A response to Mimus Pauly
Earlier this week, I wrote an essay entitled "Plucking their Strings". My main argument was that progressives will need to abandon their boy-scout-goody-two-shoes ways if they ever expect to gain political power. My conclusion was that we'd do well to verse ourselves in "the dark arts of Rove". Anyhow, Mimus Pauly violently disagreed with me in a post at A Mockingbird's Melody. Therefore, I thought I'd respond to a few particulars (I'm letting the numerous Ad-Hominems slide). Mimus Pauly's questions are denoted by bold italics.
But what the bloody Christ is wrong with Nick Lewis?!
Quite a few people, including myself, have been asking that question since I was in Kindergarden. Even today, the answers remain elusive.One, who the fuck are you to decide what's "true, just, and beautiful" for everyone else?
Those words "true, just, and beautiful" were the result of laziness on my part; I was hoping the reader would just "fill in" those meaningless words. It wasn't my intention to suggest that it was my place to decide anything for anyone else.
Two, what's progressive about appealling to the basest instincts of human beings just for the opportunity to sit in some fancy-schmancy public office?
To clarify, I have no intentions of running for any public office. However, I will fight to get others into office. Politics is war, and under right circumstances, I would appeal to the baser instincts of an electorate provided 1. It was the only way to win 2. The need to prevent the damage an opponent could do if elected outweighed our need to have a moral and ethical political strategy( Moral and "political strategy" look weird together, don't they?). And I didn't claim my suggestions were "progressive"; I admit that they are disgustingly machivellian. However, as George Orwell once put it, "politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia." Accepting that, is where any effective political strategy will start, IMHO.
Three, Red America may love Bush and hate Kerry, but how does it follow that that makes them stupid?
four, how exactly do you sever your "message" from your "ideals" in this instance?
Well, I do it everyday. I'm a realist first, and an anarchist second. (that is probably why I am often mistaken for a slightly to the left Democrat).
Five, if fear is a stronger vote-getter than hope, shouldn't we progressives be doing a better job of kindling hope instead of pandering to fear, greed, selfishness, and ignorance?
It depends, what is there to be hopeful about?