Tuesday, November 11, 2008
The right in opposition: Eye-for-an-eye or turn the other cheek?
The News Junkie at Maggie's considers the competing models for behavior as the righty blogosphere swings, for the first time in its history, into the opposition: "Genteel, Loyal Opposition vs. Going Medieval." The post includes links to Power Line, Right Wing News, and Ace. Suffice it to say that regular blog readers will guess who takes which position.
Now, my co-bloggers and I are a pretty upbeat and level-headed bunch. We prefer to argue policy than to engage in ad hominum attacks (although certain politicians of both parties are so hideous that we cannot restrain ourselves), and we are all optimistic, cheerful, fun-loving personalities who would much prefer to laugh than stamp our feet in rage. My guess, therefore, is that we will be much more "genteel" in opposition than many of our counterparts on the left have been for, well, the entire history of the blogosphere.
That said, I (speaking for myself, now) propose a few principles to which I at least ought to adhere*:
Barack Obama will be my president. I will argue against his policies when I do not agree with him, but I will not seek to delegitimize him or the office that he occupies. I owe no such duty to his political allies, most of whom do not, in fact, represent me. Nancy Pelosi, for example, is not "my" Speaker. I will oppose attempts from the right to delegitimize Barack Obama. I will note, perhaps with sarcasm, irritation, or scorn, when lefty bloggers and pundits and mainstream media of whatever stripe are applying a different standard of review to criticism of President Obama than they applied to attacks on George W. Bush. I will never claim, except ironically, that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism," nor attribute same to Thomas Jefferson. I may, however, put a "Question Authority" sticker on my car just to confuse the Princeton liberals.
Anybody got a problem with that?
______________________________________________
*Nobody's perfect, and I do expect to slip up from time to time.
30 Comments:
By 
, at
Tue Nov 11, 03:00:00 PM:
It doesn't matter which path we declare today. Most of us will start with the "he's my President too" model and then change to a modified insanity when it becomes clear how, lazy, inept and anti-American (make that, anti-American middle class) Obama actually is.
Your "question authority" bumper sticker will be OK during phase one but when even the NYT begins to say, "what the hell is he doing?" any criticism of his policy or practice, including your bumper, will be considered racism and under the new hate speech laws, severely punished.
How about this! Before the end of Obama's second year, there will be pressure to put Obama's image on a US postage stamp. The impetus will come from the fact that it will have already appeared on a Kenyan stamp and the stamps of 3 or 4 other countries.
By 
Saul Menowitz III, at
Tue Nov 11, 03:38:00 PM:
I think the better approach is laid out on this blog under the first posting.
And no, it's not my blog.
http://sydneybrilloduodenum.blogspot.com/
By , at
Tue Nov 11, 03:45:00 PM:
McCain ran a genteel campaign. Look where it got him. Libs behave the way they do because they have the drive and hunger needed to acquire power. That drive and energy is completely missing from the Right. Manners and gentility will not win the back alley brawl of politics.
By Jeff, at
Tue Nov 11, 03:58:00 PM:
Not a SINGLE county in Oklahoma voted for Barack Obama.
Obviously, he is not the President of all Americans and his election was illegitimate.
By , at
Tue Nov 11, 04:04:00 PM:
I applaud your intentions and hope to do the same. I sympathize with the "go Medieval" crowd, however. The thought that libs will somehow be instructed by our conduct is wishful thinking. Think of the Republican's reaction to the treatment of Judge Bork-- overwhelmingly voting to approve Clinton nominees to the Supreme Court on the theory that the sitting President is entitled to "his" judiciary. Did it buy any improved behavior when a Republican President nominated Justices? Not much (our President-elect somehow thought Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito not qualified for the bench). But, what the hey, I'm still gonna try the "what's right is right" approach (subject, no doubt, to a lapse here and there). Goody
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Nov 11, 04:20:00 PM:
The thought that libs will somehow be instructed by our conduct is wishful thinking.
I do not think that. I merely want my country to thrive, and attempting to discredit or delegitimize her president hurts my country, even if it achieves the expedient and immediate benefit of obstructing some or another policy.
