Monday, April 23, 2012

Music in the Cafes at Night and Revolution in the Air

There's always been a reason for having the term "dilettante" be part of this blog.

I participate in the Republican Party, but I have always made a conscious decision to maintain a mostly arms-length stance with regard to party politics. I participate in caucuses at the BPOU level, but I've never pursued going any further than that. There are reasons for this, especially since I'd rather not feel like I have to mince words if I feel the need to criticize someone in the party when I write on this blog. And given the current state of the Republican Party in Minnesota, there's plenty to criticize.

Two things are happening right now that aren't especially helpful. First, the state Party has been dealing with a fair amount of negative publicity concerning its finances, including the embarrassing revelation that it is behind on rent for the party headquarters, to the point where the party has received an eviction notice from its landlord. Much of the problem stems from the practices of the previous leadership team of the party, which made some financial decisions that didn't turn out well. The current head of the party is Pat Shortridge, who is a very savvy guy and who will, if given sufficient time and resources, turn things around.

The question is this -- will he have the time? It's been fairly quiet until now, but there has been a bit of a hostile takeover going on within the party. Ron Paul supporters have done a tremendous job of organizing and getting their delegates through the BPOU process and to the Congressional District conventions. Depending on whose numbers you believe, Paul's supporters may end up controlling the vast majority of the Minnesota delegation at the national GOP convention, as well as the leadership in the CD organizations. Mitch Berg has written an excellent synopsis of what went down in the 4th CD, where most of incumbent leadership team was summarily dumped and the Paul supporters have now taken over. Similar things have happened elsewhere in the state as well.

This needs to be said at the outset -- it's not a bad thing per se that the Paulites are taking over. I personally agree with about 80% of what the Paul supporters believe, especially regarding the disastrous financial path the country finds itself on. I'm also quite concerned about the size and scope of government at every level. And I can even be convinced that many of the foreign adventures that our government undertakes are ill-advised. We've been maintaining a diffident empire for the better part of a century now and it's not sustainable. The Paulites are correct about most of these issues.

Having said that, there's more than a whiff of revolution in the air right now, especially within the party. And that's not a good thing. Mitch does a very good job of explaining the issue (emphasis in original):


Now, I know that there are a lot of good, committed people among the Paul crowd who are committed to using their positions in the GOP to work for the party, not just a candidate or two.

But I get a different impression from some of their leadership.  Ronald Reagan once said that if someone agrees with you 70% of the time, it doesn’t make them 30% your enemy.

And from some of the Paul crowd’s leadership, I do get the impression that, whether motivated by single-candidate zeal or roiling anger over 2008 or one of the mind-boggling number of byzantine interpersonal pissing matches that seems to motivate so much of CD4 GOP politics no matter who the nominee or the cause celebre or what the defining issue is, the Paul crowd’s leadership, in the district and beyond, sees “70% friends” as “30% enemies”.
I see that, too, especially in other social media. In one case a week or so back, one triumphal Paul supporter was bragging on Facebook about how the Paul forces had defeated the leadership of the 6th CD, using a term I would prefer not to share here, but that suggested a particularly odious form of criminal sexual conduct. I suspect that, in the moment of triumph, this individual was overstating the case a bit.

But let's set the locker room smack talk aside for the moment. The larger issue is this -- a revolution within a voluntary organization is not the same thing as a revolution in a government. People can, and do, walk away from political parties all the time. And unless the Paulites build coalitions with Republicans of a more, ahem, traditional sort, they will find that they clutch an empty vessel.

I understand the disgust that many people have with establishment Republicans in Minnesota, who have too often been the tax collectors for the DFL. The list of odious establishment GOPers in this state is long. There are individuals I deeply respect who have no use for the GOP as it has operated for the past 20 years or so and are not shy about saying so.

It's also worth mentioning that some of the Paul supporters who came into the party in '08 were responsible for some of the triumphs of '10. Plenty of conservative voices now at the Capitol owe the Paul supporters a debt.

Still. . . still. . . . Perhaps it's just me, but my sense is that while the takeover now underway may be a tactical triumph, it holds the seeds of an epic failure. The GOP of the recent past was not the province of Arne Carlson or David Durenberger; those gentlemen of a different era have long been free to be the operational Democrats they always were. For all the problems of the party organization, it's worth remembering that the GOP of the recent past is as much John Kline and Michele Bachmann as it is Tim Pawlenty and Norm Coleman and Ron Carey. It will be very important that the Paul supporters understand that it will take everyone, even those they might ordinarily disdain, for there to be electoral success in the fall. Right now, there's a lot of anger out there. That needs to change. Leadership of a political party means more than taking control and dictating terms. Leadership means building. And the first step will be to make sure those who were defeated are not disdained.

16 comments:

First Ringer said...

While I don't doubt that many of the Paulites who have swept into power intend on staying there, I seriously doubt that the masses that allowed them their victories will be around in 2014 and beyond.

Aside from a small leadership core, most of the Paulites that arose in 2008 left by 2010 - those are the wages of a cult of personality. And even among those who did take leadership, as Mitch Berg's post points out, many quickly abandoned the job once they discovered it was more fun to attack the establishment than be it.

BTW, nice Dylan reference.

Gino said...

the anti-pauls have themselves to blame.

for years they have dissed the paul ideas, to the point of using democrat party tactics instead of the debate format conservatives say they beleive in.

naturally... when somebody prefers to call you names instead debating on substance, when victory comes you want to rub their faces in it because it was THEY who made it personal.
as any conservative-minded person understands that invective IS personal, and its hard to be polite after its been dished in your direction repeatedly as a poor substitute for debate.

some Paulites may be crazy, but the GOP will learn that they are not the crazies that the GOP establishment has sown good relations with.
now its time to reap what was sown.

if the GOP falls, i will feel nothing, having left in 96 after too many years of name calling, and now seeing the very things i warned about coming around... yet, i was the crazy one.

Brad Carlson said...

It's more personal here in MN, Gino. While our state party officials wrongly alienated the Paul supporters in 2008, the Pauls have made this election cycle their own personal war against the MNGOP.

Unfortunately, they're directing their anger towards the wrong people (i.e. long time grassroots activists who actually do the ground work). Besides, the aforementioned state officials are no longer in power. With that in mind, a certain segment of the Paulbots need to quit sucking their thumbs and get the hell over 2008.

Gino said...

"need to quit sucking their thumbs and get the hell over 2008."

yeah, its personal.
thanks for making the point.

Brad Carlson said...

Don't be disingenuous, Gino. Please read where I said a certain segment of Paul supporters need quit being such big babies. I wasn't using a broad brush.

I've had more than a few Pauls in my CD who were appalled at the behavior of some of their overzealous colleagues. That is because they realize that while Paul himself is stoking a conversation that absolutely must be had, libertarianism doesn't die when Ron does. Hence, the creepy cult of personality surrounding Ron Paul doesn't reflect well on the greater libertarian movement.

Gino said...

i can recognise that you werent using a broad brush.

but others will not.

need quit being such big babies. (while you respect them as babies)
they are not 'big babies'. they are scorned opposition.

that is my point, ill-made i will admit.

but so much broad brushing (like, big babies) has already been done and its hard for the 'establishment' to just take it back and say 'well, i meant the other guys'.

as a commercial radio voice, you are 'the establishment' to many of those on the outside, even if you do not think you are.

the seeds are sown, and harvest time is here.

i support Paul, because i support most (ie, the general gist) of what he says. but in saying so, i've been labled a Paulbot, Paul Pot (yeah, thats real good to be likened to a mass murderer)... not to mention comparisons to tim mc veigh, rednecks, skin heads etc...

all of this by officially 'conservative' columnists and radio guys.
(you've near-done this to me yourself... treating the ideas as fringe and unworthy of debate.)

dont fed the radicals and they wont have much influence, but all that has happened was the feeding of the radicals.

the establishment will learn to fear them because they refused to respect the most basic elements of their ideals, offering mere lip service to limited govt while providing nothing but expanded govt and defending those who expanded it (Bush, for ex... and the Patriot Act), and treating those 'Paul Pots' as a punchline.

the GOP has stepped in the steaming pile. they've earned it, and all the stench that goes with.

like i said: its harvest time.

Mr. D said...

like i said: its harvest time.

Yeah, but what are we harvesting?

I've been trying not to name names in this post, because in some cases I don't know the actors personally, but Brad is right about the dynamic -- it's a very small group of individuals who are taking over.

And to FR's point, I worry a lot about 2014 and beyond, because we need a countervailing influence against the DFL in this state, which gives us people like Mark Dayton and Al Franken. Both will be on the ballot in 2014 and both must be defeated, but if the GOP in Minnesota becomes the plaything of a few tacticians, both of these blights on the body politic will get to return to office.

Brian said...

libertarianism doesn't die when Ron does. Hence, the creepy cult of personality surrounding Ron Paul doesn't reflect well on the greater libertarian movement.

^^This^^ is absolutely right, and goes to the heart of my own deep ambivalence about Paul (even though I did ultimately caucus for him here in WA this year).

Speaking as a (generally leftward-leaning) libertarian, the thing about that 30% (or whatever--for me it is probably more) where I part ways with the establishment GOP is that it is really important. I care about stopping wars a lot. I care about the prison-industrial complex a lot. I care about equality a lot.

In contrast, I don't really give a shit about the top marginal tax rate.

In other words, I'm lukewarm (at best) on where I see an overlap with the GOP, and really passionate about where we disagree. There's just not a lot of reason to compromise, there. And I'd be willing to bet that is a pretty common profile of a (particularly younger) Ron Paul voter in this cycle.

I really don't see the GOP moving in a more libertarian direction. Maybe that reflects a failure of Paul, or of the cultishness of the movement behind him, but I think more likely it is simply because the GOP isn't a fundamentally libertarian party. The fusion of libertarians and conservatives is a relic of Cold War anticommunism, and hasn't been relevant for two decades. There are fundamentally different philosophical underpinnings between the two views; when we agree on stuff, it is nearly by accident.

Libertarians don't have a natural home in the GOP. When they realize that and start voting accordingly en masse--either through effectively supporting a thrid party or (more likely) making their votes more up for grabs so that both parties start vying for them--they will have more of a voice.

But as long as it's just about one candidate--Ron Paul, or the next guy to come along--they (we) will continue to be pretty much irrelevant.

Night Writer said...

I don't see this ending without Blood on the Tracks.

Brian said...

Sorry...I got off on a tangent and forgot to mention: I wouldn't worry about the Paulites taking over the GOP in your state. Most of the Paul voters do not have a long-term interest in re-shaping the GOP.

I know I don't.

Mr. D said...

I don't see this ending without Blood on the Tracks.

Me neither, NW.

Brian, you bring up a number of good points that I'll try to address a little later today. Thanks!

Mr. D said...

I really don't see the GOP moving in a more libertarian direction. Maybe that reflects a failure of Paul, or of the cultishness of the movement behind him, but I think more likely it is simply because the GOP isn't a fundamentally libertarian party. The fusion of libertarians and conservatives is a relic of Cold War anticommunism, and hasn't been relevant for two decades. There are fundamentally different philosophical underpinnings between the two views; when we agree on stuff, it is nearly by accident.

Well, sorta. There is a a straight line from von Mises and Hayek to many modern libertarians and midcentury thinkers such as Frank Meyer tried to square the circle.

The modern conservative movement has mostly lived within the Republican Party. Barry Goldwater was clearly the most successful libertarian thinker in the party. Libertarians have flirted with Republicanism from time to time, but as the Democratic Party has become increasingly statist, it has been a tough fit for libertarians who are primarily concerned with economic issues.

Clearly you don't fit that construct, Brian, which is okay. Liberty, in the sense I think you mean it, means the freedom to pursue a life as the individual sees fit, without fear of reprisal or social opprobrium. This is an intellectually consistent way to look at the world.

The tension I guess is this -- while I agree that the Republican Party probably isn't the best home for many libertarians, I just don't see how the Democratic Party is any better, especially given its tendencies toward controlling behavior. I see a lot more lifestyle scolds on the left side of the aisle than I do on the right. Your mileage may vary.

Gino said...

I see a lot more lifestyle scolds on the left side of the aisle than I do on the right.

so true.
the right has it's Christianists, who are no closer to outlawing premarital sex than they were 50yrs ago.

meanwhile...
there are real and effective movements on the left telling me how much salt i can enjoy in my dinner, what i have to carry my groceries home in, and that i cant smoke a cigarette in that home when i get them there...
and i better be 'getting there' in public transit...
preferably a light rail train...
that pays dividends to my prefered groups of contributors...

Brian said...

I see a lot more lifestyle scolds on the left side of the aisle than I do on the right. Your mileage may vary.

See, that's the thing. Assessing which side has "more" lifestyle scolds is going to be an entirely subjective function of how the said scolding intersects with how you are inclined to live your own life. (This is, of course, just as true for me and for anyone else.)

That said, I cannot buy into the equivalence Gino is trying to paint between the scolds of the right and left. Sure, you can find city councils in Berkeley or Portland or Cambridge that legislate food ingredients, but these are hardly planks of the Democratic party platform. Just try getting yourself elected as a Republican if you are for marriage equality or pro choice....those are practically litmus tests.

Anyway, I'm not arguing that libertarians ought to be Democrats. I'm arguing that their votes shouldn't go to Republicans by default.

Night Writer said...

Brian, I think the Libertarians are saying (and showing) the same thing to the Republicans. I've sat in on a couple of Democrat caucuses as well (for amusement purposes) and know that they go through a few reams of litmus paper themselves.

I like the words of Robert Heinlein, via Lazarus Long: "Freedom begins when you tell Miss Grundy to go take a hike."

Mr. D said...

I like the words of Robert Heinlein, via Lazarus Long: "Freedom begins when you tell Miss Grundy to go take a hike."

Yep.

Brian, I take your point. The larger problem has always been this -- it's easier to accept libertarianism as an idea than it is to deal with libertarians. Ornery cusses don't play and mix well together.