The kind of victory that brings defeat is a Pyrrhic Victory. I’m going to discuss a few things before I show you why that idea is important to the general flow of American politics. This thought train was inspired by a discussion at What If They Gave A Revolution And You Didn’t Show Up?
A classic military principle is to go after the weakest member of a coalition. The reason for this is that relative military strength is a non-linear function. Doubling the size of your army more than doubles your relative power. However, if you can isolate and defeat a segment of an enemy’s support you subtract considerably from their total power. We see this in politics all the time. It doesn’t matter if your guy got a million votes if the other guy wound up with a million and one. It might as well have been a million and one to zero. Quite a reduction in power from just one vote. In close situations you don’t have to peel off much support to cause a change in outcomes.
So how are things divided up (more or less) in the American political space? Generally accepted values for the current major political divisions are 20% liberals and 40% conservatives. With the remaining 40% split among several other idea constellations including a significant libertarian contingent. In my anything but humble opinion (every day I get told how arrogant I am – thanks for the compliments) the 20% tend for the most part to be Economic Socialists and the 40% tend towards Moral Socialism. Nanny staters all. Don’t believe me? It is discussed in detail in the comments at Why Did Social Conservatives Ally With Progressives? You can also check out a similar exposition at On Marijuana, Social Conservatives Trend Statist with a commenter suggesting this book:
Starving the Monkeys: Fight Back Smarter
Since the end of Alcohol Prohibition the two groups have divided their functions in seeming opposition to each other. The liberal/Progressive side handles the Economic Socialism and the Social Conservatives handle the Moral Socialism. Very convenient.
What does the Conservative Coalition look like? It consists of social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. If the fiscal conservatives win the day (that looks very likely) and the Democrats go (are forced) in that direction then the only thing left to fight over will be the nanny state addictions of the Right. Consider: When the Progressives get defeated they are going to be pissed. Economics and size of government are now off the table (when it comes to increases). So what will be on the table? The social improvement projects of the right. And the defeated will go after them with a vengeance and they can get the fiscal conservatives (smaller government) types on their side without too much effort – no Drug War means smaller government after all.
Once you destroy the economic underpinning of the nanny state the moral underpinnings will not hold up well at all. Moral improvement (the support of black markets, gangs, and criminals) is not cheap. Once economic socialism is gone the people will turn on the nanny staters of the right. The death of Economic Socialism will lead to the death of Moral Socialism. I don’t think the reverse order would work. For sure not as well.
The new rule should be: No victim no crime. Ah what about society as a victim? Did you say society? Isn’t concern for the welfare of society (rather than the liberty of individuals) socialism? Interesting thought that. See how long you can hold it.
And while you are holding that thought think of this: the defeat of the Economic Socialists will then lead to the defeat of the Moral Socialists with libertarians being the ultimate victors. In other words a victory over the Economic Socialists will be a Pyrrhic Victory for the Moral Socialists. Which I suppose why the Moral Socialists don’t trust me. They know that ultimately I am no friend despite our current alliance. Ultimately I’m a friend of Liberty. The more the better. Within the limits of the other guy’s nose of course.
My motto: First Hitler then Stalin. And to get Hitler I will ally with Stalin. How much more Machiavellian
Balance of power politics played for the long game. I’m all in.
Cross Posted at Power and Control
Victory Will Bring Defeat
by
Tags:
Comments
24 responses to “Victory Will Bring Defeat”
Also see Eric’s
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2011/02/im_totally_for.html
for some related thoughts.
What worries me is that the moral socialists will be willing to take a different kind of pyrrhic victory. By refusing to vote for anyone who isn’t a social conservative, they get to feel smug when the libertarian-leaning types lose (and the economic socialists win).
Excellent topical post which definitely merits more discussion.
We have some problems of definition, however.
First of all, Socialism is not only a politicaleconomic program. As Oswald Spengler pointed out, our modern civilization is always socialist in that individuals are considered discrete entities in a larger space and community. We are all “socialists”. Some believe that the individual’s interaction with the community should be determined as much as possible by the discrete individual and not by an autocratic government (whether in the form of a ruler or democratic “society”) – but this is a difference of means, not ends.
