They tried everything. They tried leaving the state.
Going to Illinois as the ultimate tactic. How ridiculous that sounds at this remove.
Rush was talking to some guy from Wisconsin who wanted to know how to defeat the Democrats, and Rush had wheeled out one of his most basic principles, which is that conservatives win when they talk about ideas. If only the political discourse could be, quite straightforwardly, about the actual substance of the political ideas, the conservatives would win. A corollary is: The Democrats — and their big media supporters — know they'd lose the battle of ideas, so they do whatever they can to distract us whenever they can. They try everything.
The caller brought up Scott Walker. (Will he run for President? Don't we need him here in Wisconsin? etc.) And Rush steered the discussion back to that basic principle, that conservatives will win if they can fixate attention on conservative ideas. The segment ends:
The Democrats can't possibly win on ideas because they know they can't even be honest about what they believe. If they did that they would lose big. So they have to go after people's credibility and reputations, and that's what they do. Some people don't have the guts like Scott Walker did to put up with it. Most say, "I don't want this hassle. I just want to live my life."That reminded me of the passage in Walker's book ("Unintimidated") where his wife confronts him:
As the intensity of the protests grew, Tonette became increasingly worried about me, our family, and our safety. The vitriol that was being directed at us, the people picketing outside our home, distressed her to no end.By the way, searching my ebook for "Tonette," trying to find this passage, I felt that I detected a literary device, throughout the book, of making the wife the repository of emotion. I have no idea how these scenes played out in real life, but as set forth in narrative, Scott is the strong, bold man of ideas and action, and his wife expresses emotion. Her emotion elicits emotion from him, as an aspect of the strong, bold man is his bond to his family and his unshakeable commitment to love and protect them.
One night we were standing in our bedroom and she turned to me, visibly upset, and said: “Scott, why are you doing this?” The question took me aback. At first, I thought she was blaming me for the protests. But it was more than that.
“Why are these people so upset with you?” Tonette demanded to know. “You got what you wanted. Why are you pushing this?”
Being emotional, Tonette also serves as a representative of the people, how they see Scott Walker. Again, this is a literary device that works to give us scenes of Walker empathizing with the people through interactions with his wife. This role for Tonette's character is openly stated:
Tonette is an excellent political barometer for me because she is like a lot of Wisconsin voters — smart and well read but focused on things other than politics....See? Empathy for Tonette, understood as empathy for the people, translated back into the courageous work of the man of ideas and action. This use of the wife isn't overdone, however. And the problem of making the woman seem too emotional and dependent is countered with passages like:
Now here she was, demanding to know: “Why are these protesters in front of our house? Why is this so important that it is worth all this grief to our family?” We talked it over and prayed about it together. Eventually, I convinced her that our reforms were a necessary course of action and worth the pain and grief they were causing our family. That gave me hope. If I could convince Tonette, I could probably convince most of our citizens as well.
Like most spouses, Tonette is generally more hurt by things said against me than I am. But don’t think for a moment they got the best of her. I’m tough, but Tonette is even tougher....There follows a story about family illness and death. Then:
The protests and recalls were tough on Tonette, but none of that was as tough as the losses she has experienced throughout her life. She is strong. Her strength, and her wisdom, strengthened me.Think about how this relates to Rush Limbaugh's notion that conservatives must talk about ideas. Emotion makes it difficult to absorb ideas, and the promoter of ideas who simply retreats into cynicism about the way people are too emotional to get what he's saying isn't going to win over the voters.
Tonette was my rock throughout the fight over Act 10. It was Tonette who showed me I was losing the argument over collective bargaining. And it was Tonette who showed me that if I got out there and explained myself, we could prevail.
It's easy for the conservative (or libertarian) to say: My ideas are great and others would think so too if only they weren't so beset by fear and desire for loving kindness and all these other emotional forces that the damned media are always going to be stoking and stroking to keep people agreeing with my opponents whose ideas would be seen as terrible if only they were ever examined critically and rationally.
Of course, Rush knows the role of emotion in the formation of opinion, and he uses it to win people over to conservatism. Ironically, the assertion that conservatives win when they talk about ideas is itself an excitement of the emotions. Certainly, Rush doesn't quit. He doesn't say I don't want this hassle. I just want to live my life. He's rich. He could withdraw into the comforts and pleasures of life and hang out with his beautiful wife and his friends who think he's a great guy. But he stays in the game. It can't be only that the ideas are so good and he's committed to explaining them, because that and only that is the way toward conservative victory.
