The Fight Conservatism Faces

So, unless you have been living under a rock, been hit by a rock, or have been about to be hit by a rock for the past two months, you are probably fully aware of November's election debacle.  I have discussed that in more than a few blog posts.  It was a painful moment and every moment since has felt equally painful.

So the next question is, "what is the future of conservatism?"  After such a morale-crushing defeat and the recent fiscal cliff "deal" to take the morale nadir and lower it, it is clear that conservatives are in for a rough time in the coming years. So, what are the steps to come back from this?

Disclaimer: I am neither a political strategist nor a professional political pundit.  I don't care, either.  Most of those on the right these days seem to be hilariously incompetent at their jobs.  So I am just going to approach this from the little perch I call "common sense."  At least as far as I see it; feel free to disagree.

I believe that the movement needs to take the next year working out its internal conflicts and differences.  Because the conservative movement is intellectually and (sometimes surprisingly) ideologically diverse, we tend to have internal factions that will disagree on issues and approaches.  We have libertarians, social conservatives, tea party conservatives, general Republicans, the sometimes-nebulous "establishment" Republicans and so on (it may seem redundant to separate some of those categories, but I have my reasons).

Now, I have no idea what the outcome of this internal battle will be.  There are many issues and many opinions on how to handle them.  However, right now, debates on approach seem to be the primary battle happening right now among conservatives.  Do we stubbornly hold the line at all costs or try to be conciliatory for the sake of image?  Do we focus on economics at the expense of social issues?  I'm sure the answer is more complex than my personal opinion on either matter or many others.

These internal battles must be fought, however.  Currently, we are too severely fractured and lash out at each other too frequently for such a status quo to continue.  Differences that must be worked out if were are to counter the moves of progressivism effectively.  Yes, it will be painful.  However, we are the people who believe that pain is required to succeed in life.  I can understand reluctance to face the pain, but it is inevitable.

One thing I do hope for, as these battles rage, is that we can be more respectful to each other.  I have seen far too much mockery and mean-spiritedness between conservatives of late.  That is troubling, not only because it reduces the quality of the debate to do so, but because we're on the same side.  We want the same ends.  We merely disagree on methods.  Turning off our intellectual brothers and sisters will not help us.

I have more to write about, but for the time being this will have to suffice.

On the Vice Presidential Debate

Okay, now that I've waited a bit after the debate, it's time for me to respond.

Note: I just chose this picture because it looks cool.

First off, if you were following my Twitter feed (if you weren't, shame on you), you may have noticed I was very, very irritated at Joe Biden.  On the one hand, he came off more forceful and perhaps slightly more convincing, even when he was wrong.  But his constant smirking and laughing came across as condescending, particularly as so much of it was during serious discussions.  He came across, sadly, as a jerk and it was obvious.

Paul Ryan, on the other hand, as very meek and unassuming.  In fact, he was too meek and unassuming. While Biden was jumping all over him and interrupting him, he let it happen far too often.  The same went for the number of times Martha Raddatz blocked Paul Ryan from rebutting specious charges from the Vice President, which frankly is not right.

Which leads me to the debate's big winner: Jim Lehrer.  This debate proved, above all else, that allowing the candidates to talk to each other is a superior debate format to one where the moderator feels that he (or she, in this case) should be part of the debate.  Frankly, there should have been a separate timer for the amount of time Raddatz spoke, because she should not have been speaking for more than a couple of minutes.  But on more than a few occasions, I heard her interrupt and change the subject, more often than not when it aided Biden.  That should not be happening.  On the other hand, I feel it could have been worse, but Martha Raddatz definitely gets a thumbs down.

To my actual verdict, I call it a draw on substance.  Ryan definitely put his wonkishness to good use, reciting numbers and details off the top of his head with ease.  Biden's counter-arguments appealed, as usual, to the heart and glossed over reality more often than not.  His aggressive rebuttals helped make Ryan look cowed, however.  On style, however, Biden, as Steven Crowder put it early in the debate, "came out swinging and punched himself."  He looked like a jerk and sounded like a jerk.  I'm sure many independents tuned out when he reached "critical mass" at 10PM.  I almost did out of frustration.

In the end, it helps the bases and does little for independents, though Biden definitely turned them off with his oafishness.