Booklists, Battles and the budding western mind
The National Association of Scholars is
compiling a list of political tracts that are widely assigned. I emailed them to note that those academic clowns Eric Schlosser and Jared Diamond were notably missing from their list. One thing this brings to mind, though, is that conservatives have this silly academic notion of being tourists at the zoo, where they peer in on the academy and remark at how many stripes the zebra has or how ugly the monkeys, but they never leap over the cage and start attacking the bears in order to dominate the cage and demonstrate who is boss. They never engage, the battles always take place exterior to what is the central place, the central aspect of college: the classroom. I suppose you could secondarily claim that it's the co-ed dorms, but let's focus on that classroom. The books assigned are trash and almost all, these days, polemic tracts firmly embued with Marcuse's notion of intolerance to anything from the right. If some right-wing book is assigned, it's something mindless from Hannity or some fluff piece of trash, or something mislabeled as 'conservative' such as that awful woman Alyssa Rosenbaum's "Atlas Shrugged" - no, students are never to get what is a cogent analysis of true conservative thought. They read about the enlightenment without de Maistre, they get the revolution (so rarely even then!) without the anti-Federalists. They get wartime dissent from communists and never isolationists, critiques of capitalism from Marx and never from Catholicism and Chesterton. These are the academic battles worth fighting, not rearguard actions of an army in defeat, but standing straight up defending against the onslaught. One is reminded of Soviet General Zhukov's advance towards Berlin in April of 1945, and Himmler had what remained of the German army as the Army Group Vistula to protect Berlin from Zhukov's advance and, instead of actually engaging the oncoming hordes, the Army sat idly aside as Zhukov, wisely, avoided the army altogether and advanced towards Berlin. There was no defense, in the face of a mortal enemy there was nothing but impotence, and millions of Germans and Eastern Europeans died brutal deaths as a result. In the face of the intellectual onslaught of campuses, our 'conservative movement' is as mindless, reckless and impotent as Himmler's defense. They stand idly by and don't fight, they don't even try. The great western battles of Salamis and Thermopylae, Tours, Lepanto, Clavijo, or Trafalgar or Waterloo, our inheritance from that greatness is to stand by as our minds are corrupted from within.
Labels: academia, campuses, college, conservativism, theory
The fundamental breakdown in conservatism
Since the election, a variety of people have weighed in about what needs to be done. No one reads this blog, but I wanted to collect my thoughts on the matter. I came up with 14 major reforms:
1. Accurately assess blame - it wasn't "conservatism" that lost in the abstract or something as simple as McCain's poorly run campaign, or his moronic decision to abide by the campaign finance laws. No one thing caused this defeat and abstract ideas didn't win or lose either. Obama had more activists who were better trained who were using better technology. When Napoleon lost at Waterloo people didn't say he just had a bad day or that the stars divined it to be so or that the other side played with "heart" - no, a combination of tactics, strategy and technology made the difference between victory and defeat.
2. Retool our movement publications - some people need to be fired. My nominations:
a. National Review - Rich Lowry - Lowry has made the movement standard bearer into the most irrelevant publication possible. The greatest intellectual minds of National Review have gone from Whittaker Chambers and Bill Buckley in the past to Mona Charen and Jonah Goldberg today. It's a disgrace.
b. The American Conservative - Scott McConnell - Contrarian to be contrarian has a special spot in my heart, but the American Conservative, run by a self-described "New York Review of Books liberal" has become intellectually dishonest in how it approaches movement issues. Where it once held a banner of anti-war and immigration to a stupid GOP listening to idiots like Hannity, it has since become a perpetual nonsensical critique of conservatism that simply seeks to validate liberalism in mind and act. I can't remember the last time I read an article of theirs and didn't feel as though they purposefully twisted words and history to suit their desire to critique. Laughably lately, they claim Carter was a real conservative. If I want idiocy I'll read the Nation, thank you.
c. Human Events - Jed Babbin - The commercialism of Human Events emails has become either comical, pathetic or both. Advertising for Extenze and Viagra is likely right around the corner. Babbin writes the most obvious articles with the most underwhelming analysis. The most obvious articles from the most unknown writers, Human Events has become a repository for old news without any interesting angles. Their good talent, namely Amanda Carpenter, left for greener pastures and I frequent their site only to read Buchanan and Novak when he was in better health. Other than that, with contributors as poor as "AWR" Hawkins, I question the publishing proclivities of what should be the best conservative outlet out there.