Second, there is no coalition of “social conservatives” and “progressives”. These are all progressives. The overwhelming majority of those active in Western politics in any way are progressives. It is after all the winning team. Those who are not progressive do not typically win, or at least not for very long. In fact all these people are “social progressives” to one extent or another. They may have different end results in mind, but in practice all want to “help” the human community to “progress” to some idealized end result which differs from the status quo. All libertarians, for example, are progressives. A libertarian society has never existed; thus it is impossible to “regress” to or “conserve” libertarianism – it can only be achieved through “progress”.
Third, there is no such thing as an “economic conservative” who is not a “social conservative”. Economic action requires social interaction; all economic “conservatism” is a subset of the social sphere. To separate the two is impossible. The illusion of separation is easily explained by the fact that neither the “social conservative” nor the “economic conservative” is in fact conservative at all.
The true social conservative is a traditionalist. He is against any progress towards some sociopolitical utopia, of which libertarian anarchy and nanny-state socialism are merely two different versions. The conservative merely desires to preserve previously established values and traditions as much as possible. Why? Because a wise man does not rip up the planks of a boat floating in the ocean “because it might have been put together better.” Because traditions which have lasted for generations have demonstrably worked, given that the conservative is alive and able to witness them. The conservative recognizes that the perfect is the enemy of the good. And, as Chesteron explained, to one who who believes the individual has value as an individual, itself an old and important Western tradition, tradition is the ‘democracy’ of those individuals who happen to no longer be living. (Like “socialism”, “democracy” encompasses a much greater idea than the political system which bears its name – which itself is not necessarily at all ‘democratic’.)
So let’s re-examine Matthew Jarzen’s claim. Perhaps it is true that the ‘social’ conservatives he sees do not represent the GOP, but to the extent they really are conservative then in fact they of course do represent ‘conservatives’ as a whole. It is in fact Jarzen and those like him, who want to overthrow generations of social tradition, who are not very conservative. Now of course there is nothing on the face of it wrong with this idea, and there may well be traditions which, though they have accompanied civilization through the generations, need to be overthrown. But such an approach is certainly not “conservative” and neither Jarzen nor anyone else should be using that label to describe himself or his comrades.
If one wants to study and discuss “conservativism” it should be necessary to note concretely that which is to be “conserved”. The simplest way to do this would be to pick a year in the past which one would like to emulate in the present. 1989? 1866? 1789? 1689? But of course this is too simple. Would a conservative want to conserve the growing abolitionist tendencies of 1789, or would this be ignored because it was not mainstream enough at the time? The conservative cannot afford to apply, will-he-nil-he, modern moral values to pre-existing traditions in order to justify throwing out those traditions. This, after all, would be progressivism.
Thus it is almost impossible to form a true “conservative coalition”. The conservatives naturally will argue over what is to be conserved, since defining that which is to be conserved is of existential importance to the conservative. On the other hand, a Progressive Coalition is naturally easy to form: all Progressives agree first and foremost that the status quo ante must be changed, and many progressives of diverse opinion can easily ally to overthrow the present order and save for later the secondary argument regarding what new order should replace the old. It should be quite obvious to any rational observer of Western sociopolitical history that this is exactly the path which progressives have taken over the years. In fact there is no “conservative coalition” at all present in modern Western civilization, and certainly not in the politics of these United States. American politics is in fact defined by Progressivism and has been since the very beginning. Conservatives certainly would not rebel against their lawful and traditional King – the idea is preposterous!
The so-called “conservative coalition” is merely an alternate branching of the Progressive tree. All of this allying and coalition-building and balance-of-power gaming will only advance the Progressive cause, which benefits as long as there is change of any kind, regardless of who “wins” and effects that change. The true conservative – the traditionalist – merely stands still and says “This far and no further.” Of course we might not agree with this sentiment; we might believe that there are changes which by right ought to be made; that unbending tradition should not be the be-all and end-all of our moral sentiment. But in that case we should accept that we are Progressives of a different ilk and stop calling ourselves “conservatives”. We might also examine carefully and rationally our chances of winning the struggle for what replaces the Present Order after it is overthrown. As a strategy, a smart Progressive might behave “conservatively” if he recognizes that his particular branch of utopian futurism is unlikely to win out in the present circumstance.