He knows he's got a line to the people and he's stoking and stroking our emotions.
Posts
41 comments:
What is the gerund form of stymie.
Because stymieing looks wrong to me. But stymying looks no better. Better not to use the word at all.
Hard to argue with Limbaugh on this point however. The Democrats seems to have one idea: Not Walker. Well, okay, but then what? I think that's what sank Barrett in the recall.
Now, I do think Walker is vulnerable. For example, those 250,000 jobs he promised? An effective commercial would hinge on that BUT: The Democratic Party has to have a viable alternative. Do they? How does Mary Burke (for example, substitute Kathleen Vinehout if needed) think she'll inculcate a jobs-growing culture in the state? I think it's wishful thinking to say Well, once Walker is gone, job creators will just flood the state!
"Going to Illinois as the ultimate tactic. How ridiculous that sounds at this remove."
-- I've been to Illinois, sounds like the ultimate sacrifice for the greater good. Esp if they went to Ohare. Unless they went to the Chicago Art Institute museum, Museum of Sci & Tech, and Shedd.
"By the way, searching my ebook for "Tonette," trying to find this passage, I felt that I detected a literary device, throughout the book, of making the wife the repository of emotion."
Of course it's a literary device. It couldn't be because women are, you know, more emotional than men. Men and women are the same in every way because, well, just because.
I thought they just went to Rockford.
MadisonMan, can you describe the leftist concept of job creation? I ask seriously. What do lefties think happens?
They are not done with Walker yet. First they have to feed on the Christy carcass, a time consuming undertaking.
Why are you asking me?
Didn't you see yesterday's post on that survey!? I'm only 22% Liberal!
Yeah, I know, MadisonMan. But you showed an interest in the subject when you said "I think it's wishful thinking to say Well, once Walker is gone, job creators will just flood the state!"
I'd go with "stymying", by the way. That looks difficult to pronounce, like the family name "Ng".
Let me bore you with my thoughts: lefties have no truck with job-creation. That recent Rolling Stone guy said a job was a right, which is what Marx and Lenin said. It's a particularly stupid concept, but lefties tend to believe it.
So when they get their hands dirty, lefties think, OK, jobs have to come from somewhere, and let's make them first from the governments. We can just fund shovel-ready jobs; people will fix bridges and stuff.
Where do jobs come from? They don't understand.
I think one leftist-leaning way of jobs growth is through governmental pump-priming. But that doesn't work long-term because of obvious funding difficulties.
I'll also claim that outgrowth of science jobs from Govt-sponsored grants could be claimed as a leftist-leaning way of jobs growth. The Govt cuts the cord and sees if the newly-developed scheme is marketplace-worthy. The difficulty here is you can get Solyndra-type boondoggles if there is too much cronyism (something that knows no party line).
Pump-priming is a leftist attempt to appeal to rightists. If you prime the pump, you make the capitalist engine work! Lefties don't like the capitalist engine and don't care about priming pumps. They just want, want, want. Want jobs, want money, want power.
No, they don't have a philosophy of job-creation. They think jobs are a natural good, like the leaves growing in the spring, and should be enjoyed by all who are here on Earth.
There's just something that seems so WIMPY about legislators leaving the state just to avoid a quorum. I get why they'd try that tactic--any stunt to raise awareness and rile the base and hopefully stymie whatever vote was in question--but I wonder if even their supporters don't look at that and feel a bit glum that their own team had to resort to literally running away. How do you tell yourself your team is brave and tough and principled when they have to leave the state like that?
anyone else having a problem with random audio running on the main page? I thought there was a video somewhere but can't find one,
'Because stymieing looks wrong to me. But stymying looks no better. Better not to use the word at all.'
It's just a writery word, like nix and exacerbate and penultimate. No one talks that way.
Anne, the one line that stuck out for me was your musing that liberals are motivated by a desire for "loving kindness." That MAY be true of (some) old hippie liberals, and a few others such as yourself, but believe me, modern liberals are not remotely motivated by love for their fellow man.
Want jobs, want money, want power.
Both leftists and righties and centrists want these.
"I thought they just went to Rockford."
Rockford? "Oh Mama, can this really be the end; to be stuck inside of Rockford with the Memphis Blues again."
Heh, and of course it really was the end for the Donkeys in l'affaire Walker, n'cest-ce pas?
The assertion that conservatives win when they talk about ideas is missing a key element of that "talk".
You have to show that conservative ideas are in a person's self interest.
This is made difficult because it necessarily involves a constant battle against the strong forces of immediate gratification. To use the old, but accurate, cliche - it takes quite a bit longer to learn to fish, than to just be given a fish each day, but it is decidedly in your own self interest to learn to fish.
Wait, Scott Walker's wife is named after a cheap plastic wind instrument meant for very young children?
A tonette is sort of a rudimentary recorder. They're in a category music retail calls "pre-instruments." There used to be (and probably still is) a method book with a ridiculously cheerful cover titled It's Tonette Time!
Note that the Republicans are the more emotional party on foreign policy and protection against terrorism. Appeals to patriotism, fear, distrust. They use the same basic argument as the Democrats on domestic policy: A. Something must be done. B. This is something. C. This must be done.
Althouse said:
"Of course, Rush knows the role of emotion in the formation of opinion, and he uses it to win people over to conservatism. Ironically, the assertion that conservatives win when they talk about ideas is itself an excitement of the emotions."
Creative thought would probably not be possible without emotions. Newton and Einstein undoubtedly were guided partly by their emotion when they devised their theories of physics. The issue is whether the emotions are linked to rational thought or are allowed to spin aimlessly.
Democrat leaders are probably just as rational or even more rational than ordinary conservatives. Saul Alinsky was a master mind. The problem is that the Democrat ruling class don't have the best interest of middle class America in mind and they know it. Since they can not explain their real agenda, they are forced to rely on emotional appeals and slogans to convince people that they are on their side even though they aren't.
Madison Man said, "I think one leftist-leaning way of jobs growth is through governmental pump-priming.
A basic problem with ye old Keynsian pump-priming is that it worked a whole lot better in the 1930s than it can now.
In the 1930s the USA still had a national economy; thus, increasing aggregate demand meant increasing demand for goods and services produced in the USA (which presumably would cause producers to expand employment, etc.).
In today's globalized economy, increasing aggregate demand is at least as likely to increase demand for giant TVs and other imported goods as to increase demand for goods and services produced here.
And even when aggregate demand increases for goods and services produced here, automation sabotages the entire (higher_demand -> higher_employment) assumption as employers are more likely to expand output by investing in improved productivity then to do so through increased hiring.
Maybe Walker should say that he's saved or created more than 250K jobs. Seems like a winning strategy.
Maybe Walker should say that he's saved or created more than 250K jobs
Except that's not what he said while campaigning.
I think you should hold politicians to their campaign promises.
If we're ticking and tocking, Walker technically didn't get 4 years to implement job growth.
He was fighting recall.
He is also facing nasty federal headwinds.
*I was born and raised in Cook County. I know my political views and my critical thinking skills are second to none.
Since the US citizenry voted for The Chicago Way twice, is that a bug or a feature?
I would guess that progressives would say that jobs are mainly created in the private sector through the marketplace, but that it won't work in a moral fashion without good government overseeing the process. In their view, government is necessary to "fetter" the marketplace, to goose the economy when needed, to "redistribute" "excessive" profits, to oversee every aspect of business and the economy (and, actually, any aspect of human life except sexual morality) that might lead to "inequality".
At root they don't trust human beings operating as free, independent individuals to make the proper, moral choices. In their view, the citizen is guided (preferably gently and voluntarily, but with force if necessary) to make the right choices by mother government, for their own good. As Mencius Moldbug argues, they are literally the intellectual descendants of the Calvinists and Puritans and they see themselves as having a sort of religious/moral mission to enforce their vision of the good (egalitarianism, pacifism, and socialism) on the world.
When belief in a higher power is removed, Man becomes God.
Then bloodshed begins.
I should have added . . . and the meddlesome and anti-business Liberal activist judges.
One can always find a judge to call a ham sandwich a racist.
MadisonMan said…
Maybe Walker should say that he's saved or created more than 250K jobs
"Except that's not what he said while campaigning.
I think you should hold politicians to their campaign promises."
