{"id":19260,"date":"2022-05-04T02:06:48","date_gmt":"2022-05-04T09:06:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/politicalhat.com\/?p=19260"},"modified":"2022-05-04T02:06:48","modified_gmt":"2022-05-04T09:06:48","slug":"fight-but-for-what","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/2022\/05\/04\/fight-but-for-what\/","title":{"rendered":"Fight, But For What?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

     \u201cBut he fights\u201d was a common refrain from many of the decibilically vociferous calls in the MAGA movement, and it is a sentiment raucously championed by many on the \u201cnew right\u201d, or as some call themselves, the \u201ccommon good conservatives\u201d, \u201cnational conservatives\u201d, or simply those who aren\u2019t<\/em> the so-called \u201cconservatives\u201d. Indeed many, if not most, of these individuals bemoan \u201cprinciples\u201d (a word they treat as a pejorative) and blame people who hold them in the current political climate for being the \u201csurrender caucus\u201d who insist on \u201cfighting with one hand tied behind their back\u201d, assuming they are not outright accused of treason and only wanting to \u201cgo to cocktail parties\u201d. \u00a0 That this is shortsighted will become evident, if it isn\u2019t already, but it is also historically illiterate, and while ignorance is never an excuse, that some know better but repeat the \u201cfighting\u201d trope does them no favor. When you hear what their fighting plan is, it usually involves the \u201cunderpants gnomes<\/a>\u201d logic (without the manifest sensibility):<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Fight!!1!<\/li>\n
  2. ???<\/li>\n
  3. Hear the lamentations of their women (or some transgender\/feminist variation thereof).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

         This, of course, ignores the question, for which your humble author begs, so as to speak, of \u201cwhat then\u201d? \u00a0 This is the question that seems perpetually side-stepped. Yes, you fight for victory, but what is that victory beyond the defeat of the enemy a la mode<\/em>?<\/p>\n

         Much of the argument that justifies \u201cfighting\u201d by tossing aside all rules and principles, is that they will be able to fight with full force against an enemy who is not bound by the rules that the \u201cfighters\u201d seem to want to break. First of all, this is fallacious on its face. The actual rule of law, even if bent, bruised, ignored, avoided, or poked to sieve still stands, and not only provides a way back from those on the Left would erase, but a perpetual obstacle to them that clarifies what<\/em> we must protect and why <\/em>it is so important to protect it, but also who<\/em> we must defend it against. The enemy wants<\/em> those principles destroyed. Indeed, that is their main goal, and those disdained principles<\/em> now face a co-belligerent against them, abet in the name of the policy or cultural consequences that those principles<\/em> birthed, or at least midwifed. Why, if you defend principle<\/a>s, you\u2019d almost be accused of siding with the devil\u2026<\/p>\n

    \nhttps:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/A-Man-for-All-Seasons-The-Devil-Speech.mp4<\/a><\/video><\/div>\n

    <\/p>\n

         Increasingly, the \u201cnew right\u201d, or whatever appellation or nomenclature is preferred, seem to agree about what<\/em> must fundamentally be destroyed in order to get at the very real secular devil of the Left. What then? \u00a0 Ah, there is that question again. \u00a0 Many on the Left believe that absent the \u201cculture war\u201d of the right, or other \u201creactionary barriers\u201d imposed now and\/or in the past, human society will spontaneously create a utopia, as it was before the dreaded \u201cKyriarchs<\/a>\u201d came and invented capitalism, biological sex, race, cis-heteronormativity, &c. Others on the Left believe that some assembly will be required<\/a>, but that ultimately those with the correct thinking can act as intelligent designers<\/em> who can build a superlative society from scratch<\/a> if need be. Increasingly, many on the purported right seem to think they can get rid of the prinicples<\/em> upon which America is founded<\/a> and once their policy\/cultural goals are met, either their on eschaton will have been immanentized or they can recreate fundamental principles at will\u2026 or at least the consequences of those principles without needing the prinicples; this is, fundamentally, Leftist<\/em> thinking, and not the last we\u2019ll see of that.<\/p>\n

