« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Know Your Enemy

By: Viet71 (Diary)  |  February 16th, 2010 at 09:28 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

There was a guy in my late-1960s ROTC unit who openly carried Mao’s Little Red Book — the then bible of communist China.  A right-wing sorta guy.

When he got challenged, which happened often, he always said, “Know your enemy.”

This diary aims at describing the Left.

The Political Structure (not the Power Structure) of the Left

Like communism, the Left not monolithic.  It includes

– Democrats of various stripes,

– people who are far to the left of the Democratic Party,

– anarchists and revolutionaries, and

– some self-described independents.

They fight constantly amongst themselves but have certain things in common, including  a fear and loathing of blogsites such as RS.  That fear and loathing is one of the primary things that binds the Left together.

The Democratic Party

The Dem Party is a mishmash.  It includes conservatives (as they see it) such as Ben Nelson (D-NB), opportunists such as John Kerry (D-MA), hollow drunks such as Teddy Kennedy (RIP), sell-outs such as Obama and Rahm Emmanuel, and so-called liberals such as Russ Feingold (D-WI).

If these folks have one thing in common, it’s TAX AND SPEND.  Reagan was absolutely correct about this.

Basically, all these folks are corrupt.  They can be had for the right price.  They are no more idealists than was Joseph Stalin.  But they all talk the talk.

Leftists

A lot — perhaps most — of the individuals who post on Dkos and FDL are far to the left of the Democratic Party and HATE the Democratic Party political and power structures.  There are many idealists in this camp.

In my opinion, idealists (not purists) on the Left and Right have certain things in common.  Chiefly, a desire for good government.

Anarchists and Revolutionaries

Small in number, these folks are colorful, really angry, and entertaining.

They want — to various degrees — to tear down the whole house and start from scratch.

These folks are way beyond party labels.

Self-Described Independents

I call these folks rationalists.  They are really angry and basically hate both major parties.  They leaned distinctly Left during the GW Bush years, but came out hard right and angry for Scott Brown.

These individuals will be the wild card in the 2010 and 2012 elections.  They will determine the make-up of the House and Senate and determine who is elected President in 2012.

They comprise about 20- to 25-percent of the voting public.

Two Flashpoints for the Left

Republicans CAN pick up Left-leaning voters, as Scott Brown has shown.  In my opinion, the election of Scott Brown to the Senate is the most significant political development of the past 40 years.

One of the last fights I had on Dkos was on the night before the Massachusetts election, when I presented the case for why Massachusetts voters should vote for Scott Brown.  I got attacked viciously, but a fair number of posters agreed with me.

There are two big flashpoints for the Left — and a Republican presidential nominee needs to know how to finesse them:

– abortion rights, and

– religion in the public sphere

Reagan and Obama both finessed the abortion rights issue, saying they were personally pro-life, but that the law was settled.  Roe v. Wade affords such good political cover — even though it’s a terrible decision.

The constitutional law on religion in the public sphere (e.g., prayer in public schools) is pretty much settled as well, so there’s lots of political cover here also.

Conclusion

I had to know and understand my enemy in Viet Nam.  War is not simply about overwhelming force, although that is the principal tenet of U.S. military doctrine.

Republicans — conservatives generally — need to know and understand their enemy as well.

Think about this:  the U.S. military was able to turn a LOT of Viet Cong and NVA regulars into supporters of the South Viet Nam government.

Conservatives can do the same thing today in the political arena.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Viet71

    “A Fond Letter to Conservatives Everywhere”.

    • nessa

      What are their likely COAs?

      They are retiring in droves, their far left base is turning on them, Independents are abandoning them faster than their own elected leaders. Their capabilities are becoming more and more limited as they lose support.

      Where do we hit them to cause a total party meltdown?

  • Scope

    just how far he can go with Executive Orders. Currently, if Congress doesn’t approve of one of his goals, such as the Debt Commission, he will accomplish it by executive order. Even some Democrats voted against the commission. Obama will have his way, no matter what it takes. The House and Senate are at the edge of the cliff to irrelevancy.

    • Viet71

      It’s clear to me that Obama is evil.

      It’s also clear to a lot of folks he’s just a front man. Someone deep the shadows is pulling his strings.

    • student

      There is no doubt that Obama can use Executive Orders to drive certain agendas but while bad the impact is quite limited for two reasons. First, executive orders can be immediately reversed with a new president. Second, orders cannot spend significant amounts of money since the spending of money requires legislation. He can do stupid stuff like try to move EPA to push the global warming agenda but he can then be hammered for the consequences of such, attacked for the undemocratic nature of the action, and since the Executive Order is solely his doing, he has no teflon on the issue. There is no doubt that Obama’s policies are a curse on the nation driving us towards continuing stagnation followed by stagflation but the real danger is from the legislature not from his Executive leeway. We should use his executive actions against him but keep the eye on the ball of defeating the Democrats in the legislature.

      • Viet71

        Obama, however, is smart and well trained.

        One must be tough, smart, and well-educated to take him on.

        I nominate coldwarrior1978.

  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

    Re the use and misuse of presidential executive orders, the Clintonistas also abused the power. Sourced here (always loved the www.stickdeath.com animation) and here at the New York Slime.

    Viet71, please send me your email address as I have a question for you about your service: coldwarrior1978@gmail.com

    Thank you,
    ColdWarrior
    No More Scozzafavas!
    Become a Republican precinct committeeman. NOW!

    • Viet71

      Clinton did much to trash this country.

      I argued in 1992 with some of my liberal friends — including physicians and lawyers — that Clinton was a fraud. This was at an October 31 Halloween party, about a week before the election.

      Oh no, they told me, he is the real deal.

      Goes to show you can lose the battle but win the war.

      • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

        It was after his long-winded speech at the Debtocrat Convention in 1988 when even the Debtocrats there were yelling at him to stop but he just kept talking and talking and talking. After that, he was invited onto the Tonight Show and he just seemed to me to be such an obvious narcissistic fake. I, too, tried to tell anyone who would listen, once he ran for president, that he was DANGEROUS. Anyone who yearns for the job of president there entire life, such as both Slick Willie and “her thighness,” are obvious the wrong sort of people for the job.

        The problem is, most Americans, it seems, spend about as much time thinking about who to vote for as they do trying to figure out which restaurant to choose when they go out to dinner. Obama’s presidency, I hope, will have changed that with respect to the upcoming primary and general elections this year.

        Thank you.
        ColdWarrior
        No More Scozzafavas!

        • Viet71

          deceived the American People. He was the best liar.

          Obama deceived the American People, but has failed. If Republicana play it right, he will be a one-term president.

          God, I hope he will serve one term. And I’m not a religious person.

        • Richard Mullins

          late Ann “I won my race for Governor over that chauvinist pig,Clayton Williams” Richards and The Silver spoon remark. Bill Clinton seem to ozze BS and when he ran in 1992 wasn’t able to vote(not old enough). If he keep on attempt to be the second coming of FDR, then he would be doomed, but even FDR has his “Cactus Jack” as VP(the one that told FDR to slow down).

          • Viet71

            You are right on.

            Thanks.

          • Viet71

            would read this diary.

            Not for my ego.

            But because I believe it goes to the heat of conservative values and thinking.

          • Brian Hibbert

            It’s in the recommended diaries list and far more people will read it than will comment on it.

            On the subject of “Know your enemy” I would like to recommend 2 books. Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” to see the tactics that the left is using and C.S. Lewis’s “The Screwtape Letters” to see the similarities with another group’s tactics…..

        • Achance

          we used to style them “after action analyses,” I was having with a labor arbitrator friend of mine just as he was coming above the clutter in ’90 or so. My friend asked me what I thought of him. I replied that he and I were about the same age and had much the same history; smart kid with a poor, rural Southern upbringing who got in on some of the advantages that being a smart kid could give you back then in terms of opportunity. But I went on to say that to come from there to being in contention for POTUS at his age and having done nothing but politics for his whole life meant that he had taken every shortcut and bent or broken every rule at every opportunity and at every step of the way. I hate to have been so right!

    • Scope

      if Viet71 tells you too much, he will have to eliminate you. LOL

      • Doc Holliday

        Abortion and the Religious Right t.m. are probably the two biggies that keep us from attracting more moderates. The key is to not focus on these issues when they are not important in the race. In other words, if you are pro-life, don’t waste your ammo when it is not needed to win, there are no style points.

        There are times to take a public stand and push issues that are divisive. But Brown and Mcdonnell of Virginia focused on winning issues, hence they won; funny how that is.

        • Doc Holliday

          they can’t help themselves with their disdain for “middle America”, they can’t hide it. They also can’t hide their disdain for those in the military. They say they support the troops when they are on defense, but they can’t help but revel in every negative story, true or false.

          Both parties, just like all combatants, get in trouble when they start believing their own headlines. Anyone with blinders on will always be the loser in the end. To know your enemy and why he has followers can only help you to defeat him.

