Turnabout is fair play
John Hawkins at PJM:
Complaining bitterly about the Democrats’ “politics of personal destruction” or bellyaching that the media doesn’t treat us fairly ultimately accomplishes nothing. The public doesn’t care.
Using the exact same tactics against the left that it uses against the right may very well be effective.
Even if it isn’t, it may at least convince them that such tactics ought to be off limits on both sides. We can say, “Gee, what if Bush had done this” or “That’s a cheap shot” all day long, but until our political opponents feel the brunt of the same savage incivility that it dishes out on a regular basis, nothing is going to change.
Labels: politics
posted by Helen at 10:37 AM
55 Comments:
Unfortunately being gracious and not "stooping to their level" has been completely ineffective. Remember when it used to make a difference?
Joshua,
I remember a show of the "Fresh Prince" I watched recently. The father on the show was running for Judge and tried to be gracious and not stoop to the level of his sleazy opponent who said negative things about him. He lost. He did get the position as the other guy died but this was not because he was nice but in spite of it. The truth is, negativity against an opponent works--especially if you can get others to join in.
Giving in or trying to reason seems to have little effect on human nature when it comes to politics, unfortunatley. It might make one feel more moral and upstanding but they rarely win because of it.
The problem, of course, is the mainstream media. As Dr. Helen observes, the left habitually goes All Negative, All the Time and gets plaudits for their "Inspirational message of hope and change." But let a Republican say "Vote for me" and he's denounced as a smear merchant.
Okay, I maybe exaggerate ... a bit.
seriously? short memory, or selective memory - the left is simply adopting the strategies that worked for Rove for 8 years
both sides are ethically challenged mud-slingers - when there are only two parties, it's always going to be "us vs. them"
and the media, at least on cable TV, is more right than left - even out of power, more GOP pundits and politicians appear on "news" shows than Dems - http://tiny.pl/zpkw
the only to change it is from the ground up - that means you and me
Peace,
Bill
My memories actually predate 2001, thank you.
I happen to think both sides have engaged in a lot of rottenness, and it is beyond me to pick who is the rottenest. America has been divided since the late 60's. All of the nastiness may seem to work in the short term, but over the long term, it will mobilize resistance. To the extent that liberals are using thuggish tactics, they will lose support and gain enemies. I consider myself a liberal, at least in the U.S., but I consider the tactics used by protesters on college campuses infantile. I doubt they're doing themselves any good; in fact, they're probably just helping the people they protest gain publicity. I first heard of Michelle Malkin when she was protested at a university. I hope conservatives don't choose to imitate liberals by adding the tactics of the left to their own repertoire of thuggery, which is already quite extensive.
I think smear campaigns will work as long as most of our populace has an inferior education.
So it will work for the forseable future.
Trey
in sum, if they act like assholes then we should to so too? sound advice!
After reading several references in your posts to Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, I looked them up. I decided to use them in my posts and comments when dealing with lefties. After all, Rules for Radicals can be used the radical libertarians too. I'm sure moonbats like fred would understand. ;-)
Great point Fred, beat me to it. Since when did letting the terms of your integrity be dictated by the battle of the present result in a positive outcome, for you or the battle at hand? Falling to the level of the crass in society would be a failure for conservatives, and most especially for Christian conservatives.
Hey, we actually have values and standards, right? Don't like the constraints they bring? Then don't bother holding to ethical standards or claiming to, and it ceases to be a problem. But is a return to childhood tactics really the best behavior and response we can come up with? If so then God help us all.
In any form of combat - and politics is combat - not being as ferocious as the opponent will guarantee your loss.
While not necessary to swear and call others by names and certainly not to fabricate smears, it is by no means unreasonable to point out that, when they are, your opposition are liars. Use that word. It is a plain description of fact when used properly.
In other words, "You're a liar, the truth is such and such."
If however, they play civil, civility is the appropriate response.
I remember the habitual Time magazine edition that comes out days before an election, detailing new salatious and unproven accusations against the republican candidates, with no time before the election to refute them.
Every candidate should be prepared to go negative, if and only if the truth is negative.