Abolition of Slavery is Moral Socialism. (According to MSimon.)
@DiogenesLamp
Retention of Slavery could be called Conservatism, according to ChevalierdeJohnstone. And there are some good points in that post.
D,
Mechanical power (steam, electric motors) = abolition of slavery.
If we lose that slavery will come back no matter the laws. You see that in the world today. Places where mechanical power is low practice slavery – even if it is illegal.
Moral Socialism = American Sharia. Not as virulent as Islam to be sure. Still obnoxious to the sensibilities of most Americans.
Also note that slavery is traditional.
BTW D, that is not a very good argument with people like me. The very people socons need to win elections. Not to worry – I am your ally (in some things) until the economic socialists are defeated. We may be stuck with each other for a while.
===================================
Chev,
There is nothing traditional about Drug Prohibition (a favorite of socons).
Of course death for gay men or mixing fibers is quite traditional. I don’t see that on the law books nor much agitation for it. And where is the ban on pork?
I don’t see socons as traditional at all.
And in the American tradition they are the Moral Progressives. i.e. laws will make people moral. If laws could do that please tell me in which country that works. There must be a shining example somewhere.
Look at Europe where religion is a matter of State. There doesn’t appear to be much religion left in those places.
True religion (IMO) comes from the heart. It can’t be forced. There was a guy who preached that some 2,000 years ago. What was his name? I forget.
BTW D slavery is traditional. I don’t see why you are so against it. And what have you got against putting witches to death? Or prohibiting the eating of unclean animals (think pigs)?
I dunno. What is the rational basis for picking what traditions you are going to adhere to?
our modern civilization is always socialist in that individuals are considered discrete entities in a larger space and community. We are all “socialists”. Some believe that the individual’s interaction with the community should be determined as much as possible by the discrete individual and not by an autocratic government (whether in the form of a ruler or democratic “society”) – but this is a difference of means, not ends.
in a world where words have no meaning and definitions are arbitrary
It should be quite obvious to any rational observer of Western sociopolitical history that this is exactly the path which progressives have taken over the years. In fact there is no “conservative coalition” at all present in modern Western civilization, and certainly not in the politics of these United States. American politics is in fact defined by Progressivism and has been since the very beginning. Conservatives certainly would not rebel against their lawful and traditional King – the idea is preposterous!
Ah yes, let us ignore both the fact that not everybody in the colonies WAS all fired up to go to war against England and also that that isn’t what people generally mean by “conservative” or “progressive” anymore either. It should be quite obvious to any rational observer that this is the old bait and switch trying to be perpetrated though equivocation.
It should be quite obvious to any rational observer of Western sociopolitical history that this is exactly the path which progressives have taken over the years. In fact there is no “conservative coalition” at all present in modern Western civilization, and certainly not in the politics of these United States. American politics is in fact defined by Progressivism and has been since the very beginning. Conservatives certainly would not rebel against their lawful and traditional King – the idea is preposterous!
Ah yes, let us ignore both the fact that not everybody in the colonies WAS all fired up to go to war against England and also that that isn’t what people generally mean by “conservative” or “progressive” anymore either. This is the old bait and switch trying to be perpetrated though equivocation
the remainder of your post is not wroth reading
Michael,
Glad you enjoyed it. Bring your friends. If you have any.
BTW I don’t recall quoting or linking to any of the statements you highlighted. Care to let us know where the material came from?
All of you who responded are intentionally missing my point.
ABOLITION was IMPOSED MORALITY.
All of you are in FAVOR of this IMPOSED MORALITY.
To argue that you are AGAINST imposed morality is Hypocritical.
Simon, I think Michael is replying to Chev, not you.
@DiogenesLamp But slavery itself imposition of the supposed morality of slavery on the slaves. So how can you say that we are not against imposed morality?