That is the difference between me and many of George W. Bush's most strident opponents.
By davod, at
Tue Nov 11, 04:33:00 PM:
I still want to know about all the foreign money donated to Obama's
campaign.
By , at
Tue Nov 11, 04:42:00 PM:
Unfortunately your stated approach pleases noone -- as you have deprived the super-righties of their vindictive red meat (some of which, b/t/w, is incredibly offensive) & thrown everyone else out with the lefty bathwater.
If the punditry is correct -- and there is a vast centrist middle, they are invisible in this view.
The "I respect the office of the President" blog? Seriously?
Good luck with that.
How about another approach: Forget all of the arbitrary labels, name-calling, wacko loyalties that defy reason, and just call 'em as you see 'em?
Isn't one of the rabid left's major criticisms of Chimpy McPrezelchoker that he surrounded himself with "yes men" and did not invite challenge to his views?
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Tue Nov 11, 04:59:00 PM:
I like the distinction between "he is my president" but his allies are not. It is a tough discernment in practice, but a good plan to keep in mind.
It will also be hard to keep focus when your views are being distorted. Sen Kyl made comments about opposing SCOTUS nominations if they were empathy-based instead of entirely law-based, but of accepting even more liberal judges if they saw their goal as conforming to the law. The headlines immediately accused Kyl of threatening to filibuster judges who are too liberal.
By Escort81, at
Tue Nov 11, 05:17:00 PM:
The existence of BDS over the last 8 years does not justify the emergence of ODS.
One hopes that refraining from ODS is a form of leading by example, but whether or not the left learns from that conduct, it is still the right thing to do from a personal standpoint.
I am optimistic that ODS will be confined to a much smaller percentage of the right than BDS occupied on the left. The fact that the 2000 election ended how it did in Florida was the original disease vector for BDS; one positive aspect of Obama's margin on election day is that there will be no chants of "selected, not elected."
That said, the likely increase in taxes for my famliy starting next year will be quite hard to swallow, even though I have been forewarned, and I may let a profanity slip every now and then. I think that's a natural reaction to being sodomized without lubrication.
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Nov 11, 05:20:00 PM:
Nice comment, Escort81. ODS is as odious as BDS!
By , at
Tue Nov 11, 06:02:00 PM:
Don't underestimate the effect of the 7-year temper tantrum of factions of the Left towards Bush.
A lot of people were motivated to vote for Obama out of a sense of appealing for some form of "national reconciliation". A lot of squishes could not bring themselves to vote for 4 more years of a Republican and having their public mellow harshed out by all the name calling that would have continued. The precedent had already been made for 4 nore years of a Republican Presidency with the hogwash written about Sarah Palin
Double-plus ungood on making fun of President Elect Obama, until he really does something stupid (after inauguration).
-David
By Andrew X, at
Tue Nov 11, 06:12:00 PM:
Genteel or not, it would be an EXREMELY healthy move for the GOP to make an en masse decision that we will all barely mention the name of Barack Hussien Obama at all for the next four years. (t'would be ironic, given he who must not be mentioned, etc).
The secondary reason to do this is that gettting wrapped up in personality is lame, is our tactic that Bill Clinton used to stay one step ahead of us, and in today's environment, it will be all too easy to accuse us of a racism if we focus on the person of Barack Obama. (A crock, we all know, but no shortage of nitwits out there who will buy it.)
That is the secondary reason. The primary reason is that, were we to simply avoid using his name, we would be forced onto the field of ideas, ideals, and the policies we advocate that spring from both. We would all hone our badly atrophied skills in arguing our case and communicating the message that matters. This is where we belong to start with.
We can beat this guy on ideas, so let's do it that way, and NOT get caught up in a bunch of personality crap.
"Small minds talk about people, Average minds talk about events, Great minds discuss ideas".
Our ideas are better.
By Unknown, at
Tue Nov 11, 06:30:00 PM:
Count me in with the genteel group. After it was clear that Senator Obama had won a clear victory election night, I wrote the following email to all my friends.
Tonight was a remarkable moment in the history of our country. We have set new precedents tonight that will resonate for at least a generation, possibly longer.
Most elections do not change much. Some, like Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, Truman, and Reagan changed their eras but did not permanently change the nation. From my perspective there have been only three (or maybe four) elections that have made a permanent change in America.
George Washington's election made a permanent impact on the United States. Andrew Jackson's election changed the role of political parties in a fundamental way. Franklin Roosevelt presided on an inexorable and permanent shift of power from the several states to the central government, nearly changing America from a Federal system to a National system.
Of course, I have not forgotten Lincoln, but it can be argued that it was the Civil War itself that gave Lincoln the opportunity to correct an intrinsic contradiction in our founding documents. The Constitution, operating on the principle of "positive law," (things are good or bad, legal or illegal, because humans say so through the legal process) was in contradiction with the Declaration of Independence, that operated on the basis of "natural law" (it is intrinsic to human nature to have certain human rights; they are given by "nature and nature's God" and not by legislatures.)
Lincoln used the natural God given principles of the Declaration to trump the slavery portions of the man-made positive law of the Constitution. In an ironic way this may have been the pinnacle as well as the final episode of the triumph of natural law in America. But that is another story.
This election may well be the next transformational election in our nation's history. Let me outline briefly the ways this may unfold.
Barak Obama breaks the color barrier in America. Although victimhood may linger in the minds of many, it can never again be said that there is a category of second class citizenry. ANY citizen, regardless of race, creed, or color, can be elected to any office in our land. To those who claim that America is a fundamentally racist society this election stands as a convincing refutation.
President-elect Obama also sets a new precedent regarding the resume necessary to be elected to the highest office in our country. From now on a mere two years in the Senate, with no executive experience, will not be a bar to the Presidency.
President-elect Obama has also guaranteed that there will be no prospect of public financing or campaign limitations when running for any office for which higher than prescribed financial limits can be raised. This is either good or bad, depending on your point of view.
Now to other matters. It remains to be seen whether the era of "American Exceptionalism" has ended forever. Whether America will undergo a partial unilateral disarmament, reduce its influence globally, transform itself into just one nation among the nations, will be discovered during the four or eight years of the Obama administration.
Similarly, we will get to see whether the shift to National government will extend to the economy and to government ownership of key elements of the financial network of America. We will see whether other key parts of our economy -- health care, insurance, energy, and more -- will find their center of gravity in the public sector or the private sector.
On a note of special interest to me, we will see whether international dangers -- Russia and Ukraine, China and Taiwan, Venezuela and Columbia, and most importantly, Israel, Iran, and others in the region -- will change the balance of power around the globe. Will we be as safe in the next four or eight years as we have been at home in the 7 years and 2 months since 9-11? Will Europe become more Islamic? Will Iran and the entire Middle East become an armed nuclear zone?
At home, will taxes rise? Will small business decline as a contributor to the economy? Will unemployment increase? Will Social Security be solvent? Will we find new sources of energy or will we pursue expensive alternatives that do not work? Will our dependence on foreign sources for our energy go up or down? Will the costs of food and energy stabilize or shoot up? Will idealological considerations trump practical ones or will we see an administration that is flexible and non-doctrinaire?
Because of my deep love for America I hope and pray that the losing side in 2008 will be more gracious to the new President than the losing side was in the aftermath of 2000 and 2004. I fervently wish that there is no "Obama Derangement Syndrome" like the "Bush Derangement Syndrome" that afflicted us so toxically.
I never want to root against America. I never want to desire failure, military or economic, simply because it will make the party I do not affiliate with more likely to lose an election. I disdain those who applaud the decline of the stock market, or the rise in the price of gasoline, or the reports of casualties among our armed forces, for partisan gain. I never want to secretly or openly yearn for our President to be "Captain of the Titanic."
So my bottom line is this. Godspeed President-elect Obama. And may God continue to shed His grace and blessings on our nation, the United States of America.
By SR, at
Tue Nov 11, 07:02:00 PM:
Stephen,
I, like you would never root against America.
That is the difference between us and the party
of the President-elect. They have spent the last eight years rooting against America because they didn't like
how it was being run. This is literally throwing the baby out with the bath.
The question is, will the President-elect and his party continue to root against America even as they are in charge of running its government (notice I didn't say they were in charge of running the country). An example would be accepting the legitimacy of the World Court, and then especially failing to vigorously defend
americans brought up on charges.
By Escort81, at
Tue Nov 11, 07:11:00 PM:
Thanks, TH.
Great email, Stephen. I read an editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer the day before the election stating that this election (should Obama win) would be the most historic election in the history of the U.S. I think that unless there is another Civil War in the U.S. (and I most certainly hope that there is not), the election of 1860 will always be the most historic election this country has had.
Fifty years from now, I think that will still be the case, though I have little doubt that there will be many schools and streets named after President Obama. Perhaps some towns will even change names -- why live in a place called Somerville, MA, named after a place in England, when you can live in Obamaville, MA?
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Nov 11, 08:44:00 PM:
I agree, Stephen, thank you for that.
By Andrew X, at
Tue Nov 11, 09:29:00 PM:
"why live in a place called Somerville, MA, named after a place in England, when you can live in Obamaville, MA?"
What about living in a place that changed from Asheville, GA to Carterville, GA? I just made that up, but how many Georgians REALLY want to celebrate Djimmah Carter for the rest of their grandchildren's lives?
I don't say this to be "Obama sucks, just like Carter" (who REALLY sucked, and still does, but I digress). I just mention this because the essence of conservatism is that you do NOT hitch your wagon upon sight to every shiny new idea / person / movement to come sailing down the pike. If a town REALLY deserves to change a centuries old name to "Obamaville" the time to decide that is not for at least a decade. Like right now is a good time to decide such a thing about Reagan ( and golly, there's a lot of buildings and stuff named after him, but people don't seem to be inclined to change their town name. Maybe because the glamour is sorta.... fleeting?)
I don't want to make a big deal out of your off-hand comment, but the point is important, and we see idiots out there talking about National holidays for Obama and the like, and it is just plain excrutiating. Conservatives major problem with Big O is the number of his followers that are acting entirely on emotion, and childishly.
Place names need an ageless quality to them, and should not be trifled with lightly. Just ask the people of Tsaritsyn, Russia... I mean... Stalingrad... I mean... Volgograd... I mean... (next)
It's lame. And it matters.
"Obamaville". Puh-freekin-leeze.
By , at
Tue Nov 11, 10:20:00 PM:
I disagree completely, on all levels.
First, Obama is NOT my President and never will be. He is a racist who hates me for the color of my skin.
So he is NOT my President and I will NEVER support him. Further, he is a disgrace, with terrorist buddies and racists all around him.
But more important than all that, he has NO CHECK on his ABSOLUTE power.
The Press WORSHIPS him as a LIVING GOD.
Any criticism of him is labeled "racist."
He has hard-left Marxist Democratic majorities. He has no checks in the Judiciary or the Legislature. There exists no real check on the guy that many in the Nation WORSHIP.
So, if you want to avoid disastrous policies, waiting until he proposes them is TOO LATE. Because there is no check to stop them, unlike the men who were elected, as opposed to the living Tin God that Obama is.
Therefore, logically, if you wish to oppose Obama's disastrous policies, at home and abroad, you MUST tear him down, now, so he is just a man and not a GOD.
No honeymoon. No goodwill (he showed none to Bush). No being "nice." No "He is my President." Instead, non-stop attacks, in the style against GWB, except more.
It is vital for the nation's good that this happen. That Obama be cut down to a man immediately. I would not have granted George Washington that amount of power, and Obama is a literal God. Not a man.
Unless you want to be ruled by a hereditary set of God Kings, your patriotic duty is to tear down and tear apart Obama -- any seedy scandal, disgusting tidbit, embarrassing video, must be publicized.
Not to be "mean" or for revenge, but to limit Obama to being just a man.
By JPMcT, at
Tue Nov 11, 10:33:00 PM:
There was a time when ANYBODY who ran for the office of President shared the qualities of patriotism, respect for the constitution and basic decency. They differed on the way to achieve those goals.
Now the goals are different. We have a man who was elected by a majority because that majority wants the government to tax the minority and give them the money.
That is neither patriotic, constitutional or decent.
So, Tigerhawk, I, for one, DO NOT agree with your post or many of the conciliatory posts that followed.
I don't want anybody with the ideology of Barack Obama to be in a position of power. I think it will be a disaster for my country and my pocketbook .
I'm not going to make nice statements about him because he is black because I REALLY DO judge men by the content of their character and NOT the color of their skin.
I don't like Mr. Obama's character at all. His skin color is irrelevant.
I intend to show Barack Obama the same respect that the Democratic party showed to George Bush.
I think that the best course of action for most thoughtful bloggers is to work to restore the two party system by reminding the remaining Rebublican representatives that conservatives generally win elections and are good for America...while "centrist" tends to be a synonym for "loser".
There is nothing in Mr. Obama's ideology or stated plans that gives me any solace that he will be a keeper of the faith of our founding fathers.
He needs to be opposed and defeated..at every turn.
It's as simple as that.
I guess I'm in the wrong place...
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Nov 11, 11:09:00 PM:
Well, JPMcT, we hope you stick around. We're going to need all the help we can get.
My point is not that I will support Barack Obama in whatever he says or does. Quite to the contrary. I am just going to wait for him to say or do something, and then I am going to address it substantively.
By JPMcT, at
Tue Nov 11, 11:47:00 PM:
It's not what he says that worries me...most of that is blather and rhetoric designed to impress the uneducated (obviously with great success).
It's what he does when he thinks he's in private that is so abhorrent.
I guess it's up to us to keep it in the open...but I do not expect to be able to make the blind see or the deaf hear.
We need to openly revitalize the conservative movement. That is the only way to turn this around. That will require PROactivity.
By Escort81, at
Wed Nov 12, 12:38:00 AM:
druu222 - Relax, I was being silly with the Obamaville comment, although it does reflect my discomfort with the cult-like behavior of some of his core followers (remarked upon recently even by Newsweek's Evan Thomas while on the Charlie Rose Show on PBS). I think your comparison to the various name changes of Stalingrad, etc., is dead on.
JPMcT - I am not sure that federal tax rates will be any higher than they were under Clinton, though as TH as previously pointed out, many state rates have increased since then, so the combined effect may well be higher. I happend to think that imposing higher tax rates in a time of recession is a very bad idea. I don't want to put words in TH's mouth, but we are not "conciliatory" in the sense of conceding any important policy point or not being willing to hold the President-elect accountable for poor decisions or being less than fully truthful, we are simply attempting to be respectful of the Office of the President of the United States, unlike -- repeat, unlike -- the Kos and Huffpo people and their ilk with respect to Bush. I don't want to be like those people, period. If I do that ("show Barack Obama the same respect that the Democratic party showed to George Bush"), I am no better than they are. I don't agree that centrist and conservative ideals can't win without the use of those tactics.
By JPMcT, at
Wed Nov 12, 07:04:00 AM:
"we are simply attempting to be respectful of the Office of the President of the United States"
While I certainly agree with your logic, I think you underestimate my elemental disgust for this man and what he stands for.
His basic political philosophy is at odds with just about everything that makes us different (and better) than other developed nations.
We did not sway from writing the Declaration of Independence "out of respect for the office" of King George III.
Similarly, active political opposition to his agenda and counter balancing of the media adulation are, IMHO, necesary ingredients in an organized plan to put this country back on the path AWAY from Collectiveism and Eurosocialism!
