The Hill: What conservatives got wrong in 2016

Conservative 'social issues' are winnable

— if the GOP grows a backbone

December 20, 2016

By: Frank Cannon

NB:  In the November 8, 2016, election, Republicans picked up one State Senate seat, extending their majority to 35-15, and Republicans maintained their 74-46 advantage in the State House of Representatives.

When Gov. Pat McCrory (R-N.C.) dared to sign HB2, a bill that repealed a Charlotte ordinance which would have forced private businesses and charitable religious organizations to allow grown men who “identify” as women to use the same public bathrooms and showers as girls, the left banded together with its allies in corporate America, the entertainment industry, and the mainstream media and spent the next eight months carpet bombing the state of North Carolina.

As my colleague Terry Schilling pointed out in The Federalist:

“They launched corporate boycotts. They took away the NBA All-Star game. They cancelled sold-out concerts. And then, after ensuring the economic pain would be as excruciating as possible on residents of North Carolina, Roy Cooper and the Democrats placed the blame squarely on the shoulders of McCrory.

“The left essentially staged an economic crisis in order to win an election. Nasty.”

This blitzkrieg by progressives, an obvious attempt to bully the GOP into submission on the “gender identity” issue, made McCrory’s race one of the most consequential of the 2016 cycle.

He was outspent by nearly $8 million and was up against an avalanche of opposition from progressive elites, who dominated the news media and pop culture.

And despite all of this, McCrory barely lost. Just one or two million dollars more in financial support from conservative donors likely would have put him over the top. Unfortunately, these donors largely froze. Why?

One of the big fads among conservative organizations and donors is spending millions and millions of dollars in an attempt to change institutions that are virtually unchangeable — academia, the mainstream media, pop culture, the entertainment industry — institutions over which the left has a complete stranglehold.

This is misguided, at least when it comes at the expense of engaging in critical political races.

Politics is the only part of the culture that can easily be driven by ordinary people. Everything else — academic institutions, Hollywood, the entertainment industry, even corporate America — is all controlled by the progressive elites.

We can’t decide what books are published, what TV shows are produced (and what agendas those TV shows push), what universities teach, or what corporate America sells. The idea that we are going to direct all our money attempting to change those aspects of culture, rather than the one aspect of culture where we can have a real impact and reverse cultural trends — by winning in politics — is insanity.

So why aren’t conservative organizations and donors spending more on politics? Why didn’t they protect McCrory, go on offense fighting the culture war, and save themselves tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars in future spending on efforts to play defense?

Conservatives don’t succeed by persuading the elites. We succeed by persuading the people.

There was no academic work in favor of Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts. It was opposed by every elite. Yet ultimately, Reagan’s tax cut model became GOP orthodoxy… because Reagan won.

Trump’s policies on trade, immigration, and even abortion were universally derided by GOP elites during the campaign. Now, he is completely transforming GOP policy and preparing to affect real change on those issues, despite being opposed by elites. Why? Because he won.

Winning elections is not only an efficient and cost-effective way of affecting cultural change, but for conservatives, it is perhaps the only way to do so successfully.

The irony of ironies is that McCrory would have almost assuredly won had conservative organizations and donors pitched in just another $1 or $2 million — relative pocket change when compared to multi-million dollar projects being funded merely to study how conservatives might use different messaging on social issues in future elections.

While those projects go on, and while Washington policy wonks wonk out, winnable political battles are being outright surrendered — such as what happened in North Carolina, where voters, by and large,  supported the actual provisions in HB2.

Now, with a political establishment that is in all likelihood unwilling to go the way of McCrory, believing that fighting on social issues is a death sentence, conservative organizations and donors are going to pour their money into legal efforts to defend against activist courts and academic efforts to write white papers no one will read.

Amazingly, despite Republicans now holding the House, the Senate, and the presidency, those of us who believe that men probably shouldn’t be showering with women are preparing for 2017 as if we were relegated to minority status!

The underlying message of not letting men shower with our daughters is a winning one, but only if it is actively promoted. That doesn’t happen unless conservative donors pony up.

Liberals and their corporate and entertainment allies spent millions of dollars driving home the shameful idea that, if North Carolina voters didn’t vote Democrat, liberal institutions would abandon the state, and people would lose jobs. Extortion was their central campaign message!