3. Start using clear metrics - most of our nonprofits have a mailing list and not much else. They need clear metrics measuring results and not activity. They ought to all have some sort of serious field work and focus on outside the beltway strategies rather than all be soundbite factories scurrying to get on Hannity or in print.
4. Develop the youth - serious youth outreach, I could write for weeks on this subject.
5. Test our messages
a. Education
b. Isolationism
c. Streamlining/anti-bureaucracy
d. Family
6. Figure out electronically how to win - I don't want to go into too much detail here, but in 2004 the movement claimed the world would change due to blogs. And then it was social networking. The world hasn't changed, it's just that some things are a bit easier. We need to stop the fascination with pointless technology, i.e. Twitter, and start thinking about how to actually use this technology to convert more people, to take more effective action and to win more elections. Technology is not an end in itself, even though it seems whenever I hear or read people like Saul Anuzius talk about it, that's how it comes across. People don't talk about twitter as a way to test messaging or coordinate a field team; they don't talk about tangible ways to do the basic tasks necessary in order to actually win - it's as though no one has a big picture anymore of how to get back to victory. And those victories will start happening in a specific order:
a. Local
b. State
c. National
And the local places, our first step in this journey, don't have the time or resources for big complicated systems. They need to be able to easily do their current operations and do them better and cheaper. Let's find a way to use technology to win.
7. Develop the donor class
8. Punish our insincere elected officials - let's make a few human sacrifices to keep the base sane. My first nomination? Senator Specter. My second nomination? Senator Hatch. My third nomination? John "Crybaby" Boehner
9. Write out the neocons from the movement and end the fratricide - neocons are leftists, who are we kidding.
10. Develop and start alternative media outlets
11. Focus locally
12. Get serious about training - we are losers who need to learn how to win
13. Means-test our pundits - if you have never done anything with your life, and yes I'm looking at you Sean Hannity, then you don't deserve to have an opinion. I don't like the politics and past employers of people like Patrick Ruffini, but he gets to have an opinion and I'll take it seriously because, well, he's done something. Sean Hannity? barf. Michael Johns? barf. Mona Charen? barf. Being an "author" or an "analyst" or a "speechwriter", by the way, doesn't mean anything. Running a successful competitive election? Yes. Accomplishing real tangible goals against real opposition? Yes. Sucking a paycheck to do what's always been done and lose? No.
14. Focus our efforts on the places the left is weakest
a. Unions
b. Affirmative Action
c. Taxes
d. Life
e. Bureaucracy/Regulations
f. Universities
Labels: conservativism, ideas, movement, theory
Two great groups
It may seem, assuming anyone reads this with any regularity or consistency, that I am overly critical of nonprofits and conservative groups. There are two great groups I want to mention, though, the
Alliance Defense Fund and
Americans United for Life. And the work that the
American Civil Rights Initiative does, working to overturn state race codes one by one, is great as well.
Labels: activism, conservativism, movement, pro-life movement, theory
The "death" of evangelicals
So this "post-evangelical" clown, Michael Spencer,
writes in the Christian Science Monitor that there is a coming 'death' of evangelicals and plays on all sorts of fear tactics. And of course in 60 years he'll be long gone by the time that his theory is proven right or wrong, but it's at least entertaining to see the Obama Vanguard continue their assault on anything center-right even after they take control of government, because Spencer claims that what's going to kill evangelicals is... wait for it... conservatism. Attaching itself to 'conservatism' is what will cause kids to grow up without faith, donations to dry up, your house to catch on fire, your wife to leave you, your dog to run away and your stock portfolio to collapse even further! Maybe. In 60 years. So sayeth I, who am self-described as 'post-evangelical' and have books to sell, blogs to promote and my other crap to peddle. It's laughable that clowns like this get any press play. What kills any faith or movement is the lack of faith. If Evangelicals start embracing 'gay' 'marriage'; infanticide; high taxes and other 'progressive' things, it will represent the rejection of the essence of their faith. Look at the mainline 'dying' denominations: Methodists, Lutherans, Congregationalists -- common denominator? radical left-wing attitudes on all these core issues, these family issues. But, of course, in two generations those denominations will be flourishing and all these evangelical ones will be dying according to Spencer. I just hope the clown lives long enough and is sentient enough to realize how wrong he is.