This is pretty much what Ann Coulter does and she gets vilified for it by almost everyone, regardless of political affiliation. It's the normal double standard that those on the left can say anything and no one in the media will hold them to account. Those on the right are held to almost superhuman standard of behavior. Until the right starts to get back into some sort of synchronization with the popular culture this will continue.
There are a couple things we can do to be effective, none of which needs name calling:
1) Educate people - there are hard core people who will never change their minds, but there a lot more who haven't made up their minds, or are open enough to learn.
2) Figure out ways to take money away from the MSM. Craig's List may have done more to hurt the MSM than any other single action.
But I think the biggest most effective response is for people to get organize and vote the scoundrels out.
Dr. Helen, would you or Glenn ever consider running for office?
In other words, "You're a liar, the truth is such and such."
If however, they play civil, civility is the appropriate response.""You're a liar, here's the proof" IS the civil response to a lie. It's civil not to lie and it's civil to call out a lie.
Keep in mind, being WRONG is not lying. Being wrong is OK in a debate, lying isn't.
It's also worth noting that, in combat, using your opponents tactics against them is typically a very bad idea. You're using techniques that they are practiced in and, presumably, have considered what would be used to counter them. If you're switching tactics to your opponents tactics, you are going to be inexpert in implementing them and they are going to know the best way to counter them.
I think that is how "we" become them. Which, I think, is why I am no longer "we" ("we" have become them too closely already through the big tent flop). I am hoping to see a leadership front that I can be a part of, I have yet to see it.
alan, look up saul alinski's rules for radicals on the net. What you speak of is true (in your post right above henry cate), and right out of his rules taken from the book.
The left does not have, and effectively avoids any code of ethical behavior. No precedent is set. They cannot be nailed down or held accountable.
Within the last few years frivolous prosecutions have been brought against Tom Delay and Karl Rove. There is currently a legal action being carried out against Sarah Palin with no chance of success but with the goal of wasting her time and consuming money for legal fees.
Republicans should be doing this sort of abuse of the legal system to either weaken the Democratic Party or to get them to agree to a mutual cease fire. Dr.Helen's husband ought to be agreeable to a tactic that consists of employing hoards of lawyers and paying them great gobs of money both for offense and defense.
Do all of you think conservatives don't use dirty political tactics? Do you think they use them less often? Or do you think there are conservative politicians who use dirty tactics, but not the ones you respect?
Josh raises an interesting point. One of the things that has bothered me greatly about the last hundred days is that many people say Bush raised taxes a bit, so it is OK for Obama to really raise them. Click here for the comparison.
Oh, and in answer to Josh's question, I'd make two points:
I don't want to be associated with dirty politicians, conservative or liberal.
I would love to know the percentage of dirty conservative politicians, and the percentage of dirty liberal politicians.
Dirty tactics, smearing has been around since the founding of the republic. Nothing is new under the sun. It's just that the Democrats are alot better at it right now.
http://www.justsaynotoo.com/barackAlinsky.html
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2314
The second link goes pretty deep and gets pretty interesting.
Dadvocate calls me a moonbat. Nice example of civility. Listen for a moment: I have served in the military, once in a war zone. I have 4 children, one had been 4 years in the Marines. I have a PhD. I have published a number of books etc etc That said, you may not like my perspective on matters but I do not care much for your gutter sniping.
This is why Ann Coulter is so popular in intellectual conservative circles. She's paying liberals back in the same coin they've been trading in for four decades. And they hate it. They can dish it out, but they can't take it. Shows them for the hypocrites they are.
HMT --
"Keep in mind, being WRONG is not lying. Being wrong is OK in a debate, lying isn't."
Webster's - lie - 3. an inaccurate or false statement.
Technically, you're incorrect, but I agree with your point. It is, however, fairly easy to tell when someone is promoting a falsehood in order to deceive. To clarify my position, being civil in a discussion includes not lying with intent to deceive.
"It's also worth noting that, in combat, using your opponents tactics against them is typically a very bad idea."
Not at all. That's only true if you're not adept at the tactic. They also can be very much caught by surprise. Witness Obama's 'my family are off limits' feeble response.
You don't get it, do you, fred? I'm soooo impressed you have a Phd. I guess that makes you smarter than me since I just have a MS.
