The time has finally come to kill the phrase “the establishment” once and for all. In Virginia, some conservatives have reached a point where Jim Gilmore, Ed Gillespie, and Bob McDonnell are not establishment, but Eric Cantor and Chris Christie fit the bill.
Other conservatives, loyal to Gilmore, attack Gillespie as “establishment.” Some Gillespie supporters think Governor McDonnell is the epitome of establishment. Clearly, the word “establishment” has no commonly accepted meaning and therefore cannot be used intelligently in a sentence. Drop it.
If you have a problem with Republican House Leadership, refer to them that way. If you have a problem with K Street (or Cary Street) lobbyists, refer to them that way. If you have a problem with Republican leaders in the House of Delegates or the Senate, refer to them that way. If you have a problem with the Republican Party of Virginia, or if anything of even the slightest significance happens in Virginia politics that displeases you, blame John Whitbeck (everyone else does, it’s like the totally cool thing to do).
But if you have a problem with a specific set of policies, pieces of legislation, comments, philosophical positions and so on, then refer to them in particular. No one has the slightest idea what anyone is talking about anymore.
The same is true of the word “conservative,” a word spoken with righteous indignation to congratulate oneself or others as being the “true Republicans.” However, Virginia conservatives span the entire ideological spectrum to the right of extremely liberal. “Conservative” is supposed to refer to a long tradition of pragmatic governing philosophies derived from the best wisdom of the generations which came before us, time-tested and easily communicated. Now there are Hannity-conservatives, Limbaugh-conservatives, Levin-conservatives, Gilmore-conservatives, Gillespie-conservatives, Cantor-conservatives, ad infinitum.
We’ve so bastardized our own language and labels that, like the workers at the Tower of Babel, we find ourselves make sounds at one another without actually saying anything.
Our inability to communicate with one another is creating fractures and divisions between people that agree on just about everything (except for that all important issue that proves the other guy isn’t really “conservative”).
I think we’ve been lazy. Let’s elevate the discussion. Let’s focus on legislation, on policy-initiatives, on facts. Let’s forget about labels, intrigue, and conspiracy. Let’s use our words. After all, the Republican Party is now the Party with all the best words.
Yes actually Virginia…there is a Santa Claus and there is such a thing as an ‘Establishment’. A simple use of Google will give you a consensus of what constitutes that very thing with articles and opinions from across the spectrum.
I see you are still “trolling” for a bigger paycheck.
This article is more fake news.
You know, it’s hilarious. The right and the left mainstream media has been spitting out fake news for years now. And now they’re pissed off because everybody else is getting in the fake news business and they don’t like the competition.
Even the weather has become fake news.
So fake fake news becomes real???
Much love to the whole fam damily.
– your brother,
Joe Quinn jr.
Respectfully, I disagree. “Establishment” is clear as a bell. Specific example? — Who tried to revive earmarks last week? The Establishment, which means the single group of leaders from both parties that use Congress to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else. (see Schweizer’s book “Extortion”)
How about we just call ourselves “The Anti-Progressives”? It is more unifying and no one can argue that point.
How about pro-Liberty. Got to be for something because nobody ever got anywhere by being against some. Trump got somewhere because he was Big Time FOR WHAT?
AMERICA FIRST !!
Or just Republicans and make it mean something.
How can one possibly establish oneself with the True Believers unless one opposes the … establishment…?
We need new labels. The old ones have gone stale and have less meaning because they have become misused, as stated above, and it is hard to define our new standard-bearer, President Trump. Exactly what is a Trump Republican? Once people are able to peg him, we will find new terms for varying factions. Right now, there is no wind in our lexical sails. Give it time. The pundit class will come up with something that sticks.
Since Trump is not ideological, a “Trump Republican” is anyone, regardless of party, that quickly kissed his arse on November 9th right after saying for months that he’s not fit to run. This apparently includes all RINOs and Establishmentistas. I’ll welcome any limited-government or free enterprise actions that randomly occur between his constitutional infractions.
Ouch! And bitter!!
I’m good with Republican — with us or agin’ us.
Jim Gilmore, Ed Gillespie, Bob McDonnell, Eric Cantor and Chris Christie .
All those guys are establishment. However, some of them are better than the others and willing to work with other factions
Yes! Your point is well taken in that some may be better than the others. This though is like saying that that carbon monoxide is more comfortable than strychnine, and yet as note of finality … dead is dead. Clearly we want candidates that will with conviction go on the attack after the election for the kind of life we choose to live. Acceptance, acquiescence to a sub-marginal living death that the above mention always server up is simply unacceptable.
We’d do much better not to reflexively support candidates that are not us. I offer a local example. Four out of five of my all Republican county boards of supervisors are Marxist/Socialist candidates. They would like that label, but by action, that is what they are. Therefore, I do not lift a finger for them just because they say they are Republicans, conservatives and whatever other crap nonsense comes slithering out of their mouths.. But I will lift many fingers to subvert, displace, and replace their continuously on display Sovietization of American government.
Also there is no Mafia.
And no spoon.
Given that the people behind the Radical Transformation of America, those people that are forcing Globalist One World Government upon the people of world, given that these people do not want to be identified and have consistently denied their agenda, we must take it upon ourselves to have some frame of reference. The word Establishment has therefore served some useful purpose at the very minimum in signifying that the Tyrants-in-Charge of the ruination of America are not us. Therefore, throwing that basic distinction out the window does not appear to me to be the stuff of wisdom.
I notice that leaders such a Trump, Nigel Farage, Geert Widlers, Marina Le Pen and others seem to have no trouble in identifying problems and organizing a good line of attack. These leaders use labels all the time, but they do so with focus arising out of the kind of education which slices through lies like a hot knife through butter.
Absent a ‘higher information’ public, your proposed cure in public policy and facts emphasis is likely to be a mere continuation of the squabbling by other means, and with the Swamp not drained. Thus I must pause to say that the disease and cure are essentially one and the same by operation, and little more than an intellectual bait and switch.
You should visit Frederick County & the 10th District
But with protection and precaution. Thar be Triggers!
I’m not sure I know what they are.
And yes! I think Populist is a vague term, an all too flippantly used item. It is, of course, the specialty of the elites to sponsor Day Trips to Nowhere. And word vagary which keeps folks talking past one another in perpetuity, this all fits the bill to a tee.
In war, we should call the enemy for what they are, and not by some watered down accommodation. In this interview, Lord Moncton uses words descriptive of the enemy. He seeks no word accommodation, nor spares any quarter, and yet Moncton is effective in his expression.
If the world is now polarized in warfare in which there will be one winner and one loser, and only one left standing, then let language reflect that reality … or else language by our use becomes a lie.
Lord Monckton is a truly amazing person..
Very true, just like the term RINO is overused and had no real meaning. If nothing else, this 2016 election cycle has proven that most of these terms are used as pejoratives in a personal dispute and have no basis in any actual analysis.
Not supporting the nominee is pretty RINO.
Unless the nominee is a “RINO”, see what I mean?
Ding Ding Ding – we have a winner.
Cathy is a fine Conservative Republican and not a RINO.
SBT is not of the chosen district and is all over the map.
Nope, the nominee, even if she has a crappy rating and a tin ear, she’s still the nominee. If the party doesn’t support the nominee, what’s the point of a party?
If there’s a RINO official; fix it in the nominee selection, if you can’t beat them in a nominating contest, you are obligated to support the selection of the party.
When you are a Republican Party or elected office holder, and do not support another nominee, or adversely affect another nominee, you are either A) no longer a Republican or B) fêted to be no longer a Republican.
Both of these categories I consider RINO’s, and should be marked as such, hypothetically by fluorescent pink paintballs at a convention or picnic.
I’m not disagreeing with your premise on party nomination entirely, but my comment was on the use of RINO, Establishment, name calling in general. I’d say an overwhelming majority of the time people use these terms in the middle of pissing contests. They mean little to nothing to anyone, anymore, at all. The usage is highly subjective and mostly personal. We’d have to ALL agree on the definitions of 100 terms and their usage before any of it would make sense – and the chances of that happening? Zippy!
Yes, I blame the Tea Party. Within the party we used to be able to have a clear consensus on the pinkness and squishyness of establishment forces.
Now we have libertarian RINOs, TP RINOs, conservative RINOs, conscience RINOs and even more.
Now I collectively refer to the GOP country club establishment liberal dem-lite as GOPeRINOs (GOPelite/RINOs) and work to thwart/purge them all.
If we each sweep out our own unit undesirables, the whole party will be clean.
Arguments I think you can make …
1) The TEA party rebellion is over (or not), and the insurgency against the establishment has run its course. I think you could make this argument one way or the other. Back when the TEA party was much more visible the clear distinction between the insurgency and establishment was so obvious nobody would claim it didn’t exist, and to this day those same people are arguing with one another, witness the recent fight over whether there would be a convention or primary for the next election of governor.
2) The insurgency has become the establishment (or not). I think you could make this argument too, maybe enough time has passed that the most recent uprising has essentially put the insurgency in charge of enough of the party apparatus that it has actually replaced the establishment, or become part of it. I don’t think that, but I could see someone making that argument.
3) The GOP should put all of this behind them and focus on winning elections (or not). I think you could make this argument, maybe its time to just put aside the internal debate and focus on winning some elections, after a few straight losses in Virginia there would be a lot of people who would like to make this argument, people who are just sick of losing. There are a lot who would argue against it too, because there are plenty of people who think this hasn’t run its course yet.
4) Gillespie is a candidate that both the establishment and rebels can get behind, so the GOP should rally behind that flag and put all of this aside at least for this one election (or not). Obviously there are people who support Gillespie who want to make this argument.
5) Etc ..