Labels: conservativism, media, media bias, messaging, religion
Center for American "Progress" featured again
Quite the darlings of the media establishment, the Center for American Progress
is profiled again as a central think tank for the incoming Obama administration. Besides profiling budgets, though, the article does somewhat of a sloppy job saying that all these groups produce "ideas" without really giving any indication of what that means. The Center, I will admit, have replicated many of the smart aspects of the conservative movement, and apparently are doing them with relatively little drama, use of new technology, ridiculous turnover and other aspects of conservatives shooting themselves in the feet that I've seen over the past few years. It also, of course, helps that all this is centered in one group well financed and not dependent upon direct mail donors and small donations. The left is using political technology much better than conservatives, and are winning as a result. We have a lot of catch-up to play.
Labels: conservativism, movement, policy, politics
Silly self-hating paleocons
Certain elements of the intellectual right, feeling marginalized, have recently been a constant drumbeat of whining at their irrelevance. Fine authors from
Dan McCarthy to
Dan Flynn to the entirely new
TakiMag relentlessly pursue the topic of "what is conservatism?" to the point of exhaustion.
Liberals, of course,
love the topic. Yet, the differences they identify are minor and marginal compared to the opposition, and the whiners often offer few if any solutions. Austin Bramwell whines about the conservative movement in "
Is the Conservative Movement Worth Conserving" without ever considering that perhaps there are problems of basic leadership and basic skills within the movement: that the skill-set required in terms of fundraising, organization, strategy, marketing and programs are not naturally found within society. Rather, Bramwell would indict the entire movement as an organism and suggest, with no shame at his sweeping generalizations, that it is all dysfunctional. And this is the common theme. We need new leaders, we need more effective leaders, and we need to get serious about specific victories.
Labels: conservativism, politics, theory
The first abortion-free state: South Dakota, now for some new goals
Planned Parenthood in South Dakota
has recently shut down due to a vigorous informed consent law, so there is plenty of good news. However, this is not the end of the battle, and pro-life and pro-family advocates ought to take things even further and start restricting and regulating all sorts of vice out of town, as these things go together. The pro-life warriors ought to start identifying ways to regulate sex shops, strip clubs and pornography out of their state as well. Kick out the support legs that produce the crises the Planned Parenthood attempts to solve, not to mention reform the government school's sex-ed classes so they don't teach perversion,
as they do in Massachusetts. Our goals should never end at what could be such a transient success, and the folks I worked with in 2006, namely the Unruhs, certainly have the fire in their bellies to keep that revolution marching.
Labels: conservativism, movement, policy, politics, pro-life, pro-life movement
Tom DeLay's ridiculousness: The Coalition for a Conservative Minority
So I was going through a few old issues of Campaigns and Elections and ran across this March article from Tom DeLay about the "High Price of Disunity" and he is so bold as to claim that conservatives were disloyal for not supporting the prescription drug bill. DeLay is still oblivious to his own culpability in creating ultimate Republican defeat. His byline credits his works at the "
Coalition for a Conservative Majority" which I was interested to hear about, so I checked out their website.
They have
eight active chapters. DeLay founded this organization, and
Ken Blackwell is running it.
I decided to
"get active" with CCM and signed up. But I suspect I know what will come from it: nothing. As with most conservative groups I sign up with, I never receive an email or a single contact. There's no use for the volunteer with most of these places,
because people are working a job, sending out their direct mail, and simply disinterested in results.
The only result Tom DeLay can claim is losing a majority, so why does anyone listen to what he has to say, give him any money or look on him with anything but disdain. He is a traitor to the cause and ought to be cast out. You can't call this a movement when the only motion involves money into the pocket of thieves like DeLay. They're supposedly a c4, and supposedly a group to "counter the influence of moveon" even though that mantle is claimed by about a dozen conservative shell groups at this point.
Labels: conservativism, movement, politics, Tom DeLay
A simple strategy for winning elections that most state parties fail to follow
1. Find a candidate, or if you are the candidate, find a core group of hardcore supporters
2. Train self and supporters on how to win, take advice from people who have won competitive elections before
3. Mount an insurgent candidacy against an incumbent, run repeatedly
4. Build momentum, even if it takes several elections, unseat the establishment/incumbent
5. Work like crazy while in office to firm up foundation, win over coalitions
6. Coast on inertia of incumbency, work behind the scenes to get victories, let the activists consider you a sellout as you systemically deconstruct the state from within.
Most state parties write off anything but a sure bet, which has two consequences:
1. They never prevail when they never even fight
2. They lose the opportunity for activists and candidates to learn what it really takes to win.
Any previous election under 55% is what most state parties are interested in, and then they bowl over anyone else but aren't really interested. I'm not saying that resources should be diverted to long shots, but we should play like champions and treat every race as though it's a golden opportunity to send a statist packing. I once wrote out a plan with a friend on taking 10 longer-than-normal-shot state house races and running serious campaigns for them, utilizing economies of scale to cut costs on mail, web, phones, etc.-- still a decent idea if I could figure out how to finance the bulk of it.
