The story to the best of my knowledge starts out like this, Mark Levin has a caller whom he tells, "Well I don't know why your husband doesn't put a gun to his temple. Get the hell out of here." Conor Friedersdorf, the lover of wolves or hound-lover, and by some accounts a co-founder of the now defunct semi-conservative Culture 11 (?), happens upon this little segment and gets his panties in a wad.
Rod Dreher of The Crunchy Con, decided to take a ride with Friedersdorf. He goes on the offense because of his offense concerning Levin's behavior and poor choice of words. In all fairness, Dreher is an EXTREMELY bright but thoroughly misguided conservative. He seems to be more apt at sitting in a coffee shop impressing young college Christians with his poetic musings on religiosity than tackling some of today's more vitriolic political situations.
Now enter one Robert Stacy McCain, he is also available for freelance assignments, communications consulting, public speaking engagements, karaoke parties, weddings, birthdays and bar-mitzvahs.
A little background on Stacy. Stacy's writings leave you with the impression of a very well educated and hilarious Southern populist who is bent on destroying the DC foundation of elitism from the basement up. I have had the pleasure of talking with Stacy on two occasions and he personally left me with the perception of a guy who could sit around in a sleeveless T-shirt, barbecuing, drinking a Bud, capable of discussing the nuances of Hayek's theory on money and economic fluctuations or how the progenitorial line of Western politics can be traced back to Plato, then switch topic to why Alabama had the top recruiting team of 09'and LSU didn't. (Feck Bama, Saban is a traitor to the cause.)
With all of this in mind, McCain jumped into the fray and took Dreher, a favorite target of his, to task. And somewhat ruthlessly I might add. The last statement of his post, before updates, truthfully sets the tone for McCain's problems with Dreher,Friedersdorf, and their ilk.
The Other McCain-This is not debate club. The Democrats are not interested in "civil discourse," and your fearful hand-wringing is worse than useless in the present situation. read more...For the integrity of this post, I am a frequent reader and fan of both The Crunchy Con and The Other McCain. Conversely, I am not a fan of Levin, or talk radio for that matter, nor do I have any intention of reading his book. However, a guilty pleasure is listening to Limbaugh from time to time just to see what the lovable fur-ball is up to. The reason I am bringing up all the caterwauling for is it's emblematic of the rift within the GOP at higher levels.
Using the dynamics of history and applying it to the present course the GOP, we see a once great principality falling on hard times. Rather than a parliamentary coalition binding together against a Jacobin progressive movement you are left with small city states and fiefdoms engaging in the inane and futile game of, "Who has the biggest balls." Each side is trying to ratchet control with faux elitist indignity or populist relevance because each believes they have the proper strategy. Wrong answer.
Like any war you need your military philosophers, historians, and policy makers. It is from them we learn about past mistakes and successes and how you can apply proper strategy to modern day political battles and attain victory. In terms of the body politic, the absence of true and honest thinkers will give you nothing more than outraged disorganized conservatives run amuck, a non-violent Reign of Terror if you will. ( To any detractors, I am well aware that it was the thinkers and philosophers that Burke blamed for the Reign of Terror. That is why there I threw in the exegetic statement, "true and honest thinkers." Rousseau and the boys were none of that.)
But you also need your foot-soldiers and grunts on the ground. Without them applying these theories in real world engagements, you are left with nothing more than a bunch moribund conservative bloggers crying about the descent of Western democracy into an Orwellian hellhole of democratic socialism.
If these rifts aren't bridged by principled and wise people and a coalition formed, what impression of the Republican party are the American people left with? From my perspective I see a group of people whom cannot run themselves --other than into in the ground-- let alone a country that will be in dreadful need of positive, creative, intelligent, and wise leadership. Until this is settled, crunchy-cons, moderate-cons, neo-cons, paleo-cons, libertarian-cons, far-right cons, and any other con I forgot to mention will be left with a big progressive footprint on their backs from getting ground into the dust bin of history.
This little lesson on the mathematics of political victories has been brought to you by an unknown, middle-brow, Burkean conservative, with none of the academic or job related credentials that many of the above mentioned blogger/writers possess. This is my caveat to you.
On a parting note, if you don't think you have the street cred to make your own observations, always keep the words of Niccolo Machiavelli in mind, "There are three kinds of intelligence: one kind understands things for itself, the other appreciates what others can understand, the third understands neither for itself nor through others. This first kind is excellent, the second good, and the third kind useless." Where do you fit in?
Related Articles: Richard Spencer, a supercilious gas-bag and also part of the extraneous Alternative Right movement, gives an almost palatable sitrep on the whole situation over at Taki's Mag. Those darn Paleo's, lol.