The GOP's "Anger Entrepreneurs"
Via @WalterOlson, there are those on the political right who, as he put it, would "rather keep their perpetual fund-raising machine oiled than actually win elections."
John Podhoretz and Michael Medved write in Commentary, "A GOP Civil War -- Who Benefits?":
Many of these Anger Entrepreneurs on the right mine their gold in the negative emotions of conservatives who are having grave difficulty making sense of a world in which almost everyone they know dislikes liberalism and despises Obama but in which liberals and Obama seem to have the upper hand. The answer seducing all too many of them is that their cause has been sabotaged from within and that the best route to greater success lies in removing the saboteurs.The rewards for marketing a successful message can be vast. Last year, a fight inside the conservative organization FreedomWorks led to the departure of its chairman, former Representative Dick Armey. He was bought out with an astounding $8 million handshake--from a grassroots group formerly known as Citizens for a Sound Economy dedicated to fiscal prudence and the promotion of ideas. With the departure of Armey, an experienced political hand, FreedomWorks broke free to dedicate itself in 2013 to threatening Republicans who did not support the effort to shut down the government.
Perhaps the greatest example of the growing power of this outside entrepreneurship came this year when South Carolina firebrand Jim DeMint resigned from his Senate seat to take over as head of the Heritage Foundation and its recently organized political arm, Heritage Action. With Heritage Action's extraordinarily aggressive advocacy of the argument that the only acceptable vote for a conservative to take in September 2013 was the immediate and total defunding of ObamaCare, DeMint showed he could be far more influential outside the realm of electoral politics than he ever had been within it.
And what DeMint and his fellow activists insisted upon meant certain defeat. Perhaps they honestly believed along with Cruz and Lee that there would be a national uprising against ObamaCare (before its disastrous implementation began) that would force Democratic senators from Republican-voting states to withdraw their support and vote to destroy it perhaps with enough new recruits to the cause to override the president's promised veto. But once it became clear that this was a fantasy and some 22 Democratic senators would never turn against ObamaCare, and there would be no defunding, they refused to abandon their infatuation with glorious martyrdom. You proved your loyalty and fealty to conservative principles only if you agreed to go down with the ship.
...Republicans will win meaningful victories only when they lose their appetite for martyrdom and fratricide and concentrate on forcing the other side to pay a political price for its own incompetent performance and dysfunctional ideology. Most Republicans, as the history of the last 40 years demonstrates, want precisely that. The question now is whether this real majority will be overrun. If that happens, the truest beneficiary of the intra-Republican civil war will be the Democratic Party, and those who divided the right will deserve some share of the blame for the advancement of the very policies and principles they claim to abhor.
Also, I believe Republicans keep many libertarians from voting for them by adhering to social conservatism instead of simply being for free markets and small government -- conservatism that entails not trying to control others at every turn.
If he doesn't understand how anger sells at this moment in time?
I'm betting he hasn't lost his health insurance yet.
Oschisms at December 4, 2013 1:00 PM
"Also, I believe Republicans keep many libertarians from voting for them by adhering to social conservatism instead of simply being for free markets and small government -- conservatism that entails not trying to control others at every turn."-amy
I think you're right, mostly because I'm one of those people who tend to vote republican but don't always because of the social issues. I happen to LIVE pretty conservatively: never had a abortion, got married in the church, my husband is my kid's daddy, never had a lesbian liason... but I don't think everyone needs to do it my way, AS LONG AS I don't have to pay for other peoples hedonism.
The term "RINO" being flung around really pisses me off. If the republicans don't want me in their party because I think gay people should be able to get married, or that rape victims should be able to get an abortion, fuck 'em.
Of course, living in Texas is (probably like living in CA) is sort of a different animal, because in general you already know which party is going to win. So here, we have candidates duking it out to be the "most conservative" candidate in the primary... since in a lot of races, the guy who wins the republican primary will win the race. The interesting thing that that's happening here is that, possibly, the race to be the most conservative in the party for the primary could backfire in the governor's race. (Rick Perry's finally stepping down, y'all!) The conservative hardliners are scaring away the social moderates.
Anyway, it's state-level stuff, but here's what I'm talking about:
http://www.texastribune.org/2013/11/04/peeking-ahead-fight-over-moderate-voters/
ahw at December 4, 2013 2:34 PM
Every interest group does this -- right, left, nonprofit, charitable, etc. As long as interest groups hold sway, if they have anything to say about it, no problem will ever get solved, they will always gin up the controversy and have us emotionally charged up and at each other's throats. They do it because it's the most effective way they've found to raise great amounts of money. They are much like a government bureaucracy in that way.