This was an easy message to counter, especially given the extreme nature of the Left’s position — that grown men have a civil right to shower with young women, and that any business or organization that dissents from this view should be removed from the public square.

But driving home a message takes money, and the money wasn’t there.

Conservative organizations and donors pinched pennies and refused to go all-in to help McCrory, and now those same donors are going to spend ten times, twenty times, maybe even a hundred times as much fighting the narrative created by the very election they abandoned — the idea that progressive gender ideology cannot be defeated or discussed in politics without it spelling sure defeat for the Republican.

Get ready, donors, to spend millions of dollars in court fighting the practical implications of “gender identity” being considered a protected class.

Get ready to spend millions more fighting the Left’s new “proven” strategy — that by colluding with corporate elites, the entertainment industry, and the mainstream media — they can get literally anything they want, and the GOP will just cave.

This could have been prevented. We could be celebrating a popular defeat of progressive gender ideology. Instead, we are up against a narrative, promoted even by the likes of establishment conservatives like Sen. Thom Tillis, that “controversial social issues” cost us big league.

What a shame. The only question now is, will conservative organizations and donors learn this lesson for the next North Carolina? Or will we continue channeling Don Quixote — tilting at windmills we can’t defeat, while refusing to fight the battles we can actually win?

Frank Cannon is the president of American Principles Project.  Follow him on Twitter @FrankCannonAPP..

"Others Pledge" a lesson in Virtue Signaling

Man's inhumanity to man is with us always.  It begins when you take individual human beings and place them into boxes, and then slap labels onto those boxes, by which it is made easier to hate them.

People should be engaged on-the-level, one at a time.  No box, no label, should confer a special grace or sin on any individual person.  Take any box into which you have thrown a group of people, apply any label to it, and within you will find both saints and sinners.

It is the relentless process of commercial marketing that has placed individuals into boxes, given them labels, the better to sell them products and ideas.  And once assigned a label, once placed into a box and provided with a list of "attributes" those in the box should conform to -- many do conform, buy the "right" things, think the "right" thoughts.  So the process is validated, reinforced, and perpetuated.

Our political process dismisses the individual in favor of boxes and labels.  Instead of an on-the-level, personal appeal, the political class employs appeals to labels, assuming that everyone within the box so labeled will conform to the behaviors assigned to them.  We have just been through a presidential election where these assumptions did not run to plan.

Instead of thinking about it, Senator Ray Lesniak and some of his Senate colleagues appear to be doubling-down.  Lesniak has come up with something called "The Pledge to Stand Up for the Other."  The idea behind this pledge is that we all inhabit boxes in which we interact exclusively with "people like us."

The pledge states:  "While interacting with members of my own (box) faith, ethnic, or gender community, or with others, if I hear hateful comments from anyone about members of any other community, I pledge to stand up for the other and challenge bigotry in any form."

Now take Ray Lesniak for instance.  He was raised Roman Catholic and told the New York Times some years back that he was an "evangelical Christian," and yet his voting record doesn't really fit the box that most would place him in.  For Ray Lesniak, as well as for the rest of us, the artificial boxes of faith, ethnicity, and "gender community" have less meaning than do those differences of ideas.

Lesniak is being too easy on himself and allowing a loophole to hate Trump supporters while admonishing his fellow Evangelicals to embrace same-sex marriage.

The pledge's "background" statement reads:  "Racial bigotry, religious persecution, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or any other form of hatred cannot be wiped out unless each and every one of us confronts it within ourselves, our own circles of family, friends and others that we interact with. Silence is seen as consent. It takes courage to stand up for the other. It is important to prevent bigoted speech coming from public officials, but it is even more critical to focus on our own individual responsibility to prevent bigotry we may see around us. By taking this pledge, each one us can make a profound difference in the world."

The language used here is worrisome.  "Wiping out" a belief system because it is deemed "hateful" is at the root of the aforementioned "Islamophobia" and Lesniak himself is widely read enough to know that the NSDAP (National Socialist Party) painted itself the victim of hate before launching the Holocaust and a World War.  We would direct Senator Lesniak to read some of Dr. Goebbels' pronouncements on the hatefulness of the Poles towards their German minority and the Reich Minister of Propaganda's stated goal to "wipe out" said hatred.

It should be of even more concern that Lesniak's pledge conflates "silence" with "consent," demanding proactive speech.  This is a very fascist prescription.  Will Lesniak adopt the North Korean model -- jailing those who don't express the "right" point of view with sufficient vigor?

Finally, who is this Ray Lesniak to even suggest such a pledge?  Has he lived his life as a model to others?  He most certainly has not.  Time and time again, he has adopted the morals of the legal profession, wantonly confusing "legal" with "ethical."  As Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey chapter of the Sierra Club, told the New York Times:  "He (Lesniak) was really the first legislator to put all three together -- power, politics and pay-to-play."

Lesniak vigorously practiced pay to play until it was outlawed -- as if it takes a law to tell a man what is right and what is wrong.  By that rule, Senator Lesniak would have vigorously supported slavery in the 1850's.  It shouldn't take a law to make a man behave.  Those things come from within. 

The pledge reminds us of a line from that 1960's anthem by Barry McGuire:  "Hate your next door neighbor, but don't forget to say grace."  That line is all about something called "virtue signaling" -- "the expression or promotion of viewpoints that are especially valued within a social group, especially when this is done primarily to enhance the social standing of the speaker."  Wikipedia has an entry on it here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling

Lesniak's "Pledge to Stand Up for the Other" is all about making Lesniak appear morally superior without him actually having to do anything uncomfortable or meaningful.  It is a pure example of virtue signaling.     

If Senator Lesniak wanted to do something to really foster dialogue, he would reach out to those he truly dislikes and then try to understand them.  How about a confab with some right-wing Trump supporters, just to get to know them, just to acknowledge that they are fellow human beings?  We doubt we'll see that in real life, from Senator Lesniak, although they have done it in the movies:

We'll end on this note.  While an exercise in virtue signaling designed to allow those who take the pledge to go right back to hating their neighbor the moment after they sign it, it does at least raise the question of how we can better love those we disagree with.  Yes, "love" is a strong word, so maybe let's just start with acknowledging our common humanity.  That's going to take hard work, and a lot more than this pledge.

Al Doblin is speaking from "The Bubble"

Alfred P. Doblin is the Editorial Editor of the Record of Bergen and the surrounding counties.  His writing is strong, with few of the over-the-top emotions that are often on display over at the Star-Ledger.  He appears to try for balance, for persuasion instead of name-calling.      

But we fear he is trapped, as so many others are trapped, in a perception that is based more on geography and on class than on ideology or party identity. 

In his recent column -- "GOP at the crossroads" -- Mr. Doblin falls back on the tired values of an old religion.  Using terms like "mainstream right... extreme right... hard-line conservatives... social issues," we feel that he misses the lessons of the 2016 presidential election.

And who are the people Mr. Doblin turns to in his column to illuminate his argument?  All members of the ruling class:  former Governor Christie Whitman, global lobbyist Mike DuHaime, and Senator Kevin O'Toole Esq.

From them we get the same, tired prescriptions we get after every presidential election -- win or lose:  “(Republicans) can no longer be defined both statewide and nationally as the older white man’s party and expect to succeed (even though they just did)... (Republicans) have to do a lot more to attract females, to attract African-Americans, Asians, Hispanics. We have to be far more diverse than we have in the past.” 

The perspective of these people is one of class.  They are far, far more richer and more prosperous than the average American or the average Republican. When they speak of diversity it is the false diversity of gender, color, ethnicity, or sexual identity.  What is studiously ignored is class. 

In his book, White-Collar Government: The Hidden Role of Class in Economic Policy Making, Duke University's Nick Carnes points out that while upwards of 65 percent of citizens are "working class" and 54 percent are employed in a blue-collar occupation, just 2 percent of the members of Congress and 3 percent of state legislators held blue-collar jobs at the time of their election.  How about some diversity?

Donald Trump's campaign saw through the false political divide of Democrat and Republican to the vast economic and social divide that is the truer measure of America today.  Authors as diverse as George Packer of the New Yorker (The  Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America) to Charles Murray (Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010) to Chris Hedges (Days of Destruction Days of Revolt) to David Brooks (BoBos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There) have written about this, with Brooks actually employing Donald Trump as an example of what the "new upper class" finds unfashionable.  In a prescient piece of writing, Ralph Nader gave an outline of what was coming when his book (Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State) was released in the summer of 2014.

