Rachel Bovard at The Federalist thinks Republicans need to get radical. But what does that mean? How do you think the Grand Old Party should embrace or reject this advice?
Right Angle comes to you four times weekly thanks to our Members, who also enjoy a Members-only Backstage episode. Membership allows you to join the production team, and to interact with your new conservative friends on the Member-written blog, forums and comments. To join, tap the big green button above. To donate, tap the big blue button.
Steve Green, Scott Ott and Bill Whittle have been doing a news panel show each week since 2009.
We’re grateful to Alfonzo Rachel for joining us this week while Bill develops his latest series on the former Soviet Union.
18 replies on “Redefining Radical: Should Republicans ‘Get Radical’, and If So, How?”
I’d like to make the term ‘radical’ more specific. I think Republicans must have clear specific goals. And to me, the number 1 goal should be ‘cut non-defense government spending sharply and then cut taxes’. Some in the GOP, RINOs, are comfortable with ‘big government’, that is, spending a lot and taxing a lot. When the RINOs run for office, in effect, they say to the public ‘We’re fine with lots of spending and taxes. We’re fine with big government. But vote for the GOP because we’ll manage big government better than the Democrats.’ This is a deadly hopeless approach to ever seeing improvement in how we are governed in America. In effect, these RINOs have lost the war with the Democrats intellectually and morally before they even take office or hold office for years and years while kissing Democratic butt. To me, being radical means attacking big government as a concept which inevitably leads to disaster. Are we not seeing that now with ugly inflation, a flood of brain dead COVID mandates from entrenched bureaucrats, a department of justice, really injustice, arresting those who disagree with the Democrats while giving supporters of the left a free pass to commit any crime, on and on and on? The point is ‘Cut government!’ and keep cutting.
WOW! Whole new level of respect for Scott. Glad to learn from him today. Let’s get back to normal. If that is considered by some to be radical, so be it.
Scott often gets grief for his viewpoints, even here on BWC and more so ‘out in the wild’ on YouTube. I suspect that’s one of the reasons for the termination of the series “Bill Whittle NOW”. Scott does a good job of understanding both sides of the issue and often does not get the respect he truly deserves.
I’m glad you found a ‘whole new level of respect’ and hope that added to already considerable respect. I’m not speaking to you personally when I say Conservatives who don’t respect opinions like Scott typifies are not worthy of respect themselves. Scott’s opinions are one of the main things that keep this from becoming an echo chamber of impotent Conservative rage.
In punditry Bill and Steve have their peers but Scott is different. We’re blessed to have that difference here.
Yup. Of the three of them, and I love them all for their own strengths and efforts, Scott is the most like me. He’s VERY much like me.
I love this format. It works so well. Three people giving their viewpoints and batting the ideas back and forth to test them out and see what happens with them.
Incidentally, a lot of Scott’s “viewpoints”, especially on BWN, are actually him purposely taking the devil’s advocate position to force the others to shore up their thoughts and make them more solid and less assailable.
We need more of that on our side. “Rah! Rah! Ree!” over and over doesn’t really make us any better at any of this.
Yeah, I’m aware of all of that. It does no good to hear one side of the argument. You need to know the other side and how to counter it. The ‘how to counter it’ part is invaluable. Scott is great at that and does us all considerable service thereby.
I don’t think he gets the appreciation he deserves, and he’s too humble to point out he deserves it. So he’s not like me, I’m not very humble at all. Still, I like to make sure he gets the credit he merits so I’ll generally pipe up with my two cents worth when he’s brought up here in the comments.
For doing that, and things like that, the gentleman directly below this thread has called me an ‘asskisser’. Obviously he doesn’t know me at all or that thought would never have occurred to him.
I raised two boys and I know how to say something positive when positive is what’s called for. I know how to say something negative when negative is merited too. Asskissing is something I don’t do, despite how it might look to the ignorant.
From what I’ve read from you, you can safely ignore any comments disparaging you.
I have no doubt you call things as you see them.
I actually don’t ignore those people as a rule, I never miss an opportunity and they are an opportunity. I sort of have the bad habit of mocking them unmercifully when they ask for it. That kind can’t help but asking for it. I’m thrilled to oblige.
Still, I admit I do derive an excessive amount of pleasure from said mockery. I enjoy it way too much.