My Dad had a Phd, my sister has a Phd, my other sister has a JD. I've learned you can be "educated" and still be a moonbat or other sort of fool. Lots of people write books too. Erudition is not necessarily a virtue. Many erudite people loose the ability to see clearly.
Perhaps you need to read or re-read the Zen story of the overfull tea cup. As for your perspective, it's consistently distorted with only tenuous connection with reality.
Fred, I was baiting you when I called you "moonbat" in response to you "asshole" comment. How often do you visit liberal/leftie blogs and tell them to quit being assholes? Never, I'd bet.
The Republican party did not get thrown out of office because it was afraid to lower itself to the juvenile tactics of the left. It got thrown out of office because the Republican party as a whole betrayed its base and failed to govern by the platform on which it ran and was elected.
If you run as a conservative, advocating limited government, fiscal restraint and individual responsibility, then govern as a liberal, expand government, raise spending and act as if you're unaccountable, then you will be rebuked. Hypocrisy is the one thing the American people will not abide. It's that simple.
John Hawkins is a fool and more indicative of the problem than the solution. The problem is a fundamental refusal to acknowledge that Republicans did not govern responsibly. The solution is not to then resort to the gutter snipe tactics of the left so that Republicans can return to office and continue to govern irresponsibly. Rather, the solution is to return to principled leadership, otherwise known as adult supervision.
I got out of junior high 35 years ago, and I have no desire or intention to go back. This is why I stopped reading John Hawkins and most of the other so-called conservative commentators years ago. I consider them idiots and pay no attention to what they have to say about anything.
"........I have published a number of books........."
Oh, come on.
At this rate the Republicans will never see a majority again. We better figure out how to deal with a one party system.
Cham,
We don't need to figure out anything. Just take a look at what happened in Mexico before the 90's. That'll tell you exactly what we'll be like. Of course, we're essentially becoming a greater Mexico anyway, so there's a great deal of irony in all of this.
Hey, I've published a number of books, too! Zero's a number.
"the left is simply adopting the strategies that worked for Rove for 8 years"
Oh please. The left has been doing this for decades. I remember smear campaigns from the sixties, including organized harassment, lies and innuendo, with academics and journalists knowingly telling lies about what people believed and what they had done.
pst314 - very correct. Remember the Dems anti-Goldwater ad with the mushroom cloud? And, the more recent, "it's the economy, stupid."
academics and journalists knowingly telling lies about what people believed and what they had done.
.
Very true. What about those college classrooms for, say, the past half a century? College is pretty much a giant smear campaign against conservativism and those associated with it, at least in the liberal arts realms.
I don't see this being about the left "adopting" anything; it's the Republicans who have been slipping and adopting the strategies of their opponents. They're in a race toward the low end of the respectability scale, but the left is ahead.
It sounds like a complicated moral dillema, but it's only complicated if you believe in the old morality play of "two wrongs don't make a right." The point here is that there's nothing right about it; it's just more "fair."
Smears are more common on the left than on the right, but both sides do it, and each accuses the other of doing it -- while claiming to be blameless, of course. The idea is to yell and scream only when your side is smeared, with the winner being the most unprincipled smear artist: he who does the most smearing while claiming most loudly to be the "cleanest." Actually being clean (or actually being honest) is for chumps.
The problem is that if you don't like this, and say so, you'll be told something along the lines of "IF YOU CAN'T STAND THE HEAT, GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN!"
If you don't like the kitchen, and say so, you'll be told that you are part of the problem (or belong on the other side) by both sides.
Hypocrisy is the one thing the American people will not abide. It's that simple.Please explain how modern feminism gained so much power please?
And I wish I was joking (not about the explanation, but the power).
Agreed that the conservative leadership walked away from it's post and forgot what it stood for. Some new blood is needed that will bring it back to its principals. Maybe enacting term limits from congress would be a good step. Too many people, Republican and Democrat, are entrenched in D.C.
Wolfboy, I decided that the Republican party just goes along with Conservative ideas when it suits their purpose. I am not sure that conservaticism was ever their principals. That is why I left the party.
Trey
Unless you enjoy having yellow underpants from spontaneous urination, and can deal with one lung being expelled and falling onto your keyboard from laughing so hard, don't read iowahawk, ever.
