Under the Big Top: Yahoos, Zebras and the Big Tent

In a just world that made sense, no country would guarantee each and every yahoo the right to vote, regardless of his contribution to the greater good. In a just world, anyone getting free taxpayer money, whether living on the street or working on Wall Street, would be forbidden to pick the person who dispenses that money. In a just world, greasy brutes with butt cleavage and inked-up mamas in lime spandex would be turned away from the polling place in horror. But not in this world. Not in America. Here, we turn a blind eye to the obvious link between bad fashion sense and bad taste in candidates. Here, we're not permitted to profile those trying to kill us instantly with bombs or bullets; why would we be permitted to discriminate against those trying to kill us slowly with ballots? We're not. We're a constitutional republic using democratic means. In the public mind, yahoos rule and must be treated with dignity. So we have to make do. We have to curry their favor.

Don't get me wrong--democracy is a beautiful thing. I'm half for it. Let a yahoo into the voting booth and he's the equal of any Wall Street bankster, free to pull the trigger for any candidate that occurs to him. Name not on the ballot? Not a problem. If enough little monsters can be taught to write her name, Lady Gaga will be the next Leader of the Free World and wear a meat dress to her Inaugural Ball. And given our cultural state, maybe she should be, but let's not go there. There remains hope.

This is bad: a major party, the Democrats, commands the allegiance of as many tax-dependent know-nothing yahoos as possible, dead or alive, citizens or not, hiding them behind guilt-ridden glitterati, bloated unionists and a chunk of the very rich with vested interests or perverted notions of noblesse oblige. This is worse: they do it on purpose. They want more yahoos. They want a dim bulb electorate content with a daily crust and an endless circus. It suits their purpose--staying in power--down to the ground. Reasonable people might conclude that fewer yahoos would make the world a more pleasant place. Not the Democrats. To them, too many lazy yahoos is never enough. Yes, they must be fed, but they don't have to be fed well, and entertaining them is easy. Just show them pictures of other yahoos behaving badly and a good time will be had by all. And every last yahoo can vote at least once. You see what we are up against.

Which brings us to the other party, the Republicans. It has at least a nodding acquaintance with civilization, but faces a perennial chore: to peel off enough yahoo votes in order to win, and it is not getting easier as the yahoo ranks swell. It's frustrating, thankless work, because the truth is the Democrats don't do a damn thing for the yahoos. Oh, they pay a subsistence-level stipend to the most good-for-nothing yahoos to keep them off the streets, but let's face it, so do the Republicans. Someday we may figure out a better way to deal with them, but today, bribery is all we have. No real reason exists for yahoos not to vote for Republicans. In handling yahoos, the difference in the parties is more of style than substance, and purely existential: Democrats pretend to approve of the yahoos and be happy about footing their bills; Republicans do not approve and are grumpy. Democrats say "We love you just the way you are!" Republicans complain that improvement is needed. Democrats say "We are one of you!" Republicans drop some change into the cup and keep moving. Democrats say "The Republicans hate you." Republicans protest "We don't hate you. We're just indifferent." But that is not a winning message.

In order to win, Republicans are constantly tinkering with their message, trying to sway just enough yahoos to vote their way without catering to them; and changing the message means changing the messenger. Through attrition and grass-roots reorganization, by launching primary challenges against undesirable incumbents and speaking ill of the unwanted, the party purges itself of unreliable elements. After all, Republicans are supposed to be conservatives (not libertarians, not centrists--conservatives), the party of the right that opposes the left under all its aliases and disguises. Naturally, it would like to be rid of Republicans who are not conservative. This makes good sense, rather like a herd of zebras expelling fellow travelers who are actually hyenas. Hyenas may not attack right away or, being cowardly, on their own. They tend to mill around, pretending to graze. But let a Democratic lion bring down a zebra, and the hyenas are right there, sucking up to the lion, looking for leftovers. It's counter-productive to have too many hyenas mingling with the herd.

The Republican pet name for the hyena is RINO (Republican In Name Only). In hermetic pockets of the nation with a prevailing progressive ethos, like Yankeeland (the New York/New England northeast), it seems Republicans must offer RINOs to the electorate or come away empty-handed, but in most places, the RINO hunt is on. Efficiency would suggest that Republicans line up RINOs, shoot them, mount their stuffed heads as a public caution and replace them with dependable conservatives, but that would be illegal and not very nice. On the whole, Republicans are nice. Democrats bleat on behalf of humanity and only pretend to be nice. Most Republicans equate humanity with crosstown traffic at rush hour, but are actually nice to three-dimensional people--or at least imbued with a quaint notion of fair play beyond which Democrats have evolved.

Which brings us to the GOP's Ringmaster in the Sky: Ronald Reagan, who commanded us to speak no ill of a fellow Republican and encouraged a "Big Tent" philosophy. What did he mean? To answer that, recall the days when Reagan rose to power. But for a few brave voices, conservatism was regarded as already moldering on the ash heap of history. The rout of Goldwater was seen as its last spasm of life, rather than the first robin of spring. The progressive assumption reigned; world-wide top-down rule by experts was regarded as inevitable. Emerging from the Great Depression, the New Deal and World War II, government was a kindly force that would grow ever broader and deeper, the go-to guy of first resort--no job too large or small. Uncle Sam? No, Big Daddy Sam, and Mama Sam, and little Sammy bureaucrats running wild, but not to worry: one day soon, it would take care of everything, liberating its subjects to enjoy carefree lives. Only a few seemed to notice that that model had never worked well or long anywhere and had pretty much stopped working in America by the end of the 1950s; one of those people was Reagan.

And just as we must do today, Reagan had to play it as it lays. Then as now, job one was to win. Having been a despised minority swimming against the "progressive" tide for most of the 20th century, the conservative task was great: slow the tide, stem the tide, force the tide to ebb. To do this, the Republicans needed warm bodies--Republican butts in legislative pews, in Washington and around the country. If you were a candidate with an R trailing your name, you were golden. No ill must be spoken publicly of you by a fellow R. The goal was to get you into office, then bring you under party discipline and whip you into shape. And to win this numbers game, the GOP could no longer afford to present itself as the party of country club loungers with fat portfolios, comfortable bellies and white shoes. So the country club stretched a Big Tent to cover the whole front lawn, and erected a huge billboard that read something like this: THE REPUBLICANS: ONE BIG PARTY. Not Your Father's GOP. Hyenas and Yahoos Welcome. Giant Government, Taxes, Over-regulation and Weakness Are Bad for All Americans; Strength and Freedom Good for Everybody. Come One, Come All for Your Shot at the American Dream. You, Too, Can Wear White Shoes.

And it worked, because it was a friendly reminder of timeless American truth. Reagan was imperfect, but he was perfect for his time. If anything, given the obstacles, his success is understated. When he came, Soviet communism seemed ascendant. When he left, it was all but dead. When he came, America was a pitiful, helpless giant, beset by economic malaise and blackmailed by fanatical pissants; when he left, American footsteps once more shook the earth. When he came, government was the solution; when he left, it was the problem--and is still seen that way. When he came, taxes were accepted stoically, like death; when he left, few regarded taxes as anything but a necessary evil. Reagan permanently changed the political conversation in terms of ideals and debate. When he came, we were all liberals to some degree; when he left, liberal had become the "L" word. Love him or not, let's face it, Reagan kicked butt. He not only stemmed the progressive tide, but made the waters begin to recede. Obama promised that he could control the waters, too; now he'd be happy to doggie paddle through one last year without drowning.

We are still living in the Reagan Era. The Big Tent that he conjured into existence is still standing. providing shelter for all and the greatest good for the greatest number. Republicans and Democrats alike toil in his shadow. To survive after 1994, Clinton slipped into white loafers and governed as a Republican; and, even as the Obama Moment begins to fade, twice as many Americans call themselves conservative as call themselves liberal. So what, exactly, is the problem? Why is the Republican party chasing its tail trying to pick a standard-bearer? The stars are better aligned for a smashing GOP victory in 2012 than for Obama in 2008. The Reagan message resounds as loudly as it did in 1980...or 1776. Europe is beginning to hear it. The whole world hears it. It doesn't need retooling. Reagan was just a man, and he is dead, but long live Reagan. Someone--please--pick up the banner and ride.

If you listen to establishment media, you will hear that the key to victory in any election is to attract independents--and it's true that about 40% of eligible voters have no party. Some of these independents are yahoos, some are confused, some don't give a damn, but if you believe the media, independents are moderates, refusing to swing too far right or left. And these moderates are militant--just as hot for moderation as any Marxist for the dictatorship of the proletariat. They insist upon moderation. And even more than moderate independents, the media seems to adore moderate Republicans, that is, hybrid Republicans who are not full-blown conservatives. What is a moderate Republican? No one is sure. Is it a Republican loved by yahoos? Is it neither zebra nor hyena, but half of each, a freakish thing that nips at its own heels as it trots? A horse divided against itself that cannot stand? In fact, the media only likes a moderate Republican until he is running against a Democrat, and only pretends to like him beforehand because history shows he stands a good chance of losing. The Republicans that win are Reagan and those who stand on the shoulders of Reagan: Bush the Elder in his first run and Bush the Younger twice, although neither adequately filled his shoes. If insanity can be defined by repeating the same action, but expecting a different result, the last candidate the Republicans should offer next year is one that does not provide a stark choice. As Osama bin Laden said "Show the people a strong horse and a weak horse, and they will choose the strong horse every time."

We'd love to persuade the yahoo that remaining a yahoo may not be in his best interest, but failing that, we can remind him that the only way he can afford to remain a yahoo is to elect leaders that will protect his sorry butt from other yahoos and keep the money tree in bloom. That requires voting for Republicans, who have proven that they know how to keep the twin ships of state and society afloat (Democrats don't even know that they are two different ships, often sailing in opposite directions). Even the yahoo will pick the strong horse, the one that can carry the burden, plow the field, go the distance. He won't really care if it has stripes.

No one denies that winning is the most important thing, but (sorry, Coach Lombardi) it's not the only thing. Granted, any Republican (sorry, Ron Paul is not a Republican) is better than any Democrat. Especially when that Democrat is Barack Obama. Never mind the NWO crowd; the difference between the two major parties is substantial, in philosophy and in practice. Forced to choose between going to hell slowly (with a puncher's chance to escape the flames) with a RINO/hyena and burning now, I'm voting for the hyena. So will almost all Republicans--and many who are not. (Exhibit A: Bush gave us Roberts and Alito; Obama gave us Kagan and Sotomayor. The defense rests.) Yet, a slim chance exists that we won't have to go to hell at all. To maximize that chance, we must elect a conservative Republican, a zebra who never changes his--or her--stripes, who never strays from or dilutes the message tested and proven by time and trial, who knows the difference between friend and foe, who stands tall and says "Prosperity is born only of freedom. Peace is born only of strength. Security comes only from people serving their own and striving in concert. Dignity comes only of honor. And the rights of Americans come only from God." That's the sign outside the Big Tent. It is a winning message. Indeed, it is the most powerful political message ever delivered to humanity. Sounded boldly again, most Americans--even yahoos (not all of whom are stupid)--will once more flock to it. Maybe it's a gamble. But these are not ordinary times, this is no ordinary election, and it is a risk that must be taken.

Copyright (c) 2011, Daniel Crocker