Wednesday, May 6, 2015

"Outlaw Strategy"The Most Important Political Strategy For Conservatives Ever?

If Ace of Spades Bob Belvedere's The Camp of The Saints and (at least, and a plethora of comments in the comment section) all refer to the same article, then something significant is afoot.

I reproduce below what I think is the core of the article as presented at “The Camp Of The Saints” and add my thoughts as a postscript.I have highlighted in red those sentences which have particular insights for me.

"So?…Eff Off’ — The Outlaw Strategy

04 MAY 2015 @ 14:17
And when your opponents are making the rules, you are necessarily playing their game.
To put it more forcefully, it is a fact of language that once you surrender the grounds for meaning to those who would presume to determine your meaning for you, you are at their mercy….
Jeff Goldstein
Well…it’s nice to see someone else finally gets it [tip of the fedora to Instapundit via Ernst Schreiber]:
So what’s the solution? The solution is “eff off”.
We have to stop granting the left, and especially the activist left, the SJW types, the courtesy of treating them as if they are legitimate. We need to tell them to eff off. We need to stop debating and start dismissing. Most of what they are saying is so stupid and flimsy that it NEEDS the prop of our treating it seriously to lend it the mantle of legitimacy.
Now obviously I’m not talking about treating serious policy or foreign affairs issues cavalierly. Of course adult subjects need to be treated in an adult manner. There is so much clutter and noise over stupid, inconsequential shit that we need to stop wasting our time responding to it. The entire point of most of this stuff is to keep us distracted and to maneuver us into a position where we can be cast as haters or villains.
All of this stuff stems from three impulses:
1) A desire to assume unearned moral superiority – I’m better than you
2) A desire to assume unearned prominence – I’m more important than you
3) A desire for attention – Look at me! Aren't I special?
That’s what they’re looking for. Don’t give it to them. Don’t play their game, refuse to acknowledge that their game even exists. I just realized it right this second, but this is exactly what Breitbart did, and it drove them NUTS!…
Maybe Weirddave will have better luck than Jeff, Andrew Breitbart, and yours truly trying to get the message about this strategy across to enough conservatives to bloody matter.
Call it The Outlaw Strategy.

And what then is the practical application of this "Outlaw Strategy"? Firstly, it is not so simple. For me this means completely and utterly not responding in any comment section of a blog or mainstream media outlet to anything, anything at all, the left says no matter how big the lie no matter how provocative.

This would mean a level of self-discipline in the political arena that I have never been able to achieve, although I must admit I respond less now as the comments seem to be more and more idiotic and preposterous and thus any rational response is a waste of time. It would also mean the end of a degree of pleasure as, on occasion, I have enjoyed taking the mickey out the idiots.

What would be the result if conservatives did not jump into the comment section? The point about "legitimization through dialogue" would find its positive conclusion as the comments sections would be a morass of idiots talking to themselves. It may be said that to do this would allow the left to spread any vile untruths they wish, but that would be a temporary phenomenon as the public would see that comment sections were just shouting boards for one point of view, and a distorted one at that, and any fair minded readers would soon abandon such venues.

This "eff off" concept, to be truly effective, would also apply to conservative blogs where writers respond to leftist journalists/bloggers to refute the lies and distortion emanating from those sources. 

This would take an even higher level of discipline as these leftists would be opinion makers and well know activists, and to ignore them might be seen as legitimizing them even more than dialogue with them does.

But, over time, if there were no legitimizing dialogue/responses (including on Twitter where the temptation to deliver a swift metaphorical kick is almost irresistible) the the leftist media would be seen as simply partisan, un-legitimized by dialogue, with a comment section of, mostly, idiots.

Yes, where major matters of policy; war and peace, economics, the social sphere, need to be dialogued they should be, but only with genuine exponents of a reasoned view from the center and center left which dialogue should be courteous and analytically presented.

Ace and Bob and Instapundit have discovered what I believe is a major step forward for conservatives. 

That these three major thinkers all arrived at the same conclusion independently shows the novelty and import of the idea, and I commend it to be dispersed further afield. 

To be put into practice would, clearly, go against the grain for many and involve a new way of thinking and a huge amount of self disciple, especially in the early stages. But if undertaken it may be a major breakthrough in delegitimizing the left so they have to stand on the own feet, and show their ideas have their own validity, which, in the main will be seen to be an impossible task.

As for myself I have taken a political vow of abstinence and will not visit any left or MSM site/blog's comment section. It's a start and I am sure this cold turkey detox will pay dividends not least in mind cleansing. Let them rant and gibber, lie and connive, curse and rail, I am happy not to tell them to "eff off" but to ignore them altogether. 

UPDATE; Comments on the above concept (posted a C4P);

  • Ann Barnhardt recently explored a corollary of this argument. She despairs of political conversation because the Left always begins with a set of FALSE PREMISES. This requires a lengthy and tedious addressing of basic premises underlying Progressive argumentation. You can't just address their argument you have to address the basic facts and reality of the ground on which they build an argument:
    "And when you have to not just rebut conclusions, but the very premises those conclusions are built upon; when every single conversation, argument or exchange requires total remediation of the base premise, and no matter how many times you do this, no progress ever seems to be made… it gets tiring."
    An example of this kind of argumentation would be Obama's opening premise of every argument on so-called climate change: "The scientific case is closed. All serious scientists agree that........."
    You are forced by his made up facts to tediously uproot this basic FALSE PREMISE. By the time you consult AUTHORITY to buttress your challenging of Obama's False Premises the 24/7 news cycle has moved on.
    The key to frustrating the Progressive Left is to challenge their False Premises. Ask for their authority. Don't even bother wrestiling with their conclusions. Their conclusions are junk food for low information voter consumption. Based on junk premises about reality.

      • Avatar

        In other words, go on offense.
        Come forward with bold practical solutions and rally support for them.
        Don't sit around worried that you'll be called racist-sexist-homophobe, because you will no matter what. So if you're gonna go down, go down swinging.
        I hope that's exactly what we have in store in about a month or so from Wasilla.

        • Avatar

          I agree. In fact it seems too easy for so-called conservative writers to dive into the drivel published by the leftists. It's harder to make essays based on original true observations or statements. Some independent and thoughtful writers do avoid that trap. Victor Davis Hanson and Mark Steyn are two of the best. Thus, try to follow their process and write from experience and insight rather than as just a reaction to the latest leftist screed.

        No comments: