web analytics
≡ Menu

What’s wrong with Rove’s treacherous ‘be silent on socialism’ Romney/Ryan strategy against Obama

America’s founders saw the symbiotic relationship between mob rule and the establishment of tyranny, whether by Oliver Cromwell or the absolute monarchs of Europe in their day. As friends of democratic self-government, they wanted to make sure that the American people would not mistakenly forget that such mob action is more often than not a precursor of  tyranny.

If America’s contemporary elites shared the prevalent founders’ friendly commitment to government of, by and for the people, they would have the same goal, and act to discourage the same mistaken view. Instead they do the opposite. By itself this does not justify the conclusion that they have abandoned the prevalent founder’s friendly commitment to democratic self-government. Neither does it warrant the charge that they aim to harvest the tyrannical fruits brought down by demagogic mob politics. But it certainly warrants those assumptions as part of a working hypothesis.

For this and myriad other reasons (some drawn from personal experience) it has been the working hypothesis for my thinking about America’s contemporary politics for some time. So I was bound to read Cliff Kincaid’s analysis of Karl Rove’s presentation at the now infamous billionaire’s breakfast with more than casual attentiveness. I’m not referring to the part about Rove’s murderous “joking” at the expense of Todd Akin’s peace of mind. I refer to Kincaid’s analysis of what the report revealed about “Rove’s so-called ‘strategy’ for defeating Obama”:

Rove told the donors, “If you say he’s a socialist, they’ll go to defend him. If you call him a ‘far out left-winger,’ they’ll say, ‘no, no, he’s not.'”
Hence, calling Obama a socialist or a left-winger is being ruled out of order. That means:

  • No talk of Obama’s communist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis.
  • No talk of his backing from the Communist Party USA, Democratic Socialists of America, and other such groups.
  • No talk of his extremely close personal relations with such figures as Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and the rulers of Russia.
  • No talk of how Obama couldn’t pass a basic background check in order to get a low-level federal job.

The reporter went on, “The proper strategy, Rove declared, was criticizing Obama without really criticizing him — by reminding voters of what the president said that he was going to do and comparing it to what he’s actually done.”

Behind the pose of a political expert talking about the strategy that should govern the GOP’s political tactics, what we have here is someone insisting that the GOP give Obama an ideological pass. Though the galvanizing core of opposition to Obama is a tide of resentment against his push toward tyrannical socialism, Rove suggests talking points that assume agreement with Obama’s ideological goals and that focus criticism on his incompetence in pursuit of those goals. Furthermore, many Americans also resent what they perceive as the unpatriotic, indeed anti-American, animus that seems to drive Obama’s policies and speeches. By advising silence on socialism Rove casts aside the best way of articulating this resentment in policy terms without inviting plausible accusations that the opposition to Obama appeals to and exploits visceral bigotry.

This ostensibly “non-ideological” approach has a decidedly ideological effect . It surrenders the galvanizing energy connected with the public’s repudiation of Obama’s socialist push. It turns the election into a contest between administrators, with the Romney/Ryan team saying, in effect: “What Obama promised, can he deliver? OBAMA CAN’T but YES, WE CAN.”

It sounds plausible enough, as long as conservatives, including those who have routinely been the core of the GOP’s margin of victory, don’t consider the consequences. We want to conserve America’s principles, the God endowed rights of individual Americans and the right of constitutional self-government for the American people as a whole. In no respect are these goals consistent with accepting Obama’s goal of socialism. We don’t want to elect people who will take us to that goal more efficiently and competently, while arousing less resistance among our people.

Two things ought to disturb us about Rove’s so-called strategy: a) It leaves out the people who reject Obama because he’s a socialist, not because he’s a failing socialist. In saying no to Obama, we mean to deliver a resounding NO to the socialist ‘tyranny of the elites’ he represents; and b) It casts the Romney/Ryan campaign in a light that verifies what Romney’s record emphatically suggests: If and when Romney wins, Obama will be gone but Obama’s policies will continue.