On election night, MSNBC's Chris Matthews came closest to the mark, with this surprising exchange:

Of course, the ruling class will try to fit what happened back into the perception that they are most comfortable with -- and so we get the familiar postscripts about "old white men" and "diversity" of the surface variety.  It is an exercise in virtue signaling, whereby one member of the ruling class assures his "goodness" to another.

White collar America spends its time concerned about issues like the availability of condoms to Ivy Leaguers.  Such concerns are the marks of privilege. Blue collar America, working class America, worries about foreclosure, about housing, about having a job, about getting out of debt, about having enough to give their children the life that they've enjoyed.  With the greatest respect to Christie Whitman and Mike DuHaime and Kevin O'Toole, they don't have those problems.  So relieved of such pressing concerns, they can float above the mass and think sweet thoughts, reaffirming their "goodness" to one another.

The lack of shared experience places much of our ruling class, and those who aspire to it, into a kind of "bubble" -- secure and apart from the mass. Senator O'Toole's statement to Editor Doblin that what he regretted most was not voting for same-sex marriage is a symptom of that "bubble."  The Senator is a wise and judicious man and surely, if he thought about it a bit, he would have said that his greatest regret was not being able to cut property taxes down to a sane level.  For it is property taxes, a major driver of foreclosure and of homelessness, that is the greatest concern to the greatest many.

The idea that some Americans exist in "bubble" communities that vastly outstrip neighboring zip codes in status, wealth, cultural influence, and corporate/political power is not new.  Although now it seems to be going mainstream, filtering into "pop" culture.  Consider this recent skit from Saturday Night Live:

Wealthy professionals, like Al Doblin, should be aware of their class bias.  As a journalist, great care should be taken to seek out and include the opinions of genuine members of the working class for balance -- and not just members of the ruling class who happen to be labeled "diverse" for whatever reason

Spadea lost, just like he always does

Over the past year, Bill Spadea has used the corporate resources of Townsquare Media and Oaktree Capital Management in an effort to make Spadea a major player in New Jersey politics.  Those corporate resources are worth tens of millions of dollars and the airtime alone expended by Spadea and his agents would have cost the average political campaign millions to buy.  All it took was a complacent board of directors and a greedy local management for Spadea to accomplish this enormous appropriation of resources and capital.

Spadea accomplished what some would have considered impossible.  He took hold of a wallflower Lt. Governor and tore her away from the Governor who had mentored and promoted her.  Spadea smirked as the Lt. Governor performed stunts for him, like opposing Governor Christie on Ballot Question 2 (a subject she had been in silent approval of until Spadea taught her to sit up and beg, bark, and bite).  The Lt. Governor's Super PAC spent money to defeat Ballot Question 2 as she campaigned across the state on a platform that included advocating for a NO vote on both Question 2 and Donald Trump.

Poor Kim Guadagno.  She lost on both.  This is what happens when you follow the fluttering eyelashes of Billy "the hand" Spadea.  Yep.  A political prognosticator he aint.  Spadea can't help it, because his big ego gets in the way of him seeing clearly.  He wishes it to be, so he believes it will be, even when it won't be.

Spadea has had this problem his whole life.  He thought he was part of an historic wave when he tried to split the RNC and start a far-right third party in the mid-1990's.  That failed.  Then he ran for Congress and lost.  He started his "Red Shirt" movement, the "Building a New Majority" project, promoted a statewide GOP candidate who would transform the Republican Party to remake it in his vision.  Failed, failed, and failed again.  He even set his sights lower, ran for Assembly, and found himself blocked.  Another failure.  Bitterness followed.

Then he was rescued by FOX. Given a late-night "news of a kind" show.  Then the popular host of NJ101.5 had an accident, and Spadea found himself with a lever of power that he quickly learned and used to pursue his personal ambitions.

But Spadea went too far.  Having lost the gas tax vote he decided on the "Big Lie" approach and made up the myth that Ballot Question 2 was a vote on the gas tax.  People like Kim Guadagno believed him, but groups like AFP and ATR saw Spadea's bullshit for what it was.  On Tuesday, Spadea lost once again.