Labels: campaigns, conservativism, politics, theory
The natural coalitions on the right
It occurred to me that even though I knew and understood Grover Norquist's central thesis of the center-right coalition, defining that coalition gets a little hairy. It's tough to know what's worthy of its own identifier, and what's just a subset of another, but alas, here goes:
Here's what I consider it to be:
Pro-life
Pro-marriage/family
Guns
Culture
Ideas/Intellectuals
Campuses/Campus Activism
Churches
Economics/Taxes
Homeschoolers
School Reform
Labels: coalitions, conservativism, theory
No movies will be made about the causes of the credit crisis
So, the credit crisis might start reaching people as serious
now that Deutsche Bank is backing out of $450 million worth of Paramount's film financing. However, with any crisis, as Morton's Youth Leadership School teaches us, comes both danger and opportunity. And so, what is the opportunity here? Well, when one considers what I consider a general dissatisfaction with Hollywood, a recognition that their movies have for years been substandard and wanting, along with the writer's strike, a possible actor's strike, and skyrocketing costs and salaries: conservatives ought to capitalize on this chaos by producing truly great movies, such as
Bella. Several years ago, I heard various conservative schemes to make Dallas the conservative Hollywood, and I met a fellow in Louisiana who was going to try and spur conservative, Christian and good movies in the Bayou, but both schemes seem to have lost traction. There will never be a better time to give Americans what they really want: great, wholesome movies about real issues, topics, leaders and heroes. If there are any billionaires reading, please contact me and I'll spend your money wisely.
Labels: art, beauty, cinema, conservativism, culture, film, truth
5 books every college organizer should read
I was thinking about the various books that would be crucial for a college organizer to read, and as one who is not a fan of book learning as much as I am a fan of action, I thought that these five would be the best for your time not spent taking action:
1. Closing of the American Mind - Allan Bloom
2. Rules for Radicals - Saul Alinsky
3. Radical Chic - Tom Wolfe
4. I am Charlotte Simmons - Tom Wolfe
5. Dedication and Leadership - Douglas Hyde
Labels: books, campuses, college, conservativism, organizing
Natural Student Issues
For campus organizing, many of the groups doing good work on colleges are really working on esoteric and extraneous issues to what are properly understood as natural student issues. This is somewhat related to the political science terms "preferences/salience" and "popularity" meaning that the intensity of attention to one issue is different than a menu-list of issues. For instance, Newt Gingrich has his "
American Solutions" which, at times, seems a bit silly. He lists a hundred or more potential policy solutions, which I suppose is good for think-tank types. But it represents a coupling of divergent policies that are popular, but very few which are actually salient, which people are intensely interested in. For another example,
Students for Saving Social Security is a great idea, and a great group, but it's working against the natural salience on campus on a variety of what could be conservative issues. No 18-22 year old is naturally talking about social security reform. These represent strategic choices, grander than the specific tactics that some organizations use to pitch their products, their programs. As an example of another organization, perhaps as a mild critique, the
Intercollegiate Studies Institute, a very fine organization, limits itself and its intellectual conservative offerings, often to a very self-selecting group of intelligent students at elite universities. Even though the masses are craving alternatives to the indoctrination they are receiving in the classroom, ISI is tactically limiting their offerings.
We should thrive on controversy, because it means that we are being read, talked about and discussed. And if we believe that conservativism represents truth, and that given a fair hearing our ideas will prevail, we should take every idea that students are curious about, and offer conservative interpretations that they won't hear elsewhere. The usual reaction from establishment types is that this will cause a recalcitrant attitude, and people's hearts will become closed, which may be true in the general population. But with the many intellectual journeys students are taking in their four years of undergraduate education, it is worth focusing on that which will excite and entice them, rather than focusing on many issues which will always bore them. I would much rather show pieces of inherently beautiful art and talk about culture and be idiotically called a racist than show an actuarial table, charts and statistics and have the entire audience asleep.
Therefore, I think there are about 9 or so natural student issues. Here they are in no particular order:
Natural Student Issues:
1. Race
2. Culture and Identity
3. Bureaucracy
4. Tuition
5. Jobs and future careers
6. Feminism and Gender
7. Homosexuality
8. Community and Greek Life
9. War and Global Conflicts
Labels: campuses, college, conservativism, organizing, philosophy, strategy, tactics
