This is an excellent dialogue, and I recommend giving it a read.
In it, Haywood identifies “No enemies to the Right” as a key strategy for the Right to gain power
This is true. However…
[1/18]
In it, Haywood identifies “No enemies to the Right” as a key strategy for the Right to gain power
This is true. However…
[1/18]
The primary argument that Miller makes against this claim, when boiled down, is that treating politics as a wargame makes it a slippery slope into war.
This is also true.
But nonetheless, Haywood’s point is correct.
This is also true.
But nonetheless, Haywood’s point is correct.
1. The Left is already using war strategy, and there’s no reason the Right should hold itself to a different standard, and “fight fair” on an unfair battlefield
As @AuronMacintyre says:
The side that wants to win will always beat the side that wants to be left alone.
As @AuronMacintyre says:
The side that wants to win will always beat the side that wants to be left alone.
Also, the Right already lacks institutional power.
There’s no reason to direct *any* energy toward infighting when this energy should be aimed at destroying the Left.
There’s no reason to direct *any* energy toward infighting when this energy should be aimed at destroying the Left.
2. The Left pursues such a strategy - “no enemies to the Left” - and it works in attaining institutional power.
Any intra-Left issues are solved in private or left alone — ultimately, everyone Left & Left-adjacent will unite behind common goals and make them happen.
Any intra-Left issues are solved in private or left alone — ultimately, everyone Left & Left-adjacent will unite behind common goals and make them happen.
The Left shows no public rifts or points of weakness. Meanwhile, the Right tears itself apart regularly.
Attaining moral/ideological perfection is a utopian goal of the Right, and though noble, is counterproductive.
Attaining moral/ideological perfection is a utopian goal of the Right, and though noble, is counterproductive.
If I can generalize a strategic mindset of the Left, it’s this:
“We’ll gain power, and then we’ll figure it out.”
The Right wants to “figure it out” (an impossible debate that will continue ad infinitum) and then gain power.
Meanwhile, the Left gains more power.
“We’ll gain power, and then we’ll figure it out.”
The Right wants to “figure it out” (an impossible debate that will continue ad infinitum) and then gain power.
Meanwhile, the Left gains more power.
The Left tolerates a significant amount of dissent within its ranks, because ultimately, all sides of every debate will throw their full weight behind Leftist goals in the public sphere.
This is partially a function of the fact that it’s socially acceptable to do so (and therefore easy), and partially a function of Leftist strategy.
However, some draw the wrong conclusion from the first point - social acceptability - and unintentionally end up *helping* the Left.
For example, Dreher, and to some extent, Miller.
For example, Dreher, and to some extent, Miller.
The way Right-wingers win the “culture war” is by publicly representing the Right and bringing it back into the realm of social acceptability.
Many on here talk about this in different ways —
Being fit/healthy/attractive as a core principle of representing the Right well, etc.
Many on here talk about this in different ways —
Being fit/healthy/attractive as a core principle of representing the Right well, etc.
But ultimately, “culture” is a function of what’s most prevalent in society, and the longer the Right spends as a fringe movement that mostly infights, the more of the majority the Left captures.
There needs to be unified public representation of the Right, to some extent or another.
Monolithic public pushes against Left agendas, unified calls to action, etc.
Monolithic public pushes against Left agendas, unified calls to action, etc.
Re: Miller’s point on the slippery slope — this is largely a moot point.
There are two options for the future:
1. Total Left Domination, which is a sure evil
2. Right-wing power of any sort, which could of course degenerate to something base, but at least has the *possibility* of being good.
1. Total Left Domination, which is a sure evil
2. Right-wing power of any sort, which could of course degenerate to something base, but at least has the *possibility* of being good.
Basically, either we passively let the bad guys win, or we actually try to fight them and win — and take the risk of our movement becoming something undesirable.
The Right has to be willing to take that risk!
The Right has to be willing to take that risk!
Not taking that risk is a clear lack of confidence, an expression of weakness.
A quiet acceptance of eternal subjugation because “well what if we fuck it up?”
It’s a cop-out.
A quiet acceptance of eternal subjugation because “well what if we fuck it up?”
It’s a cop-out.
Either we play the game, or we lose by default.
No Enemies to the Right.
No Enemies to the Right.
Loading suggestions...