DL – You might be on to something if slavery didn’t involve coercion, but it does, so your point fails.
What M. Simon and Eric and the rest often write about here is the use of state power to coerce those away from a particular path that they choose freely, no coercion involved.
What gets me in all these discussions is how little self-reflection is done by the moral socialists among us. They never question the use of violence (via criminalization) brought to bear against people engaging in peaceful activites merely because the behavior doesn’t meet some religious standard of behavior. They never question the notion of the immorality of calling these behaviors “crimes” (bearing false witness against thy neighbor) when the behaviors involved don’t meet any reasonable or logical test of criminailty.
But they know morality because, well, because the Bible says we are the moral ones.
It is a sad spectacle to see so many people engage in so much immorality against their fellow man and be so totally unaware of their own, worse immorality. Doubly sad in that so many of them lead otherwise exemplary lives regarding the religious dictates they believe in.
DL – You might be on to something if slavery didn’t involve coercion, but it does, so your point fails.
Randy · February 10, 2011 5:24 PM
Dear God, Is it too much to ask for one comprehending person in a debate?
You disdain for Coercion is itself a MORAL OPINION!
You obviously think it’s wrong, and you likewise believe that your opinion on the subject should be forced on everyone else!
Again, we are back to the salient point. You believe in IMPOSED MORALITY.
OK. I favor imposed morality. And I intend to raise all the power I can to impose mine on you. For the first time in decades I feel I’m making progress in my chosen course. Early days yet. Only two years into the TEA Party revolution. And no matter what you think my friend, those who now oppose us think there is a libertarian revolution going on.
The 24-Hour Libertarian Revolt
Once they are defeated I intend to ally with them to defeat you. Economics first then social policy.
Balance of power politics.
You can’t afford to let them win and you can’t afford to defeat them. Zen at its finest.
DL, if as you seem to think, disdain for coercion is coercion, then there is no point in arguing with you at all, as any argument constitutes coercion.
Your moral absolutism resemble post modernism.
Note that the essence of good strategy is to get your opposition in a position where they have no good choices.
My advice to you DL?
Read Strategy.
You might learn something.
Social Conservatism is a brittle construct. It doesn’t adapt to changing circumstances well. A few good hammer blows and it will crack into a million pieces. I intend to help provide those hammer blows. When the time is right. Right now I’m into skirmishing and preping the battle field. And defeating the Economic Socialists.
As a warm up I’m going for an end to the Drug War. That is part of prepping the battle field. The 30 to 45 million pot smokers in this country will be a nice addition to my coalition. And what is my thrust in that area?
1. Foreign Policy
2. Economics
3. Medical Knowledge and Policy
Because the Drug War fails on all those grounds. I don’t even have to bring up liberty issues.
Third, there is no such thing as an “economic conservative” who is not a “social conservative”.
I’m a libertine and an economic conservative. How do you explain that?
Once they are defeated I intend to ally with them to defeat you. Economics first then social policy.
You can’t afford to let them win and you can’t afford to defeat them. Zen at its finest.
M. Simon · February 10, 2011 6:46 PM
This is amusing to me. If Economics and Society are interdependent as I believe, you are going to try to separate the wet from water. 🙂
Once they are defeated I intend to ally with them to defeat you. Economics first then social policy.
You can’t afford to let them win and you can’t afford to defeat them. Zen at its finest.
M. Simon · February 10, 2011 6:46 PM
This is amusing to me. If Economics and Society are interdependent as I believe, you are going to try to separate the wet from water. 🙂
DL, if as you seem to think, disdain for coercion is coercion, then there is no point in arguing with you at all, as any argument constitutes coercion.
Your moral absolutism resemble post modernism.
Eric Scheie · February 11, 2011 12:11 AM
Eric, I find your reasoning painful, so i’m not going to encourage it.
Note that the essence of good strategy is to get your opposition in a position where they have no good choices.
My advice to you DL?
Read Strategy.
You might learn something.
M. Simon · February 11, 2011 4:24 AM
I routinely push you and Eric into dichotomies which neither of you will address. The first rule of winning a debate is to be correct.