Skip to content

From the Pen of David Horowitz: September 19, 2009

September 19, 2009

david_p

During the Cold War, the Republican coalition was unified in the face of the Soviet threat. But the Cold War is over, and maintaining this unity is far more difficult. Republicans need to remind themselves that America’s security is still at risk and that its constitutional order is threatened by a political left whose values remain socialist and whose agendas are subversive.

In the election, only 1% of Republicans defected to the Buchanan candidacy compared to 3% of Democrats who voted for Nader. Without this superior Republican unity, the Republican candidate would have lost.

All political campaigns are about forming and maintaining majority coalitions. The very diversity of the electorate means that the success of national campaigns depends on a united political front. For the Republican Party, achieving this unity is not easy. Its coalition embraces amazing diversity—conservatives and moderates, secularists and religionists, moral absolutists and agnostic libertarians (a fact for which Republicans rarely get the credit they deserve).

The Art of Political War

If you have a favorite Horowitz quote you want to highlight for others then please email it to DavidSwindle {@} Gmail.com. Please include:

  1. “Horowitz Quote of the Day” in subject line.
  2. A link to where the quote is from. (No need to include this if it’s from a book.)
  3. Any remarks you’d like published explaining what value you take from it.
  4. Your preferred name and a link to your blog or homepage (if you have one.)

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

About these ads
5 Comments
  1. September 19, 2009 9:25 am

    The abandenment of Poles and the rest of europe-on the same anniversary of Hitlersattacking Poland-was that done by our goverment with malice aforthought or just ignorance . Eather way is frightening. We are being destroyed every day piece by piece, in the country and across the seas. Where will this end?

  2. Cas Balicki permalink
    September 19, 2009 10:17 am

    I have puzzled over this coalition building for a while now. Here are my questions. Unfortunately, I don’t have many answers.

    There is no question that groups exert more power than individuals when it comes to the democratic process, which is the principle reason why the US is a republic and not a democracy. Yet, the larger the group the less cohesive it is and, as far as guiding principles are concerned, the more poorly defined in its ambitions. Which brings me to my first question: Given the large US electorate, some number greater than 100 million based on the last national voter turnout, how is that same electorate assured that the election results do not approach random in a statistical sense?

    We are told, and I personally believe, that elections are important because of their consequence. Yet, if the size of the electorate dictates a result approaching random, is the electorate ever right or wrong in the sense that it reinforces meaningful policy as opposed to meaningless popularity? When George W. Bush won re-election with a 53% plurality, the mainstream media harped on the fact that he did not have a mandate. In other words his dearth of popularity eroded his plurality in the eyes of the minority. Today the reverse is true in that the numbers are reversed and the Media is covering for a President while the people, seemingly the majority if polls are any indication, are out in droves protesting his plurality. All of which raises the question: How many of us, in the electorate that is, truly have the ken to correctly asses the politicians offering themselves up to be our leaders? I ask this in the full knowledge that the current president has been more chimera than leader throughout his political career.

    We are comfortable with the idea that people know what is best for themselves as individuals. We therefore take comfort in the notion of collective self-interest as a guide to national interest. But, what if collective self-interest is only another way of describing randomness in large electoral bodies? What if collective self-interest has nothing to do with the “right” response to any particular policy issue? Being a democrat (note the small ‘d’) in the truest sense of the word, I have to bow to the will of the electorate, even when it decides to elect a despicable empty suit more popular then than now. I suppose that all my life I have been uncomfortable with popularity as a basis for anything, let alone as the basis for our most important organization, government. Anyway, I’m not sure there are any answers to these questions, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be asked.

  3. September 19, 2009 12:20 pm

    SAD TO SAY THIS SCENARIO HAS TO PLAY ITSELF OUT! THERE”S NO VOICE OF REASON GUIDING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, WAS IT “DURBIN” WHO SAID “CAP AND TRADE” IS NOTHING BUT A TAX (SAID,BY HIM IN A MUFFLED TONE). WAS IT CONYERS WHO SUGGERSTED AN INVESTIGATION OF ACORN TILL SOMEONE PULLED HIS EAR. IT”S TIME FOR ME TO PUT MY NIGHT CAP ON AND GET SOME REST.

    SEE YOU IN THE NEWS
    TOMAS

  4. Jim Strong permalink
    September 19, 2009 5:44 pm

    Diversity……well,…DIVIDES. Extensive diversifications make coalitions and unity all but impossible. A two party system encompassing EVERYTHING between them with confusing political crossovers, focusses effectively on…..NOTHING. Neither party is to be congratulated, or the advocates of multiculturalism either. America was not envisioned by multiculturalists, and, never would have succeeded if it had been envisioned by them.

    The result of multiculturalism is effectively complete diversification. Now leaders think of transnational, supranational ‘political holding institutions’ to replace focus and order so dispersed at the nation-state level. (Obama a current advocate for World Regulation). There is NO precedent for a world institution operating with success and acceptance by all. The UN is a quite inappropriate turning kaleidoscope of confusion and misdirection. The Tower of Babel was quite enough, and quite forgotten or ignored by modern dreamers.

  5. Cas Balicki permalink
    September 19, 2009 8:37 pm

    What most advocates of multiculturalism fail to recognize is that in order for a multicultural society to survive, and yes, even thrive, that society must have a coalescing set of central principles such as those listed in a bill of rights or a constitution. Sadly, these are generally the first principles ignored or even abused as a hindrance by those pursuing a multicultural agenda. You can see such abuse in the demand for veiled drivers’ licence photos or in demands to curb press freedoms should the press dare to criticize or lampoon some minority’s sacred cow. The attack on those coalescing principles is always subtle, but it almost always takes the same form, the loud proclamation that all cultures are equal and only rubes believe otherwise.

    In general, such a proclamation of equality is not a problem when it comes to the promotion of ethnic foods, costumes, concerts, and dances. Any that have ever stopped at a Starbucks for a cappuccino or heard a police pipe band have participated in a multicultural event. What proves the undoing of the all-cultures-are-equal meme is the very real occurrence of antidemocratic and at times atavistic cultural tendencies. These tendencies are, for the most part, brushed aside by multicultural advocates with the banality that all cultures homogenize over time, and consequently pose no threat to the dominant mono-culture. All this is is a nice way of saying that in time Muslim fanatics will stop performing clitoridectomies on little girls. On closer inspection this attempt to assuage those unenamoured of multiculturalism by suggesting that in the long run they have nothing to worry about is so illogical as to destroy the argument for multiculturalism in the first instance. For surely if all cultures in a multicultural environment homogenize over time then it is best to advance that homogeneity with the strong advocacy of a mono-culture if for no other reason than to spare ourselves generations of living in a culturally turbulent limbo.

    But, I suppose that’s not the point of the multicultural argument. From my perspective the point of western multiculturalism’s attack on western mono-culture is to undermine the confidence of those advancing the case for mono-culture. If these advocates lack the confidence to insist on maintaining the tie to founding principles, then they are more easily defeated by those advancing the destruction of those selfsame founding principles.

    The reality is that not all cultures are equal, especially when it comes to guaranteeing freedoms. Protecting those freedoms requires that we argue from a position of confidence, nothing else matters.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 26 other followers