What makes you think feminism has any real power? Newspapers, magazines and blogs are full of articles by millions of women who bought the lie when they were young, only to realize that bought misery when they are old. Single, or divorced as is more often the case, overworked, overstressed, depressed, and angry about it. But they have no one to blame but themselves.
Moreover, there are millions of men, like me, who never bought the lie, wouldn't have anything to do with some stupid girl who did, and have never married. So I fail to see how that grants power to feminists. (The only way any woman can have power over me is if I grant it to her, but I'm not about to do that because I have no assurances or guarantees that she won't bankrupt me the first time she gets bored.)
Yeah, sure, feminism infiltrated academia and politics, particularly the Democratic party, and the courts, through such noxious laws as no-fault divorce (being liberated is more important than being married). But the result has been broken families, unwed mothers, rampant promiscuity and the diseases that always accompany it, animosity between the sexes (what was once cooporation has become competition), and millions of men who shun American women like the plague.
Why should I invest 50% of my income and assets, and assume full presumptive paternity for her, simply for the privelege of having sex with her, for a short while, when I can buy a bar slut for nothing more than a tequila shot and a lie to the face?
There are no legal guarantees for a man in a marriage situation. The woman has all the power in divorce court. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So what happens when you grant a woman absolute power in court? She abuses it naturally.
It's called divorce for profit. And it is the law of the land. Why do you think the divorce rate is so high? Because women profit from it obviously.
A man gambles 50% on a 1 out of 5 chance that a woman is not going to change her mind or get bored and bankrupt him. But he has a 4 out of 5 chance she will. This is why men are increasingly refusing to enter into the marriage contract. Not because they no longer believe in the sacrament of marriage or the sanctity of the instutition, but because the attitudes of women, divorce law and the court system make it far too risky.
When there is no return---a life partner, a helpmate, a mother for his children, a wife--but only loss--a temporary sex partner, a roommate, a disinterested parent who runs off to work so she can afford to pay for day care, a bitch--on his investment of 50%--community funds, community property--and presumptive paternity--20% in child support even if the child is not his--most men would opt to keep the money, as more and more increasingly are.
Of course, this will inevitable lead to the complete breakdown of society and the loss of freedom, as marriage and the stable family that results from it is the only foundation on which a free society can be built. We are in the midst of this dissolution right now.
Thus, feminism is a joke. And it isn't even a good joke; it's a bad joke. A good joke, real humor, has power, real power, because there is always an element of truth to it. But a bad joke has no power, because there is only a lie to it, and it isn't funny. Which is precisely why more and more people, women and men, aren't laughing about it anymore.
But that is neither here nor there and really has no point in the larger discussion. The salient question at issue is, where has principled conservative leadership, presumedly housed in the Republican party, been throughout this whole debacle?
Oh, that's right, trying to make themselves more and more like the Democratic party out of some failed hope that is what will win them elections. This would be a tragedy, if it wasn't so much of a farce.
Now, the spokesmen (i.e., John Hawkins) of a doomed and fraudulent party, the Republicans, are advocating the adoption of name calling, smear tactics and other juvenile antics, which they presume gave the Democrats an electoral advantage over them. That's the farce of it, and exactly why Hawkins is a fool.
The Republicans didn't lose elections because the Democrats called them names, spread vicious rumors about them through their will accomplices in the media, or engaged in voter fraud and other illegal activities. They Republicans lost because they paid only lip service to their base, then promptly betrayed their base once they assumed office. Just as with feminism, the lie was exposed and resoundingly rebuked.
The Republican party is going nowhere fast. As long as idiots like Hawkins, among others (i.e., the entire RNC) lead the charge, they will find no followers, because they are indistinguishable from the feminist academics that no one pays attention to anymore. They are hypocrites, and the American people will not abide hypocrisy.
The Democrats will fail under the weight of their own hypocrisy. It's only a matter of time and how much damage they can do to the country between now and then. But anyone who thinks a resurgent Republican party will take their place is the greater fool.
Principled conservative leadership is what is needed and really is the only thing the majority of Americans will respond to. If they do not find it in either party, then a third party will develop, formed on the foundation of the great and mighty middle class which still holds traditional marriage and values dear.
The Republicans and the Democrats can both go the way of the Whigs, for all I care. And faster, please. Because the political leadership, the media pundits, the banking oligarchy, and all their sycophants in this country are rapidly flushing the United States down the toilet of history.
That is something I for one refuse to believe the American people will tolerate for very much longer.
Now, the spokesmen (i.e., John Hawkins) of a doomed and fraudulent party, the Republicans, are advocating the adoption of name calling, smear tactics and other juvenile antics, which they presume gave the Democrats an electoral advantage over them. That's the farce of it, and exactly why Hawkins is a fool.I think that argument might have been more persuasive had the gratuitous name-calling not been directed against Hawkins, who (while he may be wrong) is hardly a fool.
I'm not saying I'm perfect, as I often insult people too. I just don't think it's right. (Not living up to one's standards is not the same thing as abandoning them, though....)
No, Hawkins is a fool. That's not name calling. That's calling him what he is.
G's G;
on your last sentence above: it is my belief that is a truth very well known to the left. And there are an awful lot of ingredients mixed into this lefty goulash.
It is also the reason, IMO, they are doing their level best to water down the American population. Mexico is crashing and burning. Those who can, are getting out - even if they have to live the rest of their lives living in the shadows in America. NAFTA is doing nothing to benefit the USA or Canada. It is to slow the exodus toward "el norte".
The whole world wants to live here. That's the main reason we have been attempting to export our whole way of doing things, again IMO.
But the left is so stupid they believe the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. It's not that they have forgotten why this nation came into existence, it's that they've never known why. The rise of feminism and dumbing down of America have been quite effective over the last half century.
If I thought republican leadership was that smart, I'd believe they are trying to move far enough to the left to win enough people over in order to slowly bring them back around.
But I think they just want to get enough votes to stay in office. It's a cushy job, with an incredible amount of bennies. Specter's the current poster boy for that way of stinkin' thinkin'.
To quote a Ry Cooder song, "There ain't no way outta here without a fight".
I meant your longer post above, not your response to eric.
I know you were speaking of feminism mainly, but that is only part of the whole picture as we all well know.
I agree with what peter. w said.
Well, John Hawkins is acting like a school boy who lost the student council election in junior high to a girl. And his response is, "Wah! This girl called me names, beat me up and stole the election! So I'm going to call her names, beat her up and steal the next election, because turnabout is fair play."
That's not only childish, it's foolish. In fact, it's incredibly stupid. It's like saying, we want to win more wars, so we need to start acting like the French.
The Republican party in its current construction is like a woman you dated for a while. She looked good, said all the right things, then as soon as you married her (gave her the Presidency, House and Senate), she bloated into some unrecognizable pig, betrayed you after only two years, divorced you, then started having an affair with the nearest Democrat in Republican Clothing, Johnny Come Lately McCain. Even worse, she soon realized what a loser he was and started flirting with the Democratic flavor of the month, got pregnant and gave birth to Michael Steele.
Think about it. The Democrats elect a black man for President, and the Republican response is, well, we have to be more like Democrats so we're going to elect a black man as head of the RNC. This is Hawkins's illogic writ large. And let's not forget, one of Steele's first acts as chairman was to go on television and smile while some liberal smear merchant compared the conservative base to Nazis. Like that's going to win any elections.
Now the Republicans are behaving just like a divorced fat, corrupt woman with an illegitimate child who's constantly calling her ex-husband, the base, because she's lonely and no one pays attention to her anymore.
It's pathetic. It's disgusting. And it's disgraceful.
Obama didn't win the election because he's black. He might have gotten a slightly higher percentage of the black vote, and of the guilty white liberal vote, because of that, but he won the election because the Democrats ran a more effective and organized campaign. Or, more accurately, because the Republicans did not run an effective and organized campaign.
Look. Palin gave McCain record crowds and probably 20 points in the election. Then he turns around after the loss and allows his campaign staff to trash her and still to this day refuses to publicly endorse her? That's the Republican party right there. No principles, no character, and no class. Not to mention stupid.
Here in Texas, Kay Baily Hutchinson tried the same tactics a few months ago. She wants to run for governor, so she attacks Rick Perry by trashing Palin for endorsing him. Perry responded by ignoring her completely and advocating a strict adherence to the 10th amendment.
