Such a tiresome response. Protip: "Crazies took over my party" does not mean "your party was always wrong about everything." Yes, we knew had a crazy fringe. Ours, for a lot of reasons (including monetizing the crazy) took control.
Spoiler: The left has a crazy fringe too. /1
Conservatism isn't crazy. It's a necessary part of a democracy, just as progressivism is. But when we work on what killed the GOP, progs looking over our shoulder and saying "Well, we told you in 1985" only serves to remind us why it's hard to talk to mindless progressives. /2
And trust me, when all this is over, we're all gonna have a talk about how the GOP managed, for a time, to become the dominant party - "the party of everyone else" - with the *help of progressives*. Dems did, and do, holistically stink at politics. It made it easy for us. /3
Today, the American left has plenty of kooks in it who - for now - have been thwarted in the attempt to capture the Democratic Party. Liberals might want to think more about the general question of how a major party falls to its fringe instead of retconning all of 1952-2016. /4
Think, too, about how crying wolf - also a form of paranoid politics - for 40 yrs didn't help progs sway people. You said "fascist" so often people tuned it out. Reagan, Bush 1/2, Dole, McCain, Romney - all demonized.
And then you ran HRC, against all logic and caution. /5
You warned us? Sure. And we warned you: Let the Clinton idea go. You had Bill for two terms. Don't resurrect the battles of the 90s. Yes, the GOP was spineless against Trump and it deserves to be flushed for that. But never think you didn't have a hand in all this. /6
And before you all talk about "30 years ago," it's important to remember how Dems ended up in this jam *forty* years ago. /7
It's easy for younger progressives to forget how much the US felt like a failed state at the end of the 1970s, as liberal ideas were exhausted, the USSR was in the ascent, and we were all told to just accept "decline" and "convergence" with the Soviet model. /8
As Mark Lilla - no conservative - wrote recently: “It is difficult to convey to anyone who wasn’t alive and politically aware at the time what a dreary place America seemed in the late 1970s, how lacking in direction and confidence." It was the peak of liberal dominance. /9
This was a result of the exhaustion of the 1960s and the curdling of noble crusades like civil rights into identity and racial spoils factionalism. Conservatives seized an opportunity. Yes, while dragging our crazies along with us. Perhaps we shouldn't have, but we did. /10
But this is a cautionary tale for Democrats: You're on the verge of saving the country. But you've got a nutball fringe coming right along with you. Don't think you're immune to our mistakes. /11
Apostate conservatives spend a lot of time thinking about how things went wrong. We don't always agree. We're working on it. But spare me the lectures about how we were always crazy. It's silly and tiresome. /12x
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
You know better than this, @cdrsalamander, and I know that from talking to you. Your comments are in bad faith. But for others who are curious, I'll explain.
NWC's curriculum revision 50 years ago was to prevent another civil-military failure on the level of Vietnam. /1
VADM Turner was explicit about this, and it's been a guiding principle ever since to make sure that NWC graduates are intelligent strategic contributors in the room, instead of pure operators who have no idea how to advise or confer with civilians. /2
Sal is focused on about 30 minutes of a 90 minute seminar out of some 20 meetings. But as I told my students: You need to recognize what drives the arguments of the civilians in the room. If you don't, you'll be the guy sent out for coffee while the grownups talk. /3
The Israelis are calling this a "preemptive" strike. Whether you agree or disagree with this attack, these are not - from what we know tonight - "preemptive" strikes. The Israelis are using that word for a reason. Read on. /1
In tradition and international law, a "preemptive" attack is a spoiling attack, meant to strike an enemy who is *imminently* going to strike you. This is what Israel did in 1967, getting the jump on Arab armies that were about to attack. That's usually permissable. /2
What's going on right now are *preventive* strikes, which are usually NOT permissable in law or tradition. This is striking an enemy far in advance, because you believe time and situation is favorable to you. That, for example, is Japan striking the US in 1941. /3
I might have more to say later, but all the reviews of Carter's presidency emphasize his character, his success in the Mideast, and inflation/gas prices.
But left out of all that: His Cold War policies were abject failures and left America in a precarious situation by 1980. /1
Not only did the Soviets run wild during Carter's presidency, they hated him personally, seeing him as an unserious man giving them Sunday School lectures. Some of America's allies felt the same way, esp after Carter hosed the Germans on the neutron bomb issue. /2
When Carter finally became a born-again Cold Warrior in late 1978, he amped up multiple nuclear programs (which people mistakenly associate with Reagan) and in 1980 issued PD-59, a pretty extreme nuclear warfighting doctrine that convinced Moscow that he was completely nuts. /3
So, a few words about this new Russian nuclear doctrine, but here's the short version: It's not a doctrine, it's a ploy.
/1
The old Soviet Union had a formal military doctrine, and it mattered. (Trust me. Wrote my doctoral dissertation and first book on it.) It mattered because the regime believed in ideology, and in conforming its policies to ideology and communicating that to its institutions. /2
Soviet military doctrine was a means of intra-elite communication and policy guidance. Yes, some of it was just bullshit, but it was a real thing that was meant to make the various parts of the USSR defense world (strategy, industry, etc) fly in formation. /3
Okay, I admit, I've been kind of rope-a-doping some of the people angry over my "it's okay to drop friends over politics posts." So I'll wrap up:
I don't recall anyone on my right getting mad when I wrote this in a right-wing - now insanely right wing - magazine in 2016. /1
The reason I got very little pushback, I suspect, is that no one expected Trump to win. But now, people on the right are stuck having to defend what they've done and itchy about it.
But interestingly, the same magazine also now has this:
/2
If you're angry over dropping friends and family over Trump now, but weren't in 2016, or aren't over calls now to de-recognize other citizens as Americans (and I assume that means friends who voted for Harris)...well...
/3