Anger’s Outfall

Editorial

 

.

By Phil Erwin

I was engaging in a bit of “finger-debate” (via e-mail) with a couple of politically-savvy folk who were – Pardon! – letting their anger-slip show.

The topic was nominally the state of the Republican Primary field, and of those in it; but the real undercurrent of the discussion, I realized, had far more to do with their anger than with the actual candidates.

I was alluding to what may be a rising level of pig-headedness among Conservatives. (I feel their pain; I share their concerns. As an Independent, I can feel the anger without sinking all the way into it.)

“Would Conservatives really want Donald Trump,” I asked, “at times a loudmouthed, unpredictable, lout – representing them, rather than a proven Conservative public servant who’s run a state, fixed its fiscal woes, supports de-federalizing education, and can speak to Hispanics in their native tongue?   Are ‘real’ Conservatives ready to write off Marco Rubio for trying to achieve a lasting set of compromise solutions to our immigration problems – working within the Senate system as he was learning it even though he accepted the eventual failure, re-evaluated, and adjusted his approach to one more consonant with ‘hard-line’ Conservative views? If so, I’d say Conservatives are never going to find a candidate good enough to please them.”

trump.donald

Donald Trump

rubio

Senator Marco Rubio

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hoo, Boy! Did I catch an “ear-full” for those questions, complete with points like “I’ve HAD it with… ” and “I can’t SETTLE for…” and “…the same RepubliCrat crap…”

In other words, a clear display of the deep-seated, hair-triggered anger that’s driving the Republican polls to places the pundit crowd absolutely never could have predicted. The polls aren’t registering how folks feel about the candidates’ positions or plans; they’re registering an absolute and abject fury at anyone who’s held office.

Here’s my concern about this new political reality: You can’t govern with fury; you can’t strategize with anger. You can’t compromise with deaf ears. And if Republicans are Hell-bent on electing only candidates who share their fury and will use it to govern, they’ll be doomed to forever-failure.

Now, some might respond that Liberals/Democrats have, in fact, been guilty of governance by anger for seven years; and there’s some validity to that view. Much of what Obama has done to undermine our Constitutional form of government has been possible because Democrats have so effectively stirred up and harnessed anger, distrust and turmoil across the country. But here’s the thing: Liberals get away with that only because of a corrupt, Liberal/Progressive Press.   Democrats can govern by misdirection, misinformation, exaggeration, prevarication and demonization ONLY because the Press is complicit and enabling.  Republicans will NEVER get away with it, because they don’t have the Press with them.

If a Republican-led Administration were to attempt to govern by anger, it would never overcome the headwinds of a corrupt anti-Conservative Press and regain the respect of the People. To the contrary: It would backfire, and give the Press much more ammunition with which to foment anti-Conservative sentiment.

If Republicans field a Presidential candidate who is perceived to be dogmatic and utterly unyielding in their Conservatism, he/she will probably be so effectively demonized during the campaign, they will likely never have the opportunity to govern.  As an Independent, that scares me, because I believe the last seven years of a seriously Progressive almost-dictatorship have nearly ruined our Constitutional Republic, and another eight, or even four years of the same anti-Constitutional, anti-American, pro-Socialist changes will take us way beyond the point of no return.

Which is, of course, precisely what Progressives are hoping and striving for.

But if many Republicans are so dogmatically angry they won’t consider voting for any candidate moderate enough to collect some Independent votes, and perhaps a few votes from reasonable, pro-Constitutionalist Democrats (if any still exist!), then the Republican Party can kiss it’s future, and the country, good-bye.

I fear that the Republican Party may now be so thoroughly, emotionally fractured, they’re gonna blow any chance they have to overcome the year-long Hillary coronation-by-Press that any Republican candidate will be facing.  Hillary is a flawed candidate; but she doesn’t need every Democrat vote.  She only needs for Republicans and Independents to stay home.

The Republican candidate, to the contrary, won’t be able to afford to lose a single Republican voter to a sour-grapes boycott. 

Just ask Romney.

_______________________________________________________

Phil Erwin is an author, IT administrator and registered Independent living in Newbury Park. He sometimes wishes he could support Democrat ideals, but he has a visceral hatred for Lies and Damn Lies, and is none too fond of Statistics. If his writing depresses you, he recommends you visit Chip Bok’s site for a more lighthearted perspective.

2 Responses to Anger’s Outfall

  1. P. Erwin November 10, 2015 at 12:47 pm

    Actually, I understood the depth of Conservative angst very early on, sufficiently that I thought Trump might at least survive to the Convention when most were still calling him a side-show. I share the angst, but worry that picking the wrong Republican candidate might guarantee a Clinton coronation, which I believe would be a disaster for the nation, perhaps one from which we, and the world, would never really recover. So picking “the right” opponent is crucial. To use a phrase often repeated by Sean Hannity: I favor the most Conservative candidate WHO CAN WIN.

    Are angry Conservatives SURE that Trump could actually beat her, with essentially NO support from Hispanics, and possibly very little from women, Blacks or the young? He’s proven remarkably politically adept (or extraordinarily lucky!), but I don’t know that he could overcome his various drags; and if he by some miracle were actually elected, I’m not at all sure that ANY of us really know what he would do. Hence, my continuing concern.

    Reply
  2. William "Bill" Hicks November 7, 2015 at 8:31 am

    I think you may fail to understand the angst that many Conservatives rightfully feel. I’m not a proponent of lecturn pounding show’s of anger. I am very understanding of those that are revolted by those that have embraced said Conservatism with actual liberal results. There’s only so much of that before rational Conservatives get pissed off and show their anger.

    Trump is the least likely candidate to receive endorsement from me. Maybe Rubio would be the best candidate. But you have to admit, most of what the current candidates are saying wouldn’t have ever been said without Trump’s influence on them. In that, we owe a lot to Trump.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *