Erick Erickson’s Odd (and Telling) Confession
A revealing quote and some musing on Newt's consistency.
In a post bemoaning the state of the GOP field entitled My Confession, RedState’s Erick Erickson confesses the following:
I hope for a Perry rebound. He’s on his first wife still and has the most consistent record of conservative policies. And we hate the same people and institutions. We have the same general world view.
I must confess, to define one’s political positions and hoped-for candidates in terms of hating people and institutions strikes me as problematic, especially in the context of electoral politics and public policy debates. I have often considered RedState (and Erickson) as being representative of an angry and unhelpful manifestation of a part of the rightward political realm and this formulation reinforces such a notion.
Perhaps it was my mother’s admonitions to not use the word “hate” when I was young (usually in the context of sibling conflicts) or my general conception of hatred as a blinding emotional response, rather than a tool of evaluation, but I am not a fan of its application in politics, especially domestic politics.
In fairness, perhaps this was a poor choice of words on Erickson’s part (blogging is an enterprise that often leads to imprecise deployments of both words and grammar, to be sure). Still, I typically associate Erickson with either anger or extreme hyperbole, so I am inclined to think that this was less a sloppy word choice than it was an honest expression. It is a reflection of politics as a faith-based crusade rather than a deliberative process that will, in a democracy anyway, require compromise.
Beyond the hate business, I found the following of political interest:
The problem with Mitt Romney is the inconsistencies in his record. The problem with Newt Gingrich is the consistency of his record.
Now, the critique of Romney is pretty standard and requires no elaboration. The Gingrich assessment is a bit more problematic, it seems to me. On the one hand, yes, there is a list of positions that Gingrich has taken over the years that would give a hardcore conservative like Erickson heartburn (Conor Friedersdorf has a nice list of such here), but on the other, I find it amusing that Newt Gingrich would be painted as the model of consistency. This is the guy who almost ended his campaign (indeed, at the time I thought he had) for the nomination the week it began by being all over the place on the Ryan Plan, even going so far as to say “Any Ad Which Quotes What I Said On Sunday Is A Falsehood.” That week led Rich Lowry to pen a column for NRO entitled “Newt the Unreliable.”
At any rate, the notion that Newt represents a bedrock of consistency is amusing. (And, really, Erickson goes on to note that his main problem with Newt are his affairs and divorces).
Back to the main theme: I would suggest that the road to successful policy is not one paved with unleashing hate. How about reason instead?
Yes, as I often say, a man can dream.
Paradoxically, it’s Newt’s reaction to the Ryan plan which actually makes a strong argument for him as both a candidate and a possible President. Not the erratic evaluation and reflexive hyperbole, of course. But that Newt was capable of looking at the Ryan plan as policy and considering it in a broader context than the confines of right wing dogma.
Mike
The hate part doesn’t surprise me. He is an Evangelical Christian and hate is a big part of that religion persuasion.
Without hate, they have nothing.
If Bush43 had gotten OBL, as he tried and failed to do, we would be naming airpports and rohighways after him by now. If Nixon had passed universal health care, as he tried to do and failed, Watergate would probabaly be a footnote to his Presidency. If Bush41 had rescued the auto industry and the banking industry without nationalizing either his party may not have abandoned him in such a dispicable manner. If Gerald Ford had gotten China and Russia to join in sanctions against Iran, ousted Ghaddafi, and backed Isreal against Palestinian statehood we would of probably forgotton the ridiculous meme about him being a clutz.
The Republican party has become a religion built upon a foundation of hate. The cult members, like Erickson, are unable to see past their rage to the very real accomplishments of the past three years.
Differences on policy I can respect. When you read comments from Jan and Drew and Eric F. and G.A.Phillips…emblematic of the cult…they are not about policy. They are about hate and blind rage.
Another excellent essay Stephen.
I’m personally looking forward to seeing how Erik F and others contort themselves to suggest that Newt is “teh realz” conservative in this race (versus Romney or Huntsman), especially given his position on hot button issues like immigration (see Friedersdorf’s article among others),
But as Michael R has said — and the Red State essay continues to demonstrate — this isn’t about policy or history, this is about a dream of a muscular conservatism and a search for a candidate who they believe can punch Obama in the teeth and take his lunch money,
I saw that quote too, and had the same reaction: it’s very telling indeed.
Angry and unhelpful is soooo easy to do.
If you had to poop out ten or more blog posts a day, you’d take the easy route, too.
My favorite Erick Erickson anecdote (from Politico):
Why does CNN employ this man?
@Hey Norm:
As you show, it’s the fear that motivates, and the hate is an outgrowth.
