Yes, it is possible to have a big tent party that is so big that ultimately it stands for nothing and then collapses under it’s own weight and yes, having a degree of ideological boundaries being set is required because if there is no philosophy that binds the party together then you end up with a disorganised mess with nothing unifying the party when the party is given the opportunity to govern. This is the reason why I’ve said in the past that the whole MAGA movement is a movement based on vibes not something that has come about because of a coherent policy platform guided by some underlying philosophy but a political opportunist who mobilised people based on a grab bag of collective grievances by scapegoating minorities but offering no real solutions. Long story short, rather than those who voted Republican voting based on policies they voted based on the opportunity to punch down and feel as though they have some sense of power by virtue of being on the ‘winning side’.
Ben Shapiro (as seen in the video below) is now just finding out the hard way what happens when you put winning ahead of actually standing for something – this is what happens when you convince yourself that bringing in the cranks, the crazies, the racists, the conspiracy theorists then act surprised when the lunatics are now wanting to take over the party. I’m sorry Ben but you thought you could control the lunatics, that you could use these voters who vote based on vibes to get into power and that they will just fall inline and stick to the party line but now you’re finding out that vibes based voters don’t actually believe anything – if they can easily convinced to vote for political opportunists then they’re just as easily convinced into going further right.
I’ve had my own fair share of criticisms when it comes to the whole ‘cancel culture’ where what someone said 15 years ago on a twitter account is resurrected by some cyber Karen so then they can talk about how they were offended (they’re not actually offended but it is an easy vehicle for someone to make themselves the centre of attention) and use that claim of being ‘offended’ to try to acquire some sort of power. This power that such individuals crave is only possible if we as a society give it to them – when businesses capitulate to the mob then they’ve given power to the mob that they didn’t have any in the first place (other than their capacity to make noise – then again an empty can with a single rock can make a lot of noise when thrown down some concrete stairs) where as if every person and organisation stood up to the noisy mob they would quickly realise that their commotions and temper-tantrums won’t result in them getting the power they want.
Anyway, getting back on topic again, at some point you have to to be willing to not only engage in self criticism but also willing to clearly state where the line is drawn between what is within the boundaries of the party and what resides outside it. Saying that there is a line that shall not be crossed isn’t ‘cancelling’ or ‘purity testing’ but simply setting the boundaries of where the limits of the party reside, what your party believes in and what position that are outside of the philosophy that underpins the party. Yes, you can have diversity within the conservative moment for example when it comes to same sex marriage (yes, there is a conservative argument in favour of it) or limited government, free trade or even if affirmative action is beneficial or counter productive but when you have someone praising certain dictators then it should be a pretty easy decision to clearly state that said person is outside what is considered acceptable to be a member of the party.
Although I am using Ben Shapiro as a launching point I don’t blame him personally for what has happened to the Republican Party because the origins go back over 60 years to the ‘southern strategy’ that bought disillusioned Dixiecrats over to the Republican Party post-Civil Rights Act. Then there was the co-opting of the religious right who had similar grievances post-Civil Rights Act and then you had the anti-USSR hawks, the Wall Street, Libertarians and a few random assortments thrown in for good luck. In other words you have a coalition of different groups with conflicting interests who battle each other for supremacy in the party. That isn’t to say things are rosey in the Democratic Party but at least they’re willing to say “this is beyond the pale” and don’t invite them on to use their platform to amplify what they have to say or the various factions in the Democratic Party broadly agree that making life better for the middle class should be a goal but there are different ways of getting there with the compromise being something the different factions can live with.
This fracturing of the party and the end result of Nick Fluentes being mainstreamed by Republican leaning or identifying hosts is the inevitable evolution of the decision that was made 60 years ago – creating a broad base but ultimately nothing that binds the party other other than ‘we hate the Democrats’ and the problem is with the ‘we hate the Democrats’ being used to hold the party together is that once you get into power nothing is achieved because everyone is infighting because no one can agree on anything other than giving tax cuts to the rich while making empty gestures about being greatly concerned regarding the public debt and deficit (aka the Susan Collins of politics – voice’s that she is very concerned but not concerned enough to do something about it).
Matisyahu's Blog 