Wanted: Political Counter-Terrorists

Without an effective strategy against modern leftist political terrorism, America is doomed to a fate called France.

Please, let's stop debating small issues. These are merely distractions. The question of torture, for instance, is no more than a tool, a tactic by the left, deployed as part of a larger strategy to keep conservatives off balance and out of power. By launching a daily salvo of small but critical attacks on capitalism, on the prior administration, on the structure of our republic, and other elements of the "new foundation" promised by Obama, they manage to keep us, the opposition, in turmoil. Because Obama is so incredibly gifted at "misdirection" and because he has promised so much to so many, he will be able to keep this up until a) we stop it or b) the end of his second administration (assuming he'll fail to repeal the 22nd Amendment).

Stopping this pattern of attack requires what might as well be called political counter-terrorism. Here's a clue: the Democrats anticipate that we will vigorously take the opposite side of their every attack. They depend on the tension conservatives provide. In fact, we "regulate" them in a way that provides instant credibility and cover. I suspect the Administration is laughing their respective arses off as we take seriously their every ridiculous action. If Obama were to come out tomorrow and "repeal Christmas", our so-called leadership in DC would dither aimlessly for a week, at the end of which, Obama would utter something akin to "never mind" and the whole thing would be over.

To fight successfully against the rising tide of political terrorism, we conservatives need to cease our predictability. Further, we need to stop providing the tension necessary to float the socialist notions held by the flaccid liberal "leadership." Responses to the daily Obarrage need to be forceful and deployed with lightning speed. Then we conservatives should move decisively to the real business of the day.

With respect to conservative predictability, our leadership should respond to classic Democrat positions with appropriate reservation, adopting a "non-traditional" counter position that the statists will find very hard to manage. For instance, in the area of taxes we should suggest, with due reluctance, that every last breathing American be held to account for their fair share of: a) bailout costs and b) entitlement spending. This will force our opposition to argue "no tax increases" for their special interest groups. At that point we can fairly ask: "how do you pay for this."? Get it? Suck them into an ambush by feigning retreat. Then repeat until the pot is at a roiling boil.

In addition to the above, we should champion states rights (which would actually be in direct proportion to the Founder's sentiments). Single-minded focus on states rights will give conservatives the guidance needed to speak to nearly every domestic issue that the Democrats hold dear, from gun control to education to gay marriage. I suggest we push those problems off the national agenda and force the states to deal with them (particularly since a growing number of states are willing to do so). Thereafter, I would implore conservatives to avoid engaging battles centered on situational ethics: winning is practically impossible and there are bigger fish to fry.

Finally, when asked by the MSM about any proposed policy or legislation, conservatives should respond with an answer that is clearly based on the Constitution. An answer like "We couldn't find license for (fill-in-the-blank) in the Constitution" would get the conversation turned in an offensive direction. Thereafter, referencing the applicable Articles would provide a secure foothold for driving home the point. Frankly, it would be nice to see politicians speaking as if they actually knew the Constitution while concurrently acknowledging the prohibitions installed therein.

The old guard isn't armed for this battle. Worse, they're actually mucking up the works (as is Michael Steele). They need to pass the ball to a rising generation. Those guys, in turn, probably need to contract a genuine strategist like Dick Morris. You may hate Morris from the Clinton days but by my calibration, his capacity for political counter-terrorism is only rivaled by Karl Rove, who by default is presently better suited to his position with Fox.

The immediate battle is not really about statecraft. For that, an authentic distinction between reasonable people would be necessary. That is not our case. We are engaged in party-to-party battle for the continuance of liberty. The blueprint for successful governance has already been memorialized in the Founding documents. We do not need new ideas. We have our ideas. What we need is the opportunity to vigorously deploy them. That means defeating the enemy. The longer we scurry about the edges of the battle the higher the losses for America.
Without an effective strategy against modern leftist political terrorism, America is doomed to a fate called France.

Please, let's stop debating small issues. These are merely distractions. The question of torture, for instance, is no more than a tool, a tactic by the left, deployed as part of a larger strategy to keep conservatives off balance and out of power. By launching a daily salvo of small but critical attacks on capitalism, on the prior administration, on the structure of our republic, and other elements of the "new foundation" promised by Obama, they manage to keep us, the opposition, in turmoil. Because Obama is so incredibly gifted at "misdirection" and because he has promised so much to so many, he will be able to keep this up until a) we stop it or b) the end of his second administration (assuming he'll fail to repeal the 22nd Amendment).

Stopping this pattern of attack requires what might as well be called political counter-terrorism. Here's a clue: the Democrats anticipate that we will vigorously take the opposite side of their every attack. They depend on the tension conservatives provide. In fact, we "regulate" them in a way that provides instant credibility and cover. I suspect the Administration is laughing their respective arses off as we take seriously their every ridiculous action. If Obama were to come out tomorrow and "repeal Christmas", our so-called leadership in DC would dither aimlessly for a week, at the end of which, Obama would utter something akin to "never mind" and the whole thing would be over.

To fight successfully against the rising tide of political terrorism, we conservatives need to cease our predictability. Further, we need to stop providing the tension necessary to float the socialist notions held by the flaccid liberal "leadership." Responses to the daily Obarrage need to be forceful and deployed with lightning speed. Then we conservatives should move decisively to the real business of the day.

With respect to conservative predictability, our leadership should respond to classic Democrat positions with appropriate reservation, adopting a "non-traditional" counter position that the statists will find very hard to manage. For instance, in the area of taxes we should suggest, with due reluctance, that every last breathing American be held to account for their fair share of: a) bailout costs and b) entitlement spending. This will force our opposition to argue "no tax increases" for their special interest groups. At that point we can fairly ask: "how do you pay for this."? Get it? Suck them into an ambush by feigning retreat. Then repeat until the pot is at a roiling boil.

In addition to the above, we should champion states rights (which would actually be in direct proportion to the Founder's sentiments). Single-minded focus on states rights will give conservatives the guidance needed to speak to nearly every domestic issue that the Democrats hold dear, from gun control to education to gay marriage. I suggest we push those problems off the national agenda and force the states to deal with them (particularly since a growing number of states are willing to do so). Thereafter, I would implore conservatives to avoid engaging battles centered on situational ethics: winning is practically impossible and there are bigger fish to fry.

Finally, when asked by the MSM about any proposed policy or legislation, conservatives should respond with an answer that is clearly based on the Constitution. An answer like "We couldn't find license for (fill-in-the-blank) in the Constitution" would get the conversation turned in an offensive direction. Thereafter, referencing the applicable Articles would provide a secure foothold for driving home the point. Frankly, it would be nice to see politicians speaking as if they actually knew the Constitution while concurrently acknowledging the prohibitions installed therein.

The old guard isn't armed for this battle. Worse, they're actually mucking up the works (as is Michael Steele). They need to pass the ball to a rising generation. Those guys, in turn, probably need to contract a genuine strategist like Dick Morris. You may hate Morris from the Clinton days but by my calibration, his capacity for political counter-terrorism is only rivaled by Karl Rove, who by default is presently better suited to his position with Fox.

The immediate battle is not really about statecraft. For that, an authentic distinction between reasonable people would be necessary. That is not our case. We are engaged in party-to-party battle for the continuance of liberty. The blueprint for successful governance has already been memorialized in the Founding documents. We do not need new ideas. We have our ideas. What we need is the opportunity to vigorously deploy them. That means defeating the enemy. The longer we scurry about the edges of the battle the higher the losses for America.