Conservatives/small(l)and Big(L)ibertarians /”Tea Party” activists and candidates have “Progressed” to the point that they can out-cuss, out-victim and out-mob any Progressive.
The course, vulgar language in public speeches, not just public speech, by supposed “Conservatives” has a history that goes back at least to the elections of 2004, when “Republicans” could be heard repeating Code Pink talking points. Our protests and counter-protests were once known for good behavior and leaving the site cleaner than we found it. But no more.
Who is surprised that the (later) slogan, “Shut ‘Er Down!” was taken literally to the point of the anarchy we now see at campaign events?
An interesting commentary by John Hart, comparing two division(s) within the Tea Party as “The French Revolution,” is worth your time and attention. Mr. Hart has worked with both former Senators Coburn and DeMint. (If you don’t know the significance of this part of his resume, you are who I’m writing for and you especially need to read the article.)
The loudest discourse in Conservative venues first became critical, then condemning, of anything other than obstruction and taking hold of power. At one time, Conservatives spoke of the emotional, illogical campaigning on the Left, which angrily demanded instant gratification.
How could Ann Coulter forget her own words in “Demonic?”
“The French Revolution was spontaneous, impulsive, passionate, emotional, romantic, utopian, resentful, angry, dreamy—anything but rule-bound and reasoned. No one knew, from one year to the next, where the Revolution was heading. That’s why, at the end of it all, they enthusiastically threw themselves into the arms of the dictator Napoleon.”
Or Mark Levin his opening lines in “Liberty and Tyranny?”
“For the Conservative, the civil society has as its highest purpose its preservation and improvement.”
Or his admonition in Chapter 2:
“The Conservative believes, as Burke and the Founders did, that prudence must be exercised in assessing change. Prudence is the highest virtue for it is judgment drawn on wisdom. The proposed change should be informed by the experience, knowledge, and traditions of society, tailored for a specific purpose, and accomplished through a constitutional construct that ensures thoughtful deliberation by the community. Change unconstrained by prudence produces unpredictable consequences, threatening ordered liberty with chaos and ultimately despotism, and placing at risk the very principles the Conservative holds dear.”
Historically, anarchy is soon followed by a plea for any relief, even if it means a dictator. Tearing down without a firm foundation of principles based on the furtherance of civil society is not necessarily a desirable Revolution, and certainly not sustainable Reformation.
So went Ted Cruz’ lament on the Mark Levin radio show. Perhaps Mr. Cruz should go to work at a real job and build his own successful business and fortune before he runs for office – and begs for our hard-earned dollars – again.
(If you missed it, as I did, you can listen on the Internet, here. The ten minute segment begins at about 92 minutes into the May 15 program archive.)
You would think that the author of Liberty and Tyranny and Ameritopia would be celebrating David Dewhurst as the living example that free markets and the American work ethic do work, and as the Citizen Legislator that he is.
Sadly, Mr. Levin didn’t do his homework. Without giving any examples or sources for the broad accusations he made during the radio spot, he proved himself clueless about the strong Conservative credentials of Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst. He did note that Lt. Gov. Dewhurst is worth “a quarter of a billion dollars” but falsely claimed that Dewhurst – who first ran for office 13 years ago, when he was about the same age that Levin is now – is a “pretty much a career politician.”
Neither Cruz nor Levin give Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst credit for being the self-made man that he is. They ignore the fact that Dewhurst served our Nation in the Air Force and CIA before going to work to build that “quarter of a billion dollar” business from the ground up, and only then successfully running for office to serve Texas as Land Commissioner and then Lieutenant Governor.
Cruz has never been in business, made a payroll or held an elected office. After Harvard Law School, where he founded the Harvard Latino Law Review, he held only government jobs until he decided to run for Attorney General of Texas – before he even turned 40 years old. After withdrawing from that race in 2009, rather than face current Attorney General Greg Abbott, Cruz began his run against Governor Dewhurst for Kay Bailey Hutchison’s Senate seat. In the meantime, he’s been working for a large legal firm, once again proving that he’s a successful staffer, but not a policy maker, and certainly not a decision maker.
If spending a career working at government jobs and running for office for the last four years isn’t the definition of “pretty much a career politician,” then what is?
Revised grammar, 5/16/12, BBN.