Because I am, like America’s prevalent founders, a friend to constitutional self-government, I cannot accept the notion that this result is somehow better for America. A result that leaves the nation better prey to the elitist, tyrannical, anti-American, socialist delusion is the same evil, with better prospects of success.

We need to galvanize and unite all Americans who agree with America’s founders in the desire to preserve constitutional self-government; the principle of God-endowed unalienable right; and government constraining respect for individual human rights, that have made and keep us free. The GOP platform speaks the language of that brand of conservatism, even though the preponderance of the evidence goes to show that Mitt Romney, Karl Rove, the money barons who back them, and the contemporary American elitists they altogether represent, no longer share the commitment to constitutional self-government which defines that brand.

So I will vote for the part of the GOP ticket that still professes to stand on the language of the platform. I will not vote for  the Romney/Ryan campaign that means to campaign on a basis that accepts Obama’s socialist goals and promises to deliver America, with greater competence, to socialist perdition.

[If you will consider taking this approach to November’s vote, just send me an email at alan@loyaltoliberty.com.  Put “Yes, I will” in the subject line. No further message is needed.  Of course your thoughts and suggestions WILL be welcomed.  As the implementation of the idea develops, I’ll send an email to the reply address you use, to keep you up to date.  Also, and above all, share the idea with others so they can consider it for themselves.]
{ 5 comments… add one }
  • MA Peter November 19, 2012, 3:00 am

    How’d that strategy work for Romney/Ryan? They lost!!

  • russells September 14, 2012, 12:47 am

    God has a great plan of restoration for his people. The most important thing in your life should be your relationship to Christ. Then you will be protected during the “time of trouble”. In fact the wicked with be ashes under your feet. But lukewarm Christians won’t be so fortunate. So stay close to Jesus, and you will amazed at how He supernaturally provides for you as the world completely falls apart before the Majesty of His Righteous judgement, and restoration of all that was lost in the Garden.

  • Grambo Gueths September 9, 2012, 5:31 pm

    I have supported your efforts on pro-life, however, your political positions are out-dated. You can see by reading your own comments that all you have done is confuse the people. You should be ashamed of yourself! Just because you lost big time to obama, you want to see someone else do so too. That is so unforgivable and it makes me so mad that you have been removed from my personal list of pro-life advocates. So tell us how much is obama paying you for this crap?

  • Zaphenath_Paneah_II September 7, 2012, 10:09 pm

    I agree wholeheartedly. But why can’t other ‘conservatives’ see this?! I despair Mr Keyes.

  • Phillip September 5, 2012, 5:37 pm

    I see your point, and I have taken this approach in several elections. But the pragmatism of the approach is flawed simply by virtue of the fact that it is pragmatism. We need a truly conservative party that can distance itself from the GOP. What renders the so-called “Tea-party” irrelevant is that it has not even attempted to do so. Unless we find a way to create a viable third party, we will continue down this road of fascism.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Copyright Regulations

All original material on Loyal To Liberty is copyrighted and you will need to observe these regulations when you plan to distribute or use content from this blog. Copyright Regulations for Content on Loyal To Liberty You are free to share, distribute or transmit any work on this blog under the following conditions: * Attribution: You must attribute any content you use to Loyal To Liberty by including a link back to the specific content page. You must not suggest that Loyal To Liberty endorses you or your use of the content on this blog. Even with attribution, you do not have permission to republish the entire blog post on a website. Only excerpts of less than 500 words from each blog post may be published on other websites. A link back to the specific blog post must be included. * Noncommercial Usage: You may not use this work for commercial purposes unless authorized to do so by Alan Keyes. * Derivative Works:Within the limits heretofore specified, you may build upon the contents of Loyal To Liberty as long as proper attribution (see above) is made. If you want to syndicate or distribute the full blog post on your website, permission must be obtained before you do so. For permission, please email alan@loyaltoliberty.com.
%d bloggers like this: