In comments Robert Stacy McCain pointed me to this post concerning liberals that includes this paragraph:
It is one thing to assume (at least, for the sake of argument) that a liberal like Obama desires what is good for America. It is another thing to assume that a liberal actually knows what is good for America, or that, knowing what is good, he will actually pursue the good competently and persistently. The history of liberalism disproves any such assumption.
We may give liberals credit for their good intentions – how else shall they pave the road to hell? — but we can never credit liberals with good sense.
If they had any sense, they wouldn’t be liberals, would they?
Not bad, nothing there I don’t agree with. Before that he says this:
No, DTG, what we need are ex-liberals like Ronald Reagan, who was a bleeding heart until he recognized that liberalism amounted to a formula for paralysis, failure and decline, as it still does.
Like Ronald Reagan, I am an ex-Democrat. You don’t recruit liberals, you either defeat liberals or you convert liberals.
That’s pretty good, I’m an ex-democrat myself, mainly because the party changed to the point where being a Roman Catholic who ya know actually believes means you are a racist/sexist/bigiot/homophobe to them. But there are also times like now when liberals are in power, either by the the hubris and excesses of conservatives (or faux conservatives) or the American people exercising their inalienable right to be wrong.
If such a time is a time of war like now the consequences of defeat don’t change. It is necessary to fund, recruit and prosecute said war. The consequences of said defeat are going to be the same for everyone (actually it will be worse for liberals as an we might not allow Andrew Sullivan to marry but an Islamic state will not allow him to live.) if we make them understand this simple fact we can be assured of the first necessary thing. Survival.
This also has important side effects:
First: It makes it easier to convince or convert a liberal to our way of thinking. To get people to our way of thinking you need to start somewhere. That is the single easiest part of conservatism to understand. Conservatism 101. You want to get the basic course out of the way before you go to more advanced stuff. Ya gotta walk before you run.
Second: It exposes liberals to the strength of conservative values; best represented by the American soldier. I’ve found that people who actually know troops in person have a much firmer grasp of reality. The best example is a young man I’ve known for most of his life, he served at Gitmo and in Iraq and teaches locally. Massachusetts is the bluest of blue states but his kids practically worship him. Good luck with liberal indoctrination with the bunch that has been in his history class.
Third: Most importantly every bit of political capital that we don’t have to spend on the war is political capital we can spend on other things. Funding and winning the war is the Sine non quan for the country. If it came down to twisting arms would you want to have to make a choice between that and say Obamacare? Would you want to have to divert resources?
Don’t get me wrong, Conservatives need to fight just like our troops do.
What happens when you come to a swordfight without a sword.
Conservatives need to make sure we are more Conan than Captain America but the as in Iraq the sword wasn’t the only weapon our guys use to win.
I’ve got teenage sons, you have six kids. Their future depends on us winning. If I can get an allies on the war on terror that’s going to help them grow old and gray I’m damn well not going to worry if they have don’t have a conservative decoder ring.
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 