        • aesthete

          with a “conservative” position on social issues; as someone who is pro-life, but otherwise not socially conservative, I can attest to the fact that when evaluated as single issues, there’s more support for conservatives than liberals on any issue, esp. when you take that issue to an extreme (i.e, the most extreme pro-abortion position vs. the strictest pro-life issue). It’s more the case that 1) such issues aren’t issues that voters will generally give priority to, 2) focusing on those issues as opposed to fiscal/natl. security issues makes a candidate look unserious, and 3) high-profile supporters of such issues (James Dobson, Pat Robertson, etc.) are seen very negatively. All of this is actually very rational, as social issues aren’t as determinable as fiscal and national security issues. Ideally, candidates would deal with such issues by emphatically stating their positions on social issues when asked, but not by campaigning on said issues in general.

          • Viet71

            You are so correct.

        • Viet71

          n/t

        • Scope

          McDonnell never denied his pro-choice and family value beliefs when asked, but, he changed the subject as quickly as possible, and, started focusing back on the winning issues that he promoted, jobs, drilling off our coast and education. He was also pleasant and likable. With Brown, he was also likable, pleasant, positive, and he stayed focused on the dangers of Obamacare and Cap and Trade. Neither one made the social issues a focus of their campaigns.

          • Viet71

            But I know this.

            If I want to get elected president of my fraternity, I have to win votes.

            Which is what I did in 1966.

          • Scope

            my post above. McDonnell is pro-life, not pro-choice, but, I’m sure you know that.

            I completely agree with you that staying away from the social issues as much as possible is wise. Even if Republicans/conservatives won the Presidency and majorities in both houses, no social issues legislation would even be brought up for votes. I suspect that Obama will get at least one more crack at Supreme Court justices before he departs. Hopefully he will only get to replace another Liberal. The states are doing a great job on their own as to Gay Marriage. That’s where that belongs. As much as I do believe that abortion is wrong no matter who makes the decision, the Supreme Court will not take it up again in my lifetime, if ever.

      • Viet71

        Someone wants to ban me, fine.

        Someone wants to fight with me, fine.

        • Scope

          I hope you didn’t misread my post. I was trying to be funny. I know that you know that people say “if I tell you that, I will have to kill you” but only in a joking way. I’m so sorry if I hit a raw nerve. I have much respect for you and what you have lived through in your life.

          • Viet71

            You’re great.

          • Viet71

            Doesn’t work on my computer.

          • hickorystick

            http://images.rcp.realclearpolitics.com/20122_5_.jpg
            it’s on real clear politics under political video’s, about the eighth one down.

          • Viet71

            But still no luck.

            Am going to try another computer.

        • hickorystick

          Hillary Redstar Clinton is the best propoganda phrasemaker the Left has had in a long time. What do you make of this clip, if anything
          http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/02/16/clinton_if_palin_wins_presidency_i_will_be_visiting_canada_as_often_as_i_can.htm
          I’m not interested in Palin, but in Hillaries intention for having this guy ask her the question, and her response.

          • Viet71

            She is the ultimate insider and sellout.

            She is the classic Leftist. Do anything to get ahead, so you can advance your agenda.

            I laugh that she bent over for Obama. That’s Hillary.

            What’s good is that her political career will be coming to an end with the end of Obama’s first and only term.

            Hillary would have served the big-money power players just fine. Problem was that by 2008, a lot of Lefties were sick of the Clintons. These Lefties flocked to Obama because he promised CHANGE. Many of those folks now loathe Obama. Just go lurk on a Lefty blog. You’ll see what I’m saying.

            As for Obama’s being a front man, I submit this: Much of the Left now hates him — he’s not Left enough. So, Obama is not serving his base, in the eyes of the base. The question arises, therefore, who is he serving? That’s not entirely clear.

            If he goes the Executive Order route on the debt commission, I’ll be inclined to think one of his string pullers is Pete Peterson.

          • hickorystick

            is that Hillary has coined phrases that have stuck. Right-Wing Conservative, Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, Culture of corruption; she has a knack for putting phrases in the media simple enough for the MSM to understand and use to create a general feeling of discomfort among the electorate and create doubt about agreeing with our issues or viting for our candidates. I didn’t see anything in the video that suggests a mantra for the MSM, but judging from her past, i think she intends to use Palin as example of the reaction going on on the conservative side. Using her in some way to undermine confidence in Republicans or Tea-Party movement participants. She’s clever in this way and I wondered about your perspective. You are old enough to have observed the 60′s stuff.

          • Viet71

            Hilary began developing her political chops at Wellesley College in the 1960s I have a friend who was at Wellesley at the same time. My friend says Hillary was scheming and ambitious and was not well liked.

          • Scope

            http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=5575

            As to Clinton being gone after Obama, we still have Chelsea to look forward to. Remember during Hillary’s campaign when Bill said that Chelsea was actually smarter than he or Hillary? We do know Bill lies thankfully. Also, thankfully the Clintons were not prolific breeders. Not to be crude, or unladylike, but, with Hillary it was probably one time and done.

          • Viet71

            Hope to meet you some day.

          • Doc Holliday

            I amuse you? I am here to amuse you? what do ya mean funny?

          • Viet71

            Things get fast and furious here.

            Always like your posts.

          • Doc Holliday

            that was a movie line, Goodfellas to be precise. sometimes I try to throw in some humor just for the hell of it. This method of communication has its limits. :)

          • Viet71

            Sometimes, after a drink, I’m slow.

          • Doc Holliday

            and my typos go wild.

          • Achance

            that, I beleive, should be treated separately even though it is composed of members of the groups you describe; public employees, particularly unionized public employees. Their personal poltics and social views are all over the dial and despite the mythology few of them are doctrinaire leftists or even liberals. Yet, they almost uniformly vote Democrat and it isn’t really because the union tells them to. The vast majority of public employees only grudgingly support a union and they do so because they see it as a necessary evil. What unifies them as Democrats is their perception that Republicans are a threat to their security and many Republicans at least talk as if they are in fact an existential threat to public employees. This is a constituency in which Republicans could make significant inroads if they would learn to wield a more deft hand in operating a govenment.

          • eastbaylarry

            This is definately a demographic that needs to be considered.

            It’s hard to say you will shrink the size of government without these folks feeling threatened.

          • Achance

            unless you shrink the constituency for larger government. That constituency isn’t either those who receive most government services or those who deliver those services, it is the supervision and management of those services. A citizen from an important constituency or even a “representative” of an important constituency has little influence on a legislator or legislature; a member of the management that serves that important constituency does, even if s/he is only an assistant deputy to the deputy assistant. If you’re in government management you become powerful by being thought to be powerful and if they see you all the time and you know the members and the staffers, before long when you talk, everybody listens – even if you don’t actually know jack, see, e.g., most lobbyists and most political appointees.

            If Republicans want to govern effectively and reduce the size of government, they MUST restructure governments into far fewer functional units. This does two things: it reduces the number of appointees necessary to run the government and by doing so allows you to begin eliminating all the infrasture that supports a needlessly fractured organizational structure built by Democrats to employ the maximum number of Democrats. When you do that, you might then find that you’ve gotten rid of most of the people inside the government who hate you and you might well find yourself hiring more actual delivery of service employees. When you get the beast working and establish some credibility by doing so, then you can start talkiing about eliminating functions and doing away with departments.

          • Viet71

            Republican candidates can and should do more to reach out to this constituency.

            One of my sisters is a retired California school teacher.

            The degree to which union leadership brainwashed her into hating Republicans is just breathtaking.

      • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

        Think “Spy vs. Spy.”

        Thanks,
        ColdWarrior
        No More Scozzafavas!
        Become a Republican precinct committeeman. NOW!

        • nessa

          First the Great War Buzzard from Mt Alaska now this…

        • Scope

          Spook vs Spook LOL

  • avgamerican

    Seriously. Over the years I have heard a lot about the Tri-Lateral Commission. We know that global warming is a front for global governance. But who would you say is pulling his strings?

    • Viet71

      some big money players.

      Guys like David Rockefeller.

      Deep in the shadows but powerful.

    • conservative_faction

      quite a bit and I keep coming back to George Soros.

      • Viet71

        Like ‘em or not.

        Obama is hollow.

        I believe he is selling out to big-money players like David Rockefeller.

  • Viet71

    An idealist is one who holds dear certain broadly applicable principles.

    Such as:

    I respect human life.

    I will be truthful and honest (except, for example, when trying to pull off a seduction).

    A purist is one who takes this position:

    I you don’t believe X, you can’t join Club Right.

    Purists have every right to be purists, and I will always defend that right.

    But those in the political arena often simply cannot afford to be an avowed, take-it-or-or-leave-it purist. They need to be like Ronald Reagan — right on the issues, right at heart, but skilled at winning votes.

  • Viet71

    He utterly lacks ideals and is utterly devoid of purity.

    He is a highly skilled and dangerous deceiver, who is going to take the Dem Party over the cliff in November, and who is aiming to take the whole country over the cliff after the mid-term elections.

  • Doc Holliday

    he is not particularly skilled in the art of persuasion. As you said, Clinton had skills, everyone who tried to break him broke themselves instead.

    Obama was put where he does not belong, he was forced in to early and they made it too easy. He is faltering because he has never been told no before, he doesn’t know what to do.