Skip to comments.Civility Isnít Surrender
Posted on 03/15/2018 11:52:43 AM PDT by C19fan
click here to read article
President French chimes in.
Some guy with the name “French” lecturing me on surrender.
David French....yet another useless suited GOPe
I recall that Buckley was capable of taking off the gloves from time to time. National Review is just a sad relic these days.
Compromise is agreeing with progressives.
Kinda like the seriousness of the charges only affects the (R)set of us.
“Civility” is also not going to be mere civility if we in any way play the PC game, and that IS giving ground, even if only on minor issues. But don’t play the PC game and we won’t be viewed as civil no matter how nominally civil we are.
Frankly, when dealing with Cultural Marxist both civility and tolerance are way overrated.
Conan had the correct attitude: “To crush your enemies. See them driven before you. And to hear the lamentations of their Soyboys.”.
“online pugilists mock more mainstream or establishment conservatives as unwilling to do what it takes to win”
Well, we DO have a three decade track record to examine.
I really hate these “conservative” both sides are horrible articles. While some on the right aren’t civil, over the past 20 years, it is the Left that has loudly, obnoxiously and thuggishly pushed its point. Its the Left that has engaged in intimidation, assault and physical violence on a systematic basis, not the right. So French conflates systematic Leftwing thug tactics with the Right finally pushing back a little. I’ll take right with boorishness over George Bush’s pathetic “turn the other cheek” passivity any day.
To be fair, this wing of the conservative movement (I call them ‘professional conservatives,’ and aligned with GOP Inc.) would have a lot more credibility about this if they had absolutely anything to show for almost three decades of their preferred vision of “conservatism.”
Conservatives lose ground whether the liberals win or the liberals lose.
If they had a coherent philosophy and anything significant to hang their hat on over the last 30 years, more people might listen to them. But they don’t.
Their sales approach is “You don’t like the other guys? Hire us!” They suck and their track record is indefensible, but they seem to have no idea how poorly they come across to people that ostensibly are aligned with them.
This loser WANTS to surrender, rather than win, so that he can be comfortable on his knees. He's happy being a sheep, since the wool is warm, and the blade across his throat doesn't hurt half as much as he expected...
See Not "Social" & Not "Just". Those activists to whom he refers are not intellectually able to offer any civil argument. I have met almost none who will even try, in many decades of defending traditional American values against the compulsion driven types, including four years in one of the highest rated colleges (academically) in America, which is well known as a bastion of egalitarian silliness.
It’s hand wringing pearl clutching meek squishes like this guy that get people killed.
Nice article, but as my son tells me, be ready to punch hippies in the throat.
politics aint beanbag - 1896 quote
David French ....... a Surrender Monkey!
The question: “Why should I not do as I please within the law, so long as I harm no-one else?” would, at all earlier times, have drawn one or both of the answers: “Because it offends God” or “Because you will become a social outcast”.
The first of these has no force for our new elites, who do not believe in God; the second is not only without force for them, it is without meaning. To exclude a person from one’s drawing-room because their personal pleasures are aberrant would be “discrimination”.
- John Derbyshire
Yeah. Like the “We’re above all that” and “That’s not who we are” crap.
In a broader sense, you can see almost the exact same set of arguments on FR and DU every election:
“Nominate someone who can win” vs. “Nominate somebody who actually believes in and will fight for our conservative/liberal principles”.
The dynamics are the same and have been in any two party (or more) system where the differences are ideological.
Rare indeed is the candidate who both articulates and genuinely believes in something *and* can win; even rarer the ideologue who can actually accomplish something if they do win, since horse trading and quid pro quo are really ingrained into the political process and always have been.
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.