There is, however, one argument I don’t think you can make, and that’s the argument that there is no such thing as the establishment. That may be because the words are too fuzzy, because nobody has taken a poll or census to see who is establishment and who isn’t, that everyone calls everyone else the establishment so it doesn’t mean anything, etc. All that is just B.S. as far as I’m concerned.
Anyone who has watched Virginia politics, and the politics of the GOP party in general and its endless infighting since about 2008 knows all too well that there has been without any doubt at all an ongoing battle between the grassroots and “the establishment”. To claim that hasn’t happened is to deny reality. Much of it has been horrible to watch, a lot of feelings hurt, a lot of bitter primaries, words exchanged, slating, divisiveness, etc, entrenched opinions on all sides, competing philosophies and visions of where the GOP should go. It has NOT been politics as usual, it has been at times ugly to watch, even cringe worthy. To deny it has happened, and on some levels is still happening, is impossible.
Maybe people have had enough and are ready to come together, I don’t know, but that is not the same thing as saying there is no establishment and no rebellion against it.
1) As long as a Tea Party is pretending to be an independent organization/movement/entity, it has no legs and cannot effect lasting change in the GOP. Marbles outside the political parties don’t roll.
2) any insurgency, like the tea party influx into congress, have become co-opted by the ‘system.’
3) “can’t we just get along” ship has sailed. Telling the abused spouse to ‘suck it up for the sake of the kids or reputation’ is just as unacceptable inside our party.
4) it’s not about who the establishment and rebels can get behind, we’ve got a $4 million dollar primary that we’ve soaked the taxpayers for and lots of money to piss away on fighting Republicans. I don’t think Ed almost convincing Virginia he would be a good senator translates into convincing them he would be a good governor too!
In every contest you can clearly see who is more or less establishment. Ed the Lobbyist does not equate to Ed the Governor in this race, in this state, at this time.
To be clear, I am absolutely not denying corruption, heavy-handed tactics, corporatism, or any of the other despicable moves made by entrenched powers within the party. What I’m saying is that we’ve lost the initiative when it comes to the language. You say there really is an establishment. Who are they? Name names. Things are so intertwined and jumbled it will be hard to do so. Even locally, we’ve had turn over of several local committees – in many cases favorable to the “grassroots” and “liberty people”.
What is happening – the reason I wrote this – is that people are using the word establishment and all anyone is understanding is the pejorative. If that is all we are communicating when we use these words then there is no point in communicating at all.
My point was that word matter – communication matters – and if we have a problem with something, then we need to offer a little more than merely labeling something establishment or conservative. We need to dig a little deeper if we want to have our ideas taken up and understood by others.
“You say there really is an establishment. Who are they ? Name names.”
I’ll let a Progressive explain it to you.
Look, just because you can’t make a list of who is and isn’t the establishment (and check it twice, naught and nice lol) doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Check Democrats out, they’re in the middle of this right now, they know Clinton is the establishment, would you argue against that ? Does she carry an establishment membership card ? No, of course not, but it is what it is.
I get what you’re saying, I just don’t agree. If you line up 1000 shades of color between blue and purple I might not be able to say exactly where the boundary is, but that doesn’t mean I don’t know what blue and purple are.
Well said! I thought the ‘whole effort’ of the article rather vacuous in a practical practical sense, and the kind of intellectualizing that does little but put the car into the ditch.
One possibly interesting comment. With effect, the real insurgents have always come out of the membership of the Duoply Party System, both Republican and Democrat. Insurgent against what! Insurgents in the overthrow of American Law and it informing system of limited constitutional government. That’s what … and the insurgency has been ongoing for many, many decades.
You’ve noticed the theme and the refrain. Occasionally there are some party chops but mostly concern essaying. However, just like a broken clock is right twice a day…
Forget the clocks! Broken ones only tell eternal time! My bet is on the Don Quixote’s horse. I am betting that the horse is a better essayist than most of the scribblers at TBE. But just a guess!
I’m good with new purgeoritives.
We have just begun to fight! We will make 2017 the turning point of the 100 year “Progression.” Progressive leadership is aging into dust and their replacements are either stunned into at least listening to fiscally responsible ideas or coloring in their safe spaces. Long live the Freedom Caucus!
Events in Europe and stemming from the Trump election tend to signify, at least in my mind, that the fight has just begun in earnest. The people have had enough of being dictated to by a gaggle of Socialist/Marxist internationists in their homes, their business, in every phase of their lives. The people want an end to social jiggering insanity … and also, control of their borders.
Some people forget that life belongs to us, not to the corrupt Commissars ruling over us. Time to take back control over our destiny.
Freedom caucus is another group with hats, rings, and passwords??
Don’t be silly. All we have is a secret handshake!
Seriously, it’s a recognized caucus of about 40 reps. I think Dave Brat of Va. is taking chair next year. You can prob. find google references to them in the news.
It’s a good start, maybe my Rep. Comstock will join in….
Once more, Mr Tucker hits the nail squarely on the head.