What was the specific campaign promise Walker made? Did he actually promise to create jobs or did he promise to reform state government so that the private sector would be more free to create more jobs?
"Next, I proposed a series of alternatives to public-worker layoffs. I asked for modest increases to employee pension and health care contributions, which were the biggest driver of our debt. I proposed moving seasonal workers (such as snowplow drivers) into other jobs (such as cutting grass) in the off-season to save money. I proposed going to a thirty-five-hour workweek, to spread the pain around in order to keep people working. At one point, I even proposed going to a thirty-five-hour workweek one week a month for four months.
"But thanks to collective bargaining, all the proposals I put forward required the unions to sign off. And the union bosses made clear to me under no uncertain terms that they were not giving up any of the lavish benefits they enjoyed in order to save somebody else’s job.
"I will never forget sitting at the conference table in my office across from Rich Abelson, the head of AFSCME Council 48, explaining to him that without some of these modest changes we would have to lay off hundreds of workers.
"He looked me in the eye and said: “Go ahead and do it!”"
Walker, Scott; Thiessen, Marc (2013-11-19). Unintimidated: A Governor's Story and a Nation's Challenge (p. 21). Penguin Group US. Kindle Edition.
I think you should hold politicians to their campaign promises.
We can only assume that MadisonMan has never voted for an incumbent.
"Despite the fact that voters repeatedly backed me at the polls, the unions would not give an inch during my time as county executive. They were perfectly willing to see hundreds, even thousands, of union workers lose their jobs in order to keep the prerogatives they had amassed for themselves.
"So much for “solidarity.”
"With the unions unwilling to make changes under collective bargaining rules, I had no tools at my disposal to reduce spending and get our budget under control without layoffs. So we had no choice— we had to cut jobs."
That's about his time as Milwaukee County executive. When he became governor, he sought to give better "tools" to local government officials, so they wouldn't be in the position he'd found himself in.
Seeing Red said...
*I was born and raised in Cook County. I know my political views and my critical thinking skills are second to none.
Since the US citizenry voted for The Chicago Way twice, is that a bug or a feature?
That depends.
Who sent you?
Mary said...
He won over Tonette, his wife. And he lways had Rush, and Meade and then Ann...
But DID he win over the people of Wisconsin with his ideas? Winning the recall does not mean he won over any new support for his ideas, other than in his first election...
Did he really change minds here at home?
He must have since both times he had a majority of voters. The people of Wisconsin preferred Walker to the democrat alternative.
Rush's endorsement: The Kiss of Death.
What was the specific campaign promise Walker made? Did he actually promise to create jobs or did he promise to reform state government so that the private sector would be more free to create more jobs?
Absent the creation of jobs, does the verbiage matter?
My recollection (possibly faulty): He would get Govt out of the way so that 250K jobs would be created.
Which part of that sentence demonstrates his Miserable Failure?
So what sort of a job did he do getting the govt out of the way?
I don't know enough about Wisconsin's economy, etc, to know how much of a problem that (the state government) even is for the private economy.
Look -- he either failed at getting the Govt out of the way, as promised, or in otherwise facilitating the creation of 250000 jobs, as promised.
Stop making excuses for a politician.
re: Local indigents
Weren't the federal funds that were turned down for raising the income for Medicaid eligibility (thankfully, we did that in Virginia, too, though maybe that will change with McAwful)? How has the situation for homeless, etc, changed?
Madison Man:
The Democrats seems to have one idea: Not Walker. Well, okay, but then what? I think that's what sank Barrett in the recall.
I think what helped sink Barnett was the same thing that sank Romney: they both couldn't attack their opponent on one of the major issues.
Romney was the worst candidate not because he wouldn't have made a good president. He couldn't go after the ripest target at the time, ObamaCare, because of RomneyCare. And Obama had hidden the IRS scandal, lied with the help of the "moderator" about Benghazi, and stonewalled Fast & Furious until after the election.
Barnett couldn't slam Walker on his union bill because he used one of the major provisions in it to close a sizeable budget deficit in Milwaukee. That was the one voiding the union contract clause that forced the government entities to buy a vastly overpriced plan sponsored by the unions. The various governmental units saved 50-100 million once they were allowed to get bids from private insurance.
So instead he barely even mentioned Walker's bill, which was the reason for the recall in the first place, in favor of "restoring trust". Bleh.
Post a Comment