Walk back down the ladder

tower_of_babelIt’s a hard time to be a conservative. If you embrace the mainstream, the underground will shun you. If you embrace the underground, everyone but the desperate will shun you. In particular, many of us are taking heat for our endorsement of, say, Mitt Romney.

The undergrounders say that we’ve sold out. On the far-right, they think we should be blaming Judaism for the failures of the West. A little bit more moderate, and they insist we have to make America fall in fire for its sins. But if you go too moderate, and such a thing definitely exists, they want us to endorse the neoconservative platform.

Instead of letting other people define this discourse for us, let us apply a simple metaphor: a ladder. In 1789, a ladder was unveiled. It was like many others, but seemed like the tower of Babel to reach toward the sun. We began our climb in good spirits, even if the rungs were slippery with blood.

Each rung was a generation. With each generation, we got farther from the ground where we know how things work, and closer to what we thought was the sun. It turns out that we’re actually no closer to the sun, and are pursuing only its reflection at what point in the sky. The objective was false all along.

Where does this leave us? We’re on a ladder that leads in the wrong direction, unsure of what to do next. My advice: walk back down the ladder, of course. But you don’t jump from rung 18 to the ground — you’d crush yourself. Instead, start by putting one foot on the rung below where it is now, and follow it with another.

This is how politics works. People despite all their blather are lowercase-c conservative in that they like solutions to “work” before they go any further, especially with right-wing politics, which scares them because it endorses complex truths instead of simple lies. (The left is all advertising, which is lies.)

In other words, they’ll support a move down a rung, but they’re wary of radical moves. And well they should be! The right, in addition to being represented by the too-individualistic-to-cooperate Republicans, has some failures in its back pocket. The 70 million dead of WWII would like a word with us, in particular, and it’s something we can’t fake our way out of. Errors were made. They need to not be made again.

Thus my advice is practical: step down a rung, and then do something the right has not done since Reagan. Succeed. That is, take a tiny step toward our ideal, and make good on it. Don’t embark on a plan to cure the world. Fix problems, and aggressively reduce the capacity of your adversary, the liberals. But make sure you return value for your power.

The right has too easily fit into the stereotype of itself as getting so caught up in defending business and capitalism that it forgets everything else. Most notoriously, it forgets to improve life for citizens. Stop with the idealistic programs, and focus on pragmatic ones. Make that next step down a big success.

If you do that, people will support another step down. If that succeeds, they’ll support another. Once a half-dozen have succeeded, they will be OK with you moving a bit more quickly, but don’t push it too far. At each stage, you have to make a success, show them your way is better, and shame, humiliate, and weaken your opposition.

The underground right wing wants us to jump down off the ladder and hope we don’t break anything. The mainstream right, who as neoconservatives are liberal in motivation and conservative in method — an unholy union because conservative methods work and thus legitimize liberal intentions, want us to keep climbing toward the false sun.

Neither are correct. The answer is to look to history and learn from the lessons of the past. We do not get anywhere with ideology and drama because our fundamental promise as realists is to gradually return our society to sanity. We also get nowhere by encouraging manic growth and power, as this just puts us further up the ladder.

The people who are winning are the people who support a strong, clear and effective implementation of a single step down, instead of an obscure, violent and unsteady implementation of a broader leap.

Rand Paul is succeeding in the USA by standing up for elemental principles; the Tea Party is surging ahead for the same reason. They’re defending practical ways of living and avoiding real threats. In Europe, far-right parties are rising only because the economy sucks. When Jobbik endorses anti-Semitism, Marine Le Pen suggests partnership with Russia, or the Golden Dawn rages on about ideological purity, voters wait for there to be a less painful alternative.

I am not defending democracy here as some sort of genius system. It’s not; it’s the opposite. Democracy “works” by restraining extremity. It also dooms itself by being unable to make decisions. The way we succeed is by peeling back years of bad decisions, and descending the ladder with sure-footed but slow steps, proving our point as we go.

18 Comments

  1. NotTheDude says:

    I heard Mark Steyn say this about the USA’s financial state. ‘No one has been this broke ever’. Better step back and look at the piggy bank eh?

    1. The corollary to that is that the USA doesn’t just get that broke ever without there being some cause for it, like the failure of democracy and pluralism or something.

  2. Elijah says:

    The money printing is sustaining the party for a while, but it looks like the hangover is now going to be 10x worse.

    1. Elijah says:

      Which leaves hope people might be ready for a “sober alternative” in the morning. The problem with the masses though, is once they feel good enough to get drunk again they do it.

  3. Jane says:

    “Mitt Romney is the epitome, the poster child, for the failed theory of neoliberal economics.”
    “Anyone not lobotimized by the propaganda bubble that is American media understands exactly what a disaster neoliberalism has been; yet this Frankenstein monster has been reanimated after the disaster of 2008.”
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/08/1103449/-Seeing-the-economic-forest-instead-of-the-neoliberal-trees

    Why is the conservative economic policy called “neoliberalism”? Because liberalism is all about individuals being selfish, and that is the polar opposite of what socialism is SUPPOSED TO stand for. Therefore it fits conservatives perfectly. Some terminology is really screwed up isn’t it?

    1. crow says:

      Pretty much every label worn by liberals is the exact opposite of its prior meaning. Consider what that state of affairs might do to your brain. Then again, it’s a chicken and egg scenario: were leftists crazy before they started, or did leftism make them so?

      I just made a great typo, there.
      LLeftists. Lleftism. Those who hang out on the lleft-wing.
      In Wales, a double-L is pronounced “Th”.
      Hence Theftism. Theftist. Theft-wing.
      I like it.

      1. Jane says:

        Well basically Mitt Romney can be seen as a liberal because liberalism is selfish individualism and that is “right wing”. It is why Nazis were not right wing but “National Socialist”. Nothing at all like Romney.

  4. Owl says:

    I agree with this approach. I’ve been saying for years that rightists need to take back politics the same way leftists won it: one step at a time. Small steps and building up a favorable track record with the populace will build momentum for whole generations.

    If rightists could stop talking about where they’d WANT to be and instead talk about moving a hair in that direction from where we are right now, we’d already be close to destroying equality once and for all.

    1. Vigilance says:

      The easiest way to destroy equality is the promotion of balance. Balance requires differences, “diversity,” to exist. Turn the rhetoric on its head. Convict the real adversaries of diversity and promoters of disharmony.

      1. crow says:

        I don’t seem to have a key on my keyboard that gives a big tick-mark. (That’s check-mark, for North Americans).

        1. crow says:

          Sorry. My zany humour didn’t do your comment justice.
          You have hit upon the key to dismantling the encroaching chaos.
          All would-be conservatives would serve themselves, and their culture, well, to become as familiar as possible with the teachings of taoism.
          Balance is the necessary ingredient.
          Taoism = balance.

          Not necessary to discard any religion you may have, or adopt one if you haven’t. Just use the tools taoism provides, to build a cohesive and healthy worldview.

          1. Vigilance says:

            Is Taosim not an Eastern equivalent to say Advaita Vedanta or Neoplatonism?

            1. crow says:

              Depends on what you mean by equivalent.
              Its utter simplicity puts it far beyond any other teachings.
              You could write all of them, in ballpoint pen, on the insides of your arms.

              1. Vigilance says:

                You’ve piqued my interest. Have a good source for these teachings?

                1. crow says:

                  Tao te Ching. Originally attributed to Lao Tzu.
                  There are many translations into English, but in my unpopular view, Stephen Mitchell’s is the one for anybody new to taoism.

                  Google taoteching and you’ll find no end of versions, almost always accompanied by the annoying re-interpretation of whoever put it up.
                  Still, as long as the original verses are there, the re-interpretations need not be read.

                  1. Vigilance says:

                    I appreciate the help. Thank you.

      2. Owl says:

        http://www.californialawreview.org/assets/pdfs/98-6/Allen.FINAL.pdf

        “…but on the evidence of the tort cases cited in this Article, I reluctantly conclude that recovery for invasion of privacy is unlikely where the ―reasonable person‖ and the ―reasonable LGBT‖ person part ways.”

        Pluralism indeed.

  5. Vigilance says:

    Well if walking down the ladder is to be the pace we set. I suggest restoring traditional american institution and operation before outright scrapping the Republic/Democracy. Too radical of a change and you risk revolution which hardly ever amounts in a thing which was better than that which preceded it. We know that they work, for sometime, so let that time be a transitory period to – whatever it is we are advocating is superior to the republic or the democracy.

Leave a Reply

42 queries. 1.861 seconds