Remember,
It’s too easy, IMO, for political pundits to forget that structural explanation, and just move on …
This is a pretty good summation of the whole Republican enterprise of late, wouldn’t you say?
@Hey Norm:
Right symptoms but wrong diagnosis – not a religion, but right-wing authoritarianism.
Specifically what we’re seeing in folks like Erickson is “Authoritarian aggression — a general aggressiveness directed against deviants, outgroups, and other people that are perceived to be targets according to established authorities.”
This is why I think Newt will end up being the Republican nominee – he is ideal for what the rightwing of the Republican really wants at this moment in history and the Republican establishment isn’t going to be able to convince them otherwise.
Think about it: Gingrich will defend conservative principles without apology through out his campaign, especially at the debates. (How his actual behavior is at odds with these principles will be brushed aside by his proponents.) All those people who think the biggest problem for conservativism is that RINOs and CINOs haven’t defended it strongly enough will have their champion.
Now if Gingrich then wins the WH, conservatism wins too. We are a center-RIGHT country and conservative principles are mandated for all. (It will not matter that Gingrich will only win because the economy worsened and not because of any vision Gingrich promoted.)
If Gingrich loses the Presidency, conservatism wins again! Gingrich will have lost because of his personal failings and not because the country rejected his ideas. We are a center-right country and conservative principles need to be defended from the leftists who continue to usurp our government. (It will not matter that American voters preferred Obama’s vision of our future over Gingrich’s.)
@john personna I cannot say how uncomfortable those types of studies make me… not so much because of the findings, but how the findings become “proof” of certain things. I really don’t see much difference between that type of limited finding and much of the scary Race/IQ/Genetics stuff (see the recent back and forth between Andrew Sullivan and Ta-Neshi Coates).
Fear/Complexity might have something to do with a predisposition… but to go much further than that becomes a huge overplay of “nature.”
@mattb:
There are a generation who can’t look at genetics at all, because the Nazis touched it.
For some reason we don’t feel the same about rockets.
(Seriously, there is only good science and bad science. If the studies prove good, then they should not be painted by association.)
An alternate source:
They link the words “converging studies” to this wikipedia page.
Sorry the original link for that “alternate source” is here.
Apropos the theme of Steven’s post, from that second (Discovery) source:
Emphasis mine.
Let’s not forget Jonah Goldberg, of National Review, who has said more than once that he “loves Sarah Palin for her enemies”.
(Actually, we probably should forget Jonah Goldberg…)
@john personna: “Liberals will rally with data and strong, logical arguments”
Yeah, not so much. If that were true, we wouldn’t see so much “Obama betrayed me!” nonsense coming from the Left.
Mike
@MBunge:
Do you really see “so much?”
I don’t think so. I think there is a far-left granola cult who might have gone beyond the data and logic (if they ever had it), but they are not at all mainstream.
In terms of mainstream thought, we have the Democrats going “grand bargain” and the Republicans going “crash the sucker.”
Some of the “Obama betrayed me” stuff is grounded in facts and logic. Some is not.
I agree with mattb, John, that the things you are citing make me uncomfortable. That doesn’t mean they are wrong.
It’s telling me something that strokes my ego. I am therefore suspicious.
@Rob in CT:
If we tie it back to evolution and global warming it makes it more than an ego boost, IMO.
I mean, one “meta” of these studies is that we are a varied population, and government should serve all members of the society, even as they never resolve “who’s right?” On the other hand, what are you going to do with a sizable anti-intellectual element in the population?
Don’t worry, and go to lunch I guess …
There’s a lot about Obama that disappoints me…but you gotta be reasonable.
No President is going to be everything to everyone. (Mitt will never be one, because he thinks he can be)
Perfect is the enemy of good.
Big ships turn slowly.
There are probably other cliches that apply as well.
Apologies for the off-topicness of what follows…
@john personna The scientist in me agrees with the notion of good/bad science. That said, the anthropologist and science studies side of me knows how good science can often be used to create bad policy.
Without being snarky, a single study is not the basis for good policy regardless of whether or not it’s good science.
As for genetics/eugenics, there is little question in my mind that genetics come into play when determining the boundaries of human potential. However, I find a number of problems when trying to translate those findings into anything related to policy or culture.
The first is that very few humans reach those boundaries. So even if a given “race” (more on that in a sec) can be statistically shown to have a lower top range for IQ, that isn’t to assume that the average for that race is going to necessarily be all that much lower than another race with a higher upper end potential.
Next is the entire question of how race is defined in terms of the sampling.
After that, its also true that we can easily find exceptions to any so-called genetic rule.
Finally, the “weight” of scientific authority — at least in the west — allows for a convenient dodge of all of the nurture aspects that come into play in helping determine the social potential that has a great deal to do with someone reaching their genetic potential.
@john personna: “Do you really see “so much?”
Yes, not so much. Let’s step back and take a look at history. You find plenty of loony ideas that get embraced on the left, often with a bunch of scientific-sounding jargon to justify it.
Mike
Think you’re reading too much into it. In these days, “hate” is a synonym for “dislike.” Everyone uses it all the time.
I jokingly asked my priest about that one time. He said it was perfectly acceptable to “hate” Democrats as a faceless group, but we must love and pray for them individually. Before anyone takes this seriously, he was laughing when he said it. It was a joke, but it does stress something. There are times when we become very annoyed with a group of people, but you cannot lose sight of the fact that they are individuals who do not deserve “hate”. That is such a horrible and bitter word. Fr. Ron also said if we “hate” Democrats as a group, we’d better start praying for them, and doing a heck of a lot of praying for ourselves for feeling that way!
SJR
The Pink Flamingo
The Republican Party of today is not defined by principles, policy, or anything resembling a coherent political philosophy. They are motivated entirely by a desire to inflict pain and destruction on their enemies. And the enemies list is very, very long, and growing (updated daily).
@john personna: Even taking the study at face value, there are obvious problems. The study was based on young adults, whose personal politics may not be fully formed. For example, I was extremely liberal as young adult, and didn’t become a Republican until I turned 30. I have no problems understanding complexity.
@Hey Norm:
Good self-parody
@Jeremy Kolassa: I get the impression that it’s really hate, you know the kind of mindstate where something’s intolerable and to be actively battled and never compromised. Dislike suggests something that can be reasoned with compromised or maybe accommodated.
Dislike is a whitewash. Point: Steven
Bandit…is that a deer-tick behind your ear?
I am not buying the “hate is the new dislike” line. Most of what the right has thrown at Obama is 100% genuine hate – and I utterly fail to see what it is based on, beyond lies promoted by right wing pundits.
Hate is what these folks run on…
@mantis:
Yeah the enemies list up to … well … about 99%
@bandit:
Biting commentary.
“We hate the same people and institutions” is the way to the heart of so many Republican voters. That’s part of why Gingrich is doing so well. He may not bring as much macho male vibe as Perry on what he doesn’t like, but many of his criticisms of Obama are the kind of thing Perry would say if he picked up a book or magazine occasionally. Perry would be all about saying “Kenyan, anti-colonial” if he had any clue what that meant.
“Converging studies”
Who isn’t reading the links?
How does any party reach win-win compromises with their polar opposite party that they do not trust as a group, because of many past and present stark betrayals of agreements, lies, ideological conflicts, and opaque, authoritarian procedures to create and pass legislation unilaterally?
The answer is; they don’t. It has become “winner take all”, subject only to the voter’s hand at election time, and the media’s ministrations to influence their hand. The art of compromise has been supplanted by the power of the majority, and one suspects, the raw power of money and weak men.
@ Manning…
Your comment ignores facts in evidence. Democrats have tried repeatedly to compromise. Every one of their debt-reduction proposals has included adressing entitlement reforms IF Republicans agree to revenue increases. Republicans absolutely refuse…even if it’s a 10:1 ratio. The current concept of pseudo conservative rightist negotiation is “our way or no f’ing way”. Christ…the PPACA is a Republican program, which Republicans refused to vote for. Currently they are refusing to pass a tax cut…Republicans refusing to pass a tax-cut??? Yet you think it’s just a tit-for-tat problem?
Republicans have decided that they must be the “winner that takes all” and keeping the economy in the dumps is theri path to victory. The hate that Erik Erickson wrote about, and has it’s roots in Newts Contract with America, now pervades Republican politics and is preventing a stronger economic recovery…among other things.
If you really think that Liberals, as a group, are “rational, data oriented” then I suggest you reread the replies on this board. Take a look at sites like “NOW” and “MoveOn.org”. Pay special attention to the tone associated with the words “Bush” and “Nixon” … and pretty much any word associated with Conservatives. There are rational liberals, but liberals are not rational.
No more than Conservatives, anyway.
@John D’Geek:
I think there is a subtle difference in the claim. It isn’t that liberals are more rational, as beings, it is that they are motivated differently.
Parallel to this there is a very good review by Freeman Dyson on Daniel Kahneman’s ideas.
System One, System Two, and how often we really think …
@Hey Norm:
You have just helped to define the other side of the gulf between liberals and conservatives. Your reality comes from wishful thinking, verbal false offers and even outright lies, while grounded realities are the province of conservatives. It is an historical fact that the last time out, Republicans accepted the deal to raise taxes and then to cut spending in a subsequent step, only to find that the cuts were not forthcoming. Any rational person would say, ok, next time out, let’s reverse the order and solidify the cuts in legislation first, heavier ones at that, and only then address the question of taxes. It seems that this lesson was learned very well by Republicans and conservatives, and now progressive liberals want to pull off the same sleazy maneuver. No dice! Distrust is the wage of the sins of liberals past and present.
Oh…you mean like Tax Cuts pay for themselves and WMD in Iraq and Mushroom Clouds over our cities and AGW is a hoax and Evolution is a lie. Got it. Thanks for your insight.
Without a link or more description I have no idea what you are talking about…so we have that in common.
@ Manning…
I forgot Death Panels and Birtherism and Socialism.
Sorry…Norm.
@mannning:
Unfortunately you are held captive by your own catch-22.
You want spending reductions, but any reduction that is discussed cannot be real.
(That you can’t recognize your internal contradiction is especially sad.)
Of course you don’t. Far better to forget those annoying little details, isn’t it? Best to ignore the unpleasant past than to admit the betrayal! You can look it up for yourself. It would be a good ecxercise for you to find out the reality of this tax/spending conflict. I am so glad you brought up so many issues where liberals have been off base, but I haven’t the energy today to write a Book of Sins.
Well I could if you told me WTF you’re talking about. Because you can’t I can only assume you are making up fiction again.
Ok, Manning, how about this? We remove Tip O’Neill as Speaker of the House and then we’ll all move forward. Deal?
Perfect liberalism at its finest! Accuse, pontificate, and abuse, but not exert any effort to get at the truth. You want your quirky version of reality to stand, against the truth. How very sad for you. Do your own homework.
So, I will give you a start on your homework.
Try reading “An American Life” by Ronald Reagan. Reagan states that he “did accept tax hikes in return for (the Democrat’s) agreement to cut spending by $280 billion,” but “the Democrats’ reneged on their pledge and we never got those cuts.”
Try G.H.W. Bush about his reneging on the pledge of “no new taxes” and agreeing to tax hikes together with spending cuts in order to effect a balanced budget with the Democrats. Sadly, the hikes were passed, but not only were there no cuts in spending, within two years there was a doubling of the deficit. Bush was taken to the cleaners for this.
The senior Republicans in the House clearly remember these broken promises of some 20 years ago by the Democrats, and are therefore doubly convinced that to make a deal with Democrats on Taxes and Spending is to be duped and hornswaggled, unless the cuts come first in the legislation process and are therefore cast in concrete. Lost trust in the promises of Democrats is penalizing the nation.
I should add that just about the same irresponsible Democratic crowd is in the leadership of of the Democratic minority of the House.
To return to the theme of this post, I must declare that I really do hate liars and prevaricators, especially when they affect me and mine.
@mannning:
The thing that is totally irrational is your insistence that a certain history, and it doesn’t really matter what it is, means that no cuts can ever be negotiated.
That’s the insane part. You aren’t saying “no, I don’t like this specific cut here.” You are saying “all cuts are false” and “no cuts, however cast in US law can be real.”
Idiot.
@john personna:
Now that is real ignorance! I am totally flabbergasted by such an inane remark. Where did I say that no cuts can ever be negotiated? What a silly, really idiotic, idea! You need your head examined by a qualified shrink. By that crazy line, you seem to be implying, among other things, that NO DEMOCRAT CAN EVER BE HONEST AND TRUTHFUL, and ALL CUTS MUST ALSO HAVE TAX INCREASES TO BE NEGOTIABLE! ARE YOU KIDDING, OR JUST MAKING NOISE?
Now that is unreal. To have an acceptable negotiation, you need merely sufficient trust on both sides that deals will be carried out faithfully. Trust is earned, as is lack of trust. What Democrats must do is earn the trust that they have lost, which until now they haven’t done. Instead, they are trying to pull off the same old scam! To reverse that, one thing they need to do is to acceed to the idea that legislative cuts should preceed new taxes and carry that out in an open manner. A simple solution, but I will not hold my breath.
@JP
Manning is using all caps. That means he is right, and you are wrong. Don’t you know anything about blogging, right wing style?
Your best course of action is to try to admit defeat with grace.
@mannning:
Again, you are saying not that Democrats can’t be honest, but that no contract is enforceable.
You don’t think a law can be written to achieve what you want to achieve. That is the bottom line.
You are simply out of your mind. I am absolutely certain that laws can be written that meet cost-cutting needs due to our financial straits, especially if they are carefully separated from the issue of raising revenue. Getting them passed into law is quite another matter.
We need a far leaner government, with all of the puffery extracted, and with substantial cost-cutting and elimination measures enacted down most line items in the budget, especially the pricier ones such as Defense, Obamacare, education, and with careful restructuring of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Yes, the “third rail” must be touched, rather lovingly, because entitlements are bringing us down. (it would help some if Obama stayed home for the next year, and didn’t campaign or vacation on the taxpayer’s dollar, instead of having a mean distance from the WH of perhaps 500 miles, and by suppressing the desires to be reelected and to play golf on every course in the nation… twice.)
The big question is: will they be enacted and signed into law? Not so long as Obama and his Mafia are in office I believe. They continue to tie cuts with new taxes, which should not fly, because of the historical danger all Democrats represent with their sleezy, dishonest refusal to come up with their side of the cost-cutting deals after they have managed to con Republicans into a tax increase with false promises. What we need is a fiscally conservative Republican majority across the board and in the Presidency in 2013.
You can’t practice “Tax and Spend” or its evil twin “Spend and Tax” either if you are nearly flat broke, and have a $15 Trillion national debt that is growing fast, speaks for itself. That, one might surmise, is exactly why Democrats want new revenue: to enact more feel-good spending programs into being in the face of an empty bank account. They are not at all interested in reducing the national debt.
No deal!
I will add dissemblers and smoke-screeners to my list of hated ones. If you can’t rebut the statement, obfuscate it in order to hide the fact that you are out of gas. Come up with literally anything to redirect the argument, which is quite typical leftwing tactics. Several attempts are logged above. What remains after all the shouting is the fact that at least twice the Democrats have pulled a dastardly deed on the Republicans by coupling spending cuts with tax increases in negotiations, and then reneging on the cuts downstream after their tax raise is signed into law. Twice!
I hope, no more!
And yet, you have felt the need to trash only Democrats in this thread…what a delusional little man you are…
@An Interested Party:
HAHA! You want me to list and attack everyone that sins… here in this blog? It is you that are delusional, squirt, I do not think James would appreciate my hogging his blog just to satisfy some rediculous need of yours to have a “balanced” presentation of your kind. It is neither called for nor the place on this thread. Have no doubt, however, that I can shread some Republicans and pseudo conservatives very nicely indeed in the right place and time. I know, you are redhot eager to make your mark here, AIP, but you really did miss, squirt.
Because Democrats should totally trust that Republicans who demand spending cuts will totally then allow for tax increases. Hah.
The GOP is the party of tax cuts for the tippy top. The party of Grover Norquist. And also the party that is utterly against any rationality with regard to our “defense” budget and foreign policy.
So it boils down to this: big cuts to programs that benefit poor and middle class Americans, a small chance of some sort of tax increase (with the GOP doing everything in its power to shield the wealthiest as much as possible), and the continued fellation of the Pentagon (though this is also a Dem passtime). This done to close the fiscal hole created by: a) GOP policies during the 2001-2008 time period (tax cuts + wars + no entitlement reforms), b) the 2008 financial panic & resulting recession, including automatic stabilizers such as food stamps; c) Dem policy choices in the wake of the ’08 crash (the Stimulus); and d) the aging of the population + medical care cost inflation.
Yeah, you’re right Mannning. No deal.
And that’s w/o examining the claim about the “dastardly deed” Mannning alleges from the 80s. Something tells me (call it intuition) this claim is one-sided wingnut “history.”
Meanwhile, we’re supposed to just forget about dastardly deeds done in the past ten years by the GOP. Pass.
@Rob in CT:
I see that you totally neglected the references to documented evidence of those Democratic dasterdly deeds that I furnished. Statements from Reagan, and G Bush I, not partisan wonks. Perhaps that was convenient for you, so that you could blow more smoke… true to form!
You did not provide sound references yourself to your miscellaneous charges against Republicans, so I must decline to answer in kind. They appear to be the usual party line nonsense from Democratic Liberals, and the tactic of repetition of lies often enough that they are taken as true.
The one thing I agree with is “pass.”
This exchange illustrates a major problem in Congress; trust is totally absent between the two parties, so the only way anything worthwhile is legislated is via one party having total control. That obviously must become the Republicans, since we have established that sinning Democrats reneg completely on tax and spending cut deals, and then spend, spend, spend other people’s money, and that the prime example, Obamacare, must be destroyed else we will have 100% of our revenue taken by entitlements by 2020 or so. Someone must step up and return us to fiscal sanity, and it obviously cannot be tax-and-spend-and-tax-and… Democrats!(Norquist??? You must have a very twisted sense of humor!)
Dastards!