         They see the only solution to the Lefts machinations is an equal and opposite reaction, much like how Ibrim X. Kendi views “anti-racist” as necessary to eliminate “racism”.\u00a0\u00a0 And much like this nouveau Marxist view they believe that their enemy will disappear, or baring that, will require a permanent revolution and search for Mensheviks to attack. Kendi also saw non-racism as a form or subset of racism, and that you had to be anti-racist or racist; similarly the “fighters” on the right believe that if you aren’t fighting with out principles or constraint then you are proactively supporting the Left by supporting their domination via the Gramscian march. Thus not only principles, but fundamental rights and the rule of law become enemies to be crushed by “will to power”.<\/p>\n

         But is the manichean view of \u201cprincipled surrender\u201d vs<\/em>. \u201cfighting unbounded by rules\u201d a true dichotomy, or simply a rhetorical trick and false-dilemma fallacy that advocates of the later used to emotionally drive people to their side? Ironically, it is the actions they champion of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis that demonstrates that the manichean is indeed truly fallacious.<\/p>\n

         DeSantis not only pushed through a redistricting plan that no not only favored the Republicans, but did so in a way that resulted in compact districts that at a glance once can ascertain to look fair. As with many other states that are battling Critical Race Theory and \u201cgender\/sexuality ideology\u201d that is being imposed at younger and younger ages, the Florida Republicans passed a bill\u2014decried quite falsely as the \u201cdon\u2019t say gay\u201d bill\u2014that restricts the ability of increasingly woke credentialed teachers in public schools to push their indoctrination, and did so against the might of woke corporations such as Disney, which have been \u201cskinsuited\u201d by exponentially crazed Leftist lunatics. All of this was indeed fighting against the Left, but it was also done with principles<\/em> and in defense of longstanding rules of law.<\/p>\n

         However, for some, that isn\u2019t goal. Victory isn\u2019t<\/em> the goal, but simply for some the excuse to \u201chear the lamentations of their women\u201d. The ball must be spiked in the end zone, and those who dared legally<\/em> oppose this victory must be made an example out of. To this end, Florida unilaterally revoked the special district which greatly benefited Disney as punishment for their speaking out against those in power. This \u201cvictory\u201d was hallow and the principles that allowed the real victories was tossed aside for that thrill of a brief emotional rush and quick shot of political Heroin\u2122. It was superficially<\/a> legal, in large part because it hid specific mention by peculiarly and narrowly tailoring an allegedly neutral general law until it only applied to a single target.<\/p>\n

         Some may argue that this is indeed within the rule of law because those who rule made the law. \u00a0 But this blatantly contradicts one of the things that make the rule of law in America truly\u2026 American<\/em>: We do not have as a principle, and more often than not in practice, those\u2014selection by whatever means\u2014who rule over<\/em> others, but rather those who govern under<\/em> the law, including the Constitution, longstanding precedent, and foundational principles that hold America far above others in a manifestly exceptional way.<\/p>\n

         This then, is the view held my many, that to avoid \u201csoy boys\u201d who surrender, we must be \u201cmuscular\u201d and by sheer manly willpower<\/a> defeat their enemies. Or, to put it another way: \u201cThis is a perfect example of the kind of fighting Right now required: a Right, that is, which is willing to wield political power in muscular fashion to reward friends and punish enemies within the confines of the rule of law.\u201d So, why give the Devil the benefit of the law?<\/p>\n

    \n

    \u201cGovernment policy toward individuals and businesses should be neutral to whether or not those in government agree or disagree with a given person or entity. Conservatives cheering on the idea of the government splitting the populace into friends and enemies should also recognize that there are times when they will end up as enemies of the state.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

         This is why principles<\/em> in governance exist and why it is so important to not toss them aside: \u201cIt contradicts the purpose of the rule of law<\/a>.<\/em>\u201d The entire purpose is to, as much as possible, take government out of the equation and prevent it being used as a tool. There is too great a temptation, a real-life version of Sauron\u2019s ring that could corrupt even a good Hobbit.<\/p>\n

         Your humble author is fully with DeSantis with his redistricting plan and the falsely so-called \u201cdon\u2019t say gay\u201d bill. I am believe that corporate wokeness in Disney is a problem and that it is a cultural war that we must fight and win. Heck, your humble author also believes that special districts like the one Disney had shouldn\u2019t exist.<\/p>\n

         What is horrible governance and government action is to specifically target a company for punishment, despite even an accusation of a crime, because they advocated for a political position you don\u2019t like.<\/p>\n

         And no, there isn\u2019t a manichean choice between supporting government being able to target companies for supporting what they don\u2019t like, and supporting the company and those things it supports.<\/p>\n

         Doubtful that almost any person supporting this action would support a blue state from targeting a company that advocated the opposite position as Disney over pro-woke educational legislation.<\/p>\n

         If they wanted to limit the scope of these \u201cspecial districts\u201d, they could have done that in a truly general way, and that would have been good governance and good policy. Instead, they tailored the change in law in such a way that it only effected a single targeted company without specifically naming that company to get around myriad restrictions against bill of attainder level shenanigans. Plenty of states and local governments do this all the time, and it ought to be opposed because no government ought to be attacking or stripping protections of anyone under a general sounding peculiarly tailored law, rule, or regulation.<\/p>\n

         Using Florida\u2019s increasingly large population and K-12 school enrollment to pressure schoolbook publishers<\/a> to dump woke idiocy is another example of the state acting with principles<\/em> yet nonetheless fighting. Since those school books of wokeness would be imposed through the state via<\/em> it\u2019s education system, it is right to tell those companies to \u201cshape up or ship out\u201d when it came to academic quality; that these schoolbook makers will be changing those books, for cost-effective reasons, for jurisdictions outside Florida (as both California and Texas have done) is a consequence of principles, not despite them.<\/p>\n

         One of the major and core elements of American civics and rights is the tenet that the government is always the greatest threat and that non-governmental shenanigans are a small price to pay to keep the government in check. Some on the purported right, however, agree with the Left that evil corporations are the greater threat and that the government must take sides against their enemies… never once considering that they might be considered the evil to be crushed.<\/p>\n

         The purpose of conservatism is to help protect against short term follies that seemed like a good idea at the time. It is this purpose that many on the purported right seem to disdain as much, if nor more so, than the Left. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.<\/p>\n

         Oh, there are examples of the \u201csurrender caucus\u201d who disagree with anti-CRT bills or bill aimed against \u201cqueer\u201d school lessons, such as from Gabriel Malor or David French. \u00a0 And while your humble author does<\/em> indeed believe that said individuals are wrong, it does but show in contrast that there are many principled<\/em> conservatives who support such things but oppose the almost cartoonish caricatures of Conan or Thundarr.<\/p>\n

         Anti-discrimination and anti-harassment laws in businesses exist. Declaring, rightly, that DEI, CRT, or the imposition of “gender” madness to be discriminatory and\/or harassment is indeed principled and effective.<\/p>\n

         Oh, that claim of \u201cfighting with one arm tied behind the back\u201d is one that does not hold up to scrutiny. The basis of this claim is that we play by the rules but that the other side does not, and that therefore we should not play by any restrictive rules either. This view is akin to that of the Left\u2019s \u201cSystems of Oppression\u201d supported by \u201cbase\/superstructure\u201d interaction that can only be solved by \u201cliquidating\u201d the enemy as a class. Yes, where have we heard such logic before?<\/p>\n

         Perhaps one of the more astute defenders<\/a> of the falsely labeled \u201csurrender caucus\u201d puts it better:<\/p>\n