to counter Alinsky’s. Basically it comes down to exploiting cracks in the liberal machine, using, yes, Community Organzing!, and playing to win. For example, Koreans, Chinese and Japanese dislike each other, to put it mildly. Need I mention Latinos and blacks, or even Cubans and Mexicans? How can all these groups be voting 80%, 90% for the same party? How can any white person in Chicago possibly be voting for Emanuel? Democrats would never allow that to happen if positions were reversed.
Without knowing it, you made my case for me. You make the same mistake our consultants make, which is to think this is a level playing field. It is not. An emotional based appeal DOES NOT NEED articulation, all it needs is emotion and sound bytes. Repetition helps too.
An intellectual appeal MUST HAVE ARTICULATION or it does not sink in, and repetition is also critical. Therefore, I stand by the premise that a failure in messaging, which is tied to articulation, is our main problem.
Again, there are about 120 thousand words supporting this thesis over a 20 year time frame here:
Your position, and it is a common one, probably the most common, is that Obama did not win. We lost. I disagree.
BTW, in no way do I think it is/was a level playing field. Do not put words in my mouth, please.
Intellectual appeals require a decent intellect as a receptor. You seems to have a higher opinion of the electorate than I do. The best articulator in the campaign including all the spokesmen, hacks, consultants and what have you, Gingrich, never caught on with the undecided or soft Democratic electorate.
You are reciting some specifically true facts but reaching wrong conclusions. The receptor problem is a receptor, but I realize that we only need to flip 2% of the receptors, and I know that we did this in 80,84,94,2010 on a national level. Scott Walker did this in Wisconsin on a state level, and there are many other examples as well. Again, I’ve just written 120 thousand words laying this out in a way no one can argue with, using examples from the past 20 years right up til today’s headlines in fact.
I also submit that for instance Newt, might have flipped 2% on a national level if he had been the nominee. Oh, it would have been an ugly fight, and Newt would have started out way behind. You know, just like Reagan always ways. Just like Jesse Helms always was. Just like the Contract with America was. True fighters are ALWAYS way behind at first....but their comebacks prove MY point, not yours.
Mitt and Ryan would have flipped 2% if they weren’t so damned intent on agreeing with Obama to appear nice. Actually, Newt DID flip the receptors in 1994. It is just not intellectually sound to say Newt didn’t make any difference based on a primary fight.
I think this is the right question, and certainly up for debate. Did 0bama win, or did 'we' lose it?
I agree with CEW. 0bama was ripe for losing. Even he felt it. Romney ran a 'rope a dope' campaign after the first debate. He did not attack 0bama and even acted as if they were reasonably close on policy viewpoints on more issues than they weren't. This is incomprehensible! With the fiscal cliff, taxes and debt ceiling debates looming on the horizon, this wasn't even mentioned by Romney's consultant-driven campaign much less centered on it all day every day like it should have been. The battle of the Century: Big Government 'Life of Julia' vs. Small Government 'Life of Freedom/Personal Responsibility'?! Wasn't even mentioned.
IMHO, Romney and his elitist GOPe advisers lost it. In spite of all of their errors and terribly run campaign ... JUST 333,000 VOTES IN 4 SWING STATES WOULD HAVE GIVEN ROMNEY THE PRESIDENCY
That said, I also agree with your points about how the GOP should fight more aggressively and boldly confront wedge issues within the Dem base, like the Dems do to us. It's an extension of the messaging and 'articulation' of the conservative cause. And it is a war.
SOTC, amazing how we think alike sometimes. The book’s main thesis is that the BIG war is really the entire government centered (Julia) life and those who make money administering that versus the rest of us. ...and the battle for the GOP soul is merely a subrogative battle under that.
You’ll EAT IT UP.
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.