The election is over, man. It might as well not even be held. There is no way the people of Texas are going to support the catty, juvenile tactics of Hutchinson over the principled leadership of Perry.
This is what I'm talking about. Perry knows his base; he knows what's important to the people he represents, and he respects them. That's the winning strategy, always has been, always will be.
This nonsense from self-proclaimed conservative pundits like Hawkins and the rest is a losing strategy. I mean, the Republicans have been following their lead for the last several years, and look at what it got them, completely out of power. So anyone who would pay any attention to anything they have to say now is only asking for further defeat, like an abused husband going back to the fat ex-wife who betrayed him.
Instead of posing as Democrats in Rebublican clothing, adopting the smear tactics, and indeed the liberal policies, of the left, forcing the American people to chose between the lesser of two evils, why don't the Republicans stand on principle and present the one choice of the greater good?
Traditional values, limited government, strict adherence to the Constitution, the rule of law, principle leadership, adult supervision, is what the conservative base of this country will rally around. Acting out like upset schoolchildren who just lost a student council election in junior high is not.
Politics ain't bean bag, it's true, and you never take a knife to a gun fight. But that misses the point entirely. A contest between a principled adult and an unrepentant child is not a contest. It's a landslide.
But I really don't think the Republican party is capable fielding a candidate like that, not with its current lack of leadership and plethora of crybaby pundits. The entire party needs to be reconstructed from the ground up and reconstituted on American values and conservative principles. I don't see that happening.
Thus, the only alternative is for the conservative base to organize itself and form a new party. If it wants to save these United States from extinction, that is.
Resistance is futile. The U.S. will be assimilated. A little less than half will go kicking and screaming; the rest - as fooled as they are - quite willingly. Hell, they're already there. But how they expect they will be allowed to keep their 500k homes in the burbs or high rise condos in the city, Volvos in the drive way, and jet skis on the trailer is beyond me.
How do you tear it all down? How do you make everyone equal? By giving it to everyone, regardless of whether or not they have "become" the type of person capable of keeping it, and taking care of it.
It is already proven they are not capable of acquiring it unless it is taken from others and given to them. So who are they going to vote for? Whose rhetoric are they going to buy?
Tmink, agreed....it's why I left as well.
GawainsGhost, I'm in complete agreement. Humor doesn't translate well sometimes.
The only thing I disagree with, is that they DO have power. They have managed to get VAWA/Title IX/IMBRA....and more. You don't get that without power of some form. Even if it is just screaming the loudest so others do what you want, just to shut you up. Unfortunately, it's like rewarding bad behavior in kids (Just read the post on the principal that re-instituted spanking), and most adults know that the more you reward the bad behavior, the worse it gets. To my mind, that is what has happened with feminism. I'll agree, it is in its downward spiral, but it will go kicking and screaming the whole way.
By the way, Michelle Malkin, over at her website, agrees in regards to the California GOP. Money quote:
"The party establishment epitomizes everything that is wrong with the Republican Party nationally: Cronyism, arrogance, waste, and leadership out of touch with its base."
That's it right there.
You can't win by trying to play this game as well as they do. I never understood this before till the last couple years, but there is a core of visceral anger and hatred in the brainwashed left that the right can't compete with.
I now think of these people as nasty Nellie Olsen from Little House on the Prairie, all grown up, on the outside.
Still in the spirit of the game, I have a new coffee mug that says, "Somewhere in Kenya, a village is missing its idiot."
It's nice to see that someone else has the voice of reason, although he's more politic than me.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/no-the-right-doesnt-need-to-play-as-dirty-as-the-left/
The USA won't dissolve into nothing. It will become so socially disordered that there will be a democratically elected dictator for "law and order." We will freely elect Big Brotherism and police state tyranny because a critical mass of misbehaving chaotic selfish people will make society miserable.
That, or the Muslims will invade and take over.
Then you can take delight in throwing the burqa over your bitch and legally beating her and the other three wives. She gets uppity, resort to honor killing. Gotta keep them bitches in line.
Get ready for the dhimmitude.
Post a Comment
<< Home