dagblog - Comments for "Kamikaze Logic and the Republican Insurgency"

Again, I have no idea. The

Lurker — Thu, 17 Oct 2013 20:35:49 +0000

In reply to Lurker 10/12/2013 - 1:06

Again, I have no idea. The ideas I was talking about belong to party activists in the different factions. I don't know if any were successfully implemented, and I never said that they were. My guess is that none were, which may help to explain why the activists want to get rid of their present congressmen. But that's just a guess.

That's the simplification for

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 16 Oct 2013 21:49:38 +0000

In reply to Good point about the Occupy

That's the simplification for which I was apologizing. More accurately, the movement leaders include a mix of politicians, strategists, and fundraisers.

revolution PS For insurgency,

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 16 Oct 2013 21:42:00 +0000

In reply to Maybe it's just a cultural

revolution

PS For insurgency, see definition 3: rebellion within a group, as by members against leaders.

Maybe it's just a cultural

Lurker — Wed, 16 Oct 2013 19:27:16 +0000

In reply to "Power struggle," "changing

Maybe it's just a cultural difference. "Insurgency", to me, connotes bombs and bloodshed. Haven't you noticed that there are no longer any "terrorists" in some media, they've been replaced by "insurgents"? I assumed that you had chosen the word because of its bloodthirsty connotations.

You seem to mean something else by the word, though, something non-violent, more like a "takeover bid", or a "shareholders' rebellion". I apologize for my ignorance.

"Power struggle" does suggest two equal factions, as you say, but so does "a two-sided civil war". If "insurgency" means "a minority faction seeking to overturn the party leadership", what word would you use if the minority becomes a majority?

Good point about the Occupy

Lurker — Wed, 16 Oct 2013 19:26:36 +0000

In reply to OK, I apologize for

Good point about the Occupy Wall Streeters. I've seen similar movements dry up in other countries. I'm not sure it can be entirely explained by lack of leadership, since there have been other relatively leaderless movements which brought about long-term changes (think of the hippies in the 1960's, the real ones, without quotation marks). But that's another topic....

I do believe that individuals can influence history, and I have no quarrel with your answer. But I suspect we've wandered a little from the original essay, or maybe I just misunderstood you: are the "movement leaders" the same as the "right-wing fundraising groups"?

"Power struggle," "changing

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 16 Oct 2013 04:30:00 +0000

In reply to "Insurgency" is just as

"Power struggle," "changing of the guard," and "debate about long-term strategy" have very different meanings from "insurgency." The first suggests two equal factions. The second suggests an orderly transfer. The third offers no hint of conflict.

Insurgency is definitely the right word. This is a classic political insurgency--a minority faction seeking to overturn the party leadership. It's odd to me that you find it offensive. Insurgencies are common and not inherently sinister. Indeed, an insurgency against a despotic authority is heroic.

Lurker 10/12/2013 - 1:06

NCD — Wed, 16 Oct 2013 03:42:35 +0000

In reply to I have no idea. I never said

Lurker 10/12/2013 - 1:06 pm:

....the important goal is to reach people and spread their ideas and try to persuade others. The Republican Party is simply a tool to help them do that....The ideas are more important than the party.

Again, what ideas were successfully promoted, and enshrined into the GOP firmament of achievement, during the 8 years of the Republican administration of George W. Bush?

Lurker, so now you want to

Oxy Mora — Wed, 16 Oct 2013 03:34:28 +0000

In reply to "Insurgency" is just as

Lurker, so now you want to debate "sinister"? .

OK, I apologize for

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 16 Oct 2013 02:16:00 +0000

In reply to Thank you for replying. I

OK, I apologize for oversimplification, excusing myself on the grounds that a little blog post doesn't have much room. What I was trying to describe was a movement. Every movement has leaders. That doesn't mean some evil mastermind stroking a white cat. Movement leaders are rarely very "shadowy," their authority tends to be limited, and they often work at cross-purposes. Nonetheless, they are influential, and every successful movement requires effective leaders in addition to the grassroots passion you describe. (Contrast the fleeting success of Occupy Wall Street--lots of passion, no leaders.)

In this particular case, the leaders of the Defund Obamacare campaign are easy to pinpoint, and they have been outspoken about their insurgent goals. As for the history of the American conservative insurgency, that takes a book to explain, but you can start by reading up on Paul Weyrich, founder of the Heritage Foundation and the Moral Majority. He was also very explicit about his goals and his tactics. Again, he was not so powerful that he could change people's views with a flick of his pen, but he was very good at developing new strategies and organizing conservatives into a potent political force. The conservative movement owes far more to him than most people realize.

Now if you don't believe that individuals can influence history, period, we're too far apart for this to mean anything to you. But please don't lump me with conspiracy theorists who fantasize that powerful conspirators determine everything just because I believe that movement leaders are historically significant.

I believe you are greatly

Verified Atheist — Tue, 15 Oct 2013 23:47:47 +0000

In reply to Thank you for replying. I

I believe you are greatly underestimating the value of money in political campaigns. Either that or you are misunderstanding what we mean when we're talking about the power of money. We're not suggesting that Koch et al. are literally buying votes, but that they are funding both overt and covert means of creating that passion you're talking about, whether it's simple political advertising, influencing groups that already resonate with passion (e.g., the NRA, one or more tea party groups, AARP, unions, etc.), manipulating what the media reports, or some other tactic. If they didn't think these approaches delivered, they wouldn't be investing so much of their money in them.