The only way to force a change in their tactics is for enough of us to stop playing their game, control our emotions, stop the fighting, and refuse to give a penny to anyone who employs these methods. Then, and only then, they will need to find another way to raise the money.
cpabroker at December 4, 2013 4:45 PM
cpabroker,
I would suggest that you get a copy of the Liberty Amendments and make sure your state is participating.
But two things that I think would help right the ship.
Repeal the 17th Amendment. That would give states a say what is happening at the Fed level. If the senator stepped off the reservation the individual state could slap them down as needed.
The other amendment I'd like to add is to change the how the House is made up. Change it so that a representative is only responsible to between 100K and 150K people and the salary is based off the prior year's median wage for his district.
Yes there might be 2200 reps. But try buying that many as a special interest. How about even getting a quorum to pass a stupid law like Obamacare? The RNC and DNC would effectively be made moot by trying to gerrymandering districts. Every rep would have a pay incentive to look out for the people he represents and would/could tell the special interests to go screw off. If 10K+ people are telling their rep we do/don't like a law, think how it would go? To pass a law it would probably have to be small and granular. None of these omnibus budget bills would probably pass.
Just throwing out my 2¢.
Jim P. at December 4, 2013 7:39 PM
The kids filed into class Monday morning. They were all very excited. Their weekend assignment was to sell something, then give a talk on salesmanship. Little Sally led off. "I sold Girl Scout cookies and I made $30" she said proudly, "my sales approach was to appeal to the customer's civil spirit and I credit that approach for my obvious success."
"Very good", said the teacher.
Little Debbie was next. "I sold magazines" she said, "I made $45 and I explained to everyone that magazines would keep them up on current events."
"Very good, Debbie", said the teacher.
Eventually, it was Little Johnny's turn. The teacher held her breath. Little Johnny walked to the front of the classroom and dumped a box full of cash on the teacher's desk. "$2,467", he said. "$2,467!" cried the teacher, "What in the world were you selling?"
Toothbrushes", said Little Johnny.
"Toothbrushes", echoed the teacher, "How could you possibly sell enough tooth brushes to make that much money?"
"I found the busiest corner in town", said Little Johnny, "I set up a Dip & Chip stand and I gave everybody who walked by a free sample."
They all said the same thing, "Hey, this tastes like dog poop!"
Then I would say, "It is dog poop. Wanna buy a toothbrush? I used the President Obama method of giving you some crap, dressing it up so it looks good, telling you it's free and then making you pay to get the bad taste out of your mouth."
Little Johnny got five stars for his assignment. Bless his heart!!
Flynne at December 5, 2013 5:08 AM
The goal for most, regardless of party, is the exercise of power. Any benefit to the country is incidental. We would be better served by a group of Americans chosen at random.
MarkD at December 5, 2013 5:24 AM
The term "RINO" being flung around really pisses me off. If the republicans don't want me in their party because I think gay people should be able to get married, or that rape victims should be able to get an abortion, fuck 'em.
To me, that's not a RINO.
A RINO is the politician that says all the right things to get elected, then immediately forgets all those things they said during their swearing into office, and hopes you do, too.
See: McCain, John.
He said all the right things about immigration reform to gain re-election in 2010. Of course, he had been a champion of amnesty before, and the people of Arizona were foolish enough to believe that the tiger had changed his stripes, but as saying goes it's in my nature.
I R A Darth Aggie at December 5, 2013 6:22 AM
A wider note: of course anger sells. See:
Farrakhan, Louis
Sharpton, Al
Jackson, Jesse
Wright, Jeremiah
They've all got nice little gig selling anger. The Rev. Wright has a cushy little retirement, but spent many years in the business.
I R A Darth Aggie at December 5, 2013 6:26 AM
Were I in charge I'd repeal the following amendments; 11, 12, 16, 17, & 23.
lujlp at December 5, 2013 1:59 PM
Well, here's the problem. The people that we sometimes refer to as RINOs -- which includes a lot of the leadership -- do they have a plan? At least Ted Cruz had a plan; it might not have been a very good plan, but he made an honest effort and got some people interested. The leadership, what is their plan? As near as anyone can tell, their plan is, "We'll give Democrats what they want, and then maybe they'll throw us a bone." There are three problems with that: (1) they weren't sent to Washington to have bones thrown to them; (2) the current crop of Democrats isn't going to throw any bones, and (3) we're past the point where merely slowing the growth of government and waiting/hoping for the economy to catch up is going to work.
Cousin Dave at December 6, 2013 6:55 AM
Leave a comment