This link summarizes my feeling well:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1084111/PETER-HITCHENS-The-night-waved-goodbye-America--best-hope-Earth.html
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Nov 12, 07:34:00 AM:
I admit, JPMcT, that I harbor no "disgust" for Barack Obama. As for what he stands for, that is a more difficult question. One of the principal complaints against his candidacy is that we really did not know what he stood for on a host of topics. Yes, we fear that he will be an unreconstructed statist lefty, but we do not know whether he will be. For instance, will he make good on his pledge to de-emphasize Iraq and put a lot of new military and intelligence effort into Afghanistan and Pakistan? A year ago, that was not necessarily a great idea. Now, events have transpired (thanks to the Petraeus plan that Obama opposed, but luck counts in these things) to make that a much better idea. Similarly, on the economy. Will his first response be to raise taxes, put up new trade barriers, and make unionization easier? Or does he realize that doing those things into the teeth of a deep recession that will probably go on for most of the first two years of his term would be an incredibly bad idea? Again, we do not know.
Now, some things we can be sure of. He is going to lift the ban on federal funding for stem cell research. I have no problem with that, but if that is a non-negotiable item for you than I can certainly understand your opposition. I have no such issue. My side lost, so now the question is how best to prevent this election from changing American politics for a generation.
By , at
Wed Nov 12, 12:15:00 PM:
One of the consequences of regular elections is that occasionally my side will lose. I won't like it, but I accept it and I accept the candidate as my president.
This in no way however, inhibits me from opposing those policies with which I disagree.
I move forward hoping that Obama sees himself as the first African-American president more than he does as a lefty ideologue, and as such will be duly cautious so as not to make the path more difficult for those who follow.
I'm thinking of Jackie Robinson, who tolerated an unbelievable amount of abuse from his fellow athletes in order to pave the way for the modern professional millionaires who behaves as they please.
By JPMcT, at
Wed Nov 12, 01:46:00 PM:
Obama does not have the background of most American blacks. He generally was cared for by his white mother and grandmother, placed in good schools at their expense and had to go out of his way to find examples of racism in his upbringing.
I base this on his two books...if they can be believed.
He acquired his penchant for Black Liberation TheoPolitics at the hands of fellow students and in the books of leftist black liberation authors...not "in the hood".
My interpretation of his autobiographical works is that he has been seeking acceptance all of his life from his family and from his "race". He impresses me as a man of extreme introspection...to the point just short of narcissism.
I don't find that he is a particularly analytical or highly intelligent person...but more of a clever man who has the "gift of gab".
I say all this because I feel that, IMHO, he is flawed. His priorities are unclear...BECAUSE HE DOESN'T REALLY HAVE ANY. He'll do whatever it takes to be accepted and popular...and he will be fairly easy prey to his handlers and policy wonks.
So... no, I don't see this scared little boy taking the high road for the good of America.
His closest personal ally in life was his grandmother, who he already summarily rejected for political benefit and played basketball on the day after her death.
A real piece of work.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Nov 12, 04:07:00 PM:
"He'll do whatever it takes to be accepted and popular...and he will be fairly easy prey to his handlers and policy wonks."
That's what I expect as well, though for different reasons no based so much on a psychological profile.
Rather, I imagine that a lot of his closed door policy discussions are going to end up being something like, "I've been doing this for 20 years, you've been doing this for 2. Do what I say."
By Pax Federatica, at
Thu Nov 13, 02:00:00 AM:
RPD: I'm thinking of Jackie Robinson, who tolerated an unbelievable amount of abuse from his fellow athletes in order to pave the way for the modern professional millionaires who behaves as they please.
Obama strikes me as being more like Tiger Woods than Jackie Robinson. Woods was also a breakthrough figure in his sport, but didn't have to go through anywhere near the depths of racist hell that Robinson did. Not to mention that the media fawned all over Woods and still does.
That said, getting back to the "Obamaville" thing: I'm with TigerHawk (and Glenn Reynolds) in waiting for Obama to do something stupid before bashing him. By the same token we should also wait for him to make positive accomplishments for the country as President before we start naming stuff after him. Until that happens, naming some town in Massachusetts after Obama would be like naming some town in Montana after Miley Cyrus's alter ego.
By Consul-At-Arms, at
Sun Nov 16, 01:50:00 AM:
I've quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2008/11/re-right-in-opposition-eye-for-eye-or.html