That little thing about being called an asskisser wasn’t really for your information so much as to let that ‘other’ person know the difference between asskissing and genuine appreciation. He reads everything I post so I know the effort wasn’t wasted.
It’s every bit as important to express appreciation as it is to express condemnation. I can’t begin to count the number of times I’ve complimented someone on a job done well and they looked at me with stark surprise. Because no one told them they were doing things right and they didn’t know. They were doing the best they could and didn’t really know that they were doing it very well, whatever ‘it’ was.
A similar thing is to defend those I know to be in the right against those who are not. Same effect.
People not only like to be appreciated, it motivates them too. If appreciation is applied properly and justly.
This is a foundational principle to lead men in adversity: You gotta chew butts for mistakes and you gotta pat backs for top performance. Both the chewing and the patting have to be sincere, honest AND correct. There’s no faster way to bust a cog in the machine than to chew someone out wrongly so you’d better be damn sure you know the situation. There’s also no better way to drop a top performer down to a mediocre level of operation than to never notice when they do an exceptional job.
Years and years ago I worked for my Dad*. When you work for your Dad, you are one of two types. Either Dad gave you a job because you couldn’t get one anywhere else and he was helping you out because you’re a sad sack so you slide — Or you’re the best man for the job and ol’ Dad expects top quality from his own kid.
When a new hire would come onboard Dad would point at me and say “See that guy? That’s my son. He’ll show you what and how to do things. Just do things the way he does and you’ll do great.”
Coming from my old man, that was a pretty serious compliment.
So no, idiots do not bother me. They’re target practice. Let’s see if one will pop his head up …
🙂
(*Another lesson I learned from my Dad is he taught me — “There’s a way to call a man an asshole in such a manner that he will not only like it, he’ll do what you want him to also.” Dad was right and the statement is self explanatory. When Dad told people to do things the way I do them, he was calling me an asshole and making me like it. He was also making me responsible and would chew me out if someone screwed up because I didn’t set a good example. Leaving me with little choice but to be the best example I could be. Smart guy, my old man. I miss him a lot.)
You’re a well grounded man, and the fact that you can admit your faults (without wearing them as a badge) underscores that.
It has been shown that positive re-enforcement is crucial toward developing not only doing the right thing, but *wanting* to and striving to do the right thing. Sure, the stick is often needed, but the carrot works better if it is available in any given situation.
Now that was a 5 star episode. I went into it thinking I’d heard Zo talk about the term “radical” enough that I probably wouldn’t get much out of it this time. Glad to say, I was SO wrong. 10/10!
(repeat my Rumble comment)
Like Satan, Demonic-rats twist words to fit their agenda…it’s incumbent upon us to remind them…ʎluO snsǝſ uɐɔ ⊥H⅁Iᴚ noʎ.
This is a good topic! The Left co-opts and redefines words to fit their narrative so — Let’s start by using the real definition of radical as it pertains in context to this situation.
Adjective: radical
1. (used of opinions and actions) far beyond the norm2. Markedly new or introducing fundamental change3. Arising from or going to the root or source
4. (linguistics) of or relating to or constituting a linguistic root5. (botany) especially of leaves; located at the base of a plant or stem; especially arising directly from the root or rootstock or a root-like stemNoun: radical
1. (chemistry) two or more atoms bound together as a single unit and forming part of a molecule2. An atom or group of atoms with at least one unpaired electron; in the body it is usually an oxygen molecule that has lost an electron and will stabilize itself by stealing an electron from a nearby molecule3. A person who has radical ideas or opinions
4. (mathematics) a quantity expressed as the root of another quantity5. A character conveying the lexical meaning of a logogram6. (linguistics) the form of a word after all affixes are removed[WordWeb.info]
Society always has radicals. When the previous crop of radicals takes control they are no longer radicals, they are the norm. The previous norm now becomes the radicals. So what is a “Conservative Radical”?
Using the meaning of the noun amplified and clarified by the adjective (which is what adjectives are for, BTW) we get a clear picture of what a “radical” Conservative looks like:
A person who has radical ideas or opinions arising from or going to the root or source.
Scott’s completely right that if we want to effect change for the better we need to ‘live’ our ideology. News Flash! Most of the United States is center right Conservative. Most Conservatives DO live their ideology with one important exception.
Most Conservatives neither proselytize nor vote to maintain their ideologies. If you’re actually going to live your Conservatism, be it Christian or another flavor, you’re not doing that if you’re not telling people why ours is the best system and then getting off the couch and going to the voting booth.
We here on this site and subscribers/consumers of other Conservative content are a tiny minority of Conservatism that is interested enough to get involved in political battles. Most people don’t think like we do, most people don’t act like we do. Most people have other priorities, mistake though that may be it is what it is, and let politics run on autopilot in their thinking.
That kind of person doesn’t ‘wake up’ until something political is adversely impacting their own lives.
Which is a thing that’s happening right now.
So don’t waste this golden opportunity to live your best radical Conservative life. Tell people how to fix the problems we’re having, and prevent them in the future, by getting out and voting to preserve the lifestyle we all enjoy so much and all too many Americans take for granted.
SPOT ON. The biggest problem with most of America is that things are OK for the most part. ANd conservatives (most of us) just want to be left alone. We send- or see other send- people to Washington to keep things running the way they always have, and we don’t get upset until somebody starts to change those things RADICALLY. In other words changes in OUR lives.
Conservatives are too busy living to complain too much. We work all day, we watch TV at night and let the news get us upset at minor things. We get vacations now and then, and like to spen all that apare time with family or in pursuit of thigns that we like to do.
There is another whole faction of society whose JOB is avoiding work. And they are willing to work awfully hard to do that. (in fact- many work harder at this than they would if they had an actual society-supporting job). This group likes to make signs, go to protests and scream loudly about the way the rest of us should live. They believe they are actually smarter and more evolved in their thinking than everybody else.
Hopefully, we have been awakened enough to set things right before we go back to our TV remotes and fishing trips.
I don’t think of things being OK as being a problem exactly. That’s a good thing. It’s the complacency because things are OK that is the real problem.
The alternative is things being not OK so much that there’s no complacency. That’s even worse. I’d rather deal with complacency than blood in the streets.
But I get what you’re saying and in the context you intended I agree. I’m not picking, I’m just clarifying.
Now is a great time to be talking to people about politics. Lots of people think ‘politics’ is a dirty word not fit for polite company. It’s a good time to point out the error in thinking that way. Before they go back to their TV remotes and fishing trips. Because the rest of us fixed everything for them.
I love the term Kurt Schlichter uses for us – “Militant Normals”
Chemistry major here. A free radical is defined as an atom or molecule containing one or more unpaired electrons in valency shell or outer orbit making it capable of independent existence. The last part of that sounds like we should all be free radicals, right? Well, the nature of a free radical makes it unstable, short-lived, and highly reactive. Hmmm. But free radicals, especially reactive oxygen species, are particularly beneficial at mild to moderate levels to our physiology and immunity. Extending the analogy from biochemistry to society, we free radicals could be the motors of our communities mitochondria, the protectors of our freedom. Who wouldn’t want that? But high levels of free radicals cause disease.
Maybe that’s what the free radical Thomas Jefferson meant when he talked about needing to blow up the government every few years. He surely did.
I have never been a big supporter of term limits, but I become more convinced of the need each year. It seems as if the people we send to Washington forget who they work for and report to. It’s like they go to DC, and suddenly get the idea they work for some company called DC Inc. So, for this reason alone, they should be changed as regularly as possible.
I was mad when I watched the news last evening and saw that Eric Swallwell was visiting Ukraine. WHY?! What possible interest could his district have in whatever is happening in Ukraine? Do they have businesses over there? I think not. DC Inc.thinking at work there.
Similarly, my own congressman voted in favor of the $84B they sent to Ukraine. With a district that encompasses Fort Hood, I would think he should oppose any funds that have the potential to put a whole fort full of our soldiers in harms way. Yah, he’s a republican, but a bad one.
Steve Green — A new drinking game for you. Take a drink every time Zo futzes with his hat. Better have a vast supply! (Sorry, but I find Zo irritating.)
“Why now?” It’s been, until about 16 or so years ago, the proverbial frog in a slowly heating pan of water.
Radical. Yes. I learned IN GRADE SCHOOL (full disclosure, I went to parochial schools – but you can look this up, too if you don’t believe me) … that in the mid 1800’s right after the party came into existence, there was a faction of the Republican Party that called themselves. “Radical Republicans”. They called themselves that because they wanted Lincoln to be more aggressive the push to end slavery.