Cool, Cool Conservative Men
"Come ye cool cool conservative men
The likes of which may never be seen again
We have land, cash in hand
Self-command, future planned
Fortune flies, society survives
In neatly ordered lives with well-endowered wives
"We sing hosanna, hosanna
To our breeding and our banner
We are cool"
So go the lyrics of the song "Cool Conservative Men" from the musical 1776, a MidnightRanter favorite. While the muscial is about the signing of the Declaration of the Independence and the history going on at the time, the song has been controversial. When the film was first made in 1972, President Nixon asked his Jack Warner, who produced the film, to cut the song as he felt it was insulting to conservatives, since they were the antagonists of the film. The song, performed here in the Restored Director's Cut. Almost 40 years later, this song would not be cut because it was too spot on and possibly slanderous, it would be cut because it's untrue. The most dominant figures in the conservative movement are not the cool, conservative men depicted in this song. The days of staid old Republicans who are nothing but WASP old men drinking brandy from sifters and smoking cigars are gone, or at least there are as many of them as there are Democrats who fit the same profile. Unlike liberals, conservatives have a reputation and appearance to overcome, and they have in huge ways. The question remains will it work for them in retaking the White House.
With voices like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and others, it can be argued the chorus of conservatives is not lead by a monotone. The voice of conservativism always had some fire in it. Men like Barry Goldwater and others have always been conservative firebrands, but even they argued from a place of logic, or logos, rather than a place of emotional connection, or pathos. To round out the Aristotelian trinity, conservative religious leaders always argued from a place of ethos, by arguing for the moral ideas of the country. People like George Will and William F. Buckley argued well from logos. Phyllis Schlafly, John Birch Society and even Anita Bryant argued not what they thought would play well with their audience, but based on more on their view of what "American values" should be. All firebrands and no strangers to controversy, they had a consistent set of guiding principles and morals that underlie all arguments, speeches and doctrine. Whether or not one agreed, there was a basic set of principles that was adhered to.
The other major set of the Republican party was the landed, blue-blooded set. The men with "land, cash in hand, self-command, future planned". The people like Rockefeller, Henry Cabot Lodge and even George H. W. Bush. They had firm plans, even keels and generally a bigger eye for the world at large. They believed in American exceptionalism, sure, but mostly because they knew that's how their family money was made. They were not firebrands, even if they were all politically active in their own way. They were all highly educated people trained in the classic arts of rhetoric and making a point through both logos and pathos, rather than just screaming to people about what was right and wrong. After all, screaming at someone doesn't win arguments or debates, it only possibly wins fights. It stirs up the people who already agree with you but it will do nothing to bring over anyone new. No one against you is going to be so impressed by your passion they switch sides; they'll just bring up their game more. So these were the guys who had ideas based on practicality with the influence of their ideals. When times would prove their doctrine wrong, they would adapt and call it progress. This is as opposed to a progressive who progresses first then finds justifications for it later. Most of the cooler heads turned out to be more liberal Republicans, and they've been driven from the party. When Bush the Elder lost in 1992, Republicans knew they had to get mad to win. Newt Gingrich then came to the fore. In one last gasp, the cool conservative men nominated an almost cold man, Bob Dole. With his loss, came the loss of that wing.
Here we are, almost twenty years later, and now we have the division strong as ever. Romney, doing his best as a moneyed man with a cool head and practical ideals, as are Pawlenty and Huntsman. However, these days, all the attention and money go to louder voices crying for more ideological purity, even if the policy wavers. Palin, Bachmann and Beck don't truly have a platform FOR anything. They're just against anything Obama can put up. Obama, himself, is a cool head in a party famed for hot-headed activism, which is another rant altogether. Palin is not a woman of inherited means and certainly not a man. Neither is Bachmann or Beck. They're the other classic Republican story, people who brought themselves up by their bootstraps and became powerful for it. They're not what anyone would call well educated. Beck never went to college, Palin went to four colleges, not excelling at any of them. Bachmann is the best educated with an LL.M. degree from William and Mary, which is like a law degree but often cannot practice law or take the Bar exam. Note, this is after getting a JD (a normal law degree) from Oral Roberts University; not exactly Ivy League. They rant about whatever Obama is doing, pledge to fight it, but have no real war strategy. They don't need one. They're making money and attention off of all this but aren't actually going to change government. The Tea Party is an active rejection of the cool, conservative men. They don't want to negotiate, deal or in any other way compromise strict values. They just want to fight.
Of course, as Sun-Tzu, the best way to win is not to fight.
So it is written, so do I see it.
The likes of which may never be seen again
We have land, cash in hand
Self-command, future planned
Fortune flies, society survives
In neatly ordered lives with well-endowered wives
"We sing hosanna, hosanna
To our breeding and our banner
We are cool"
So go the lyrics of the song "Cool Conservative Men" from the musical 1776, a MidnightRanter favorite. While the muscial is about the signing of the Declaration of the Independence and the history going on at the time, the song has been controversial. When the film was first made in 1972, President Nixon asked his Jack Warner, who produced the film, to cut the song as he felt it was insulting to conservatives, since they were the antagonists of the film. The song, performed here in the Restored Director's Cut. Almost 40 years later, this song would not be cut because it was too spot on and possibly slanderous, it would be cut because it's untrue. The most dominant figures in the conservative movement are not the cool, conservative men depicted in this song. The days of staid old Republicans who are nothing but WASP old men drinking brandy from sifters and smoking cigars are gone, or at least there are as many of them as there are Democrats who fit the same profile. Unlike liberals, conservatives have a reputation and appearance to overcome, and they have in huge ways. The question remains will it work for them in retaking the White House.
With voices like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and others, it can be argued the chorus of conservatives is not lead by a monotone. The voice of conservativism always had some fire in it. Men like Barry Goldwater and others have always been conservative firebrands, but even they argued from a place of logic, or logos, rather than a place of emotional connection, or pathos. To round out the Aristotelian trinity, conservative religious leaders always argued from a place of ethos, by arguing for the moral ideas of the country. People like George Will and William F. Buckley argued well from logos. Phyllis Schlafly, John Birch Society and even Anita Bryant argued not what they thought would play well with their audience, but based on more on their view of what "American values" should be. All firebrands and no strangers to controversy, they had a consistent set of guiding principles and morals that underlie all arguments, speeches and doctrine. Whether or not one agreed, there was a basic set of principles that was adhered to.
The other major set of the Republican party was the landed, blue-blooded set. The men with "land, cash in hand, self-command, future planned". The people like Rockefeller, Henry Cabot Lodge and even George H. W. Bush. They had firm plans, even keels and generally a bigger eye for the world at large. They believed in American exceptionalism, sure, but mostly because they knew that's how their family money was made. They were not firebrands, even if they were all politically active in their own way. They were all highly educated people trained in the classic arts of rhetoric and making a point through both logos and pathos, rather than just screaming to people about what was right and wrong. After all, screaming at someone doesn't win arguments or debates, it only possibly wins fights. It stirs up the people who already agree with you but it will do nothing to bring over anyone new. No one against you is going to be so impressed by your passion they switch sides; they'll just bring up their game more. So these were the guys who had ideas based on practicality with the influence of their ideals. When times would prove their doctrine wrong, they would adapt and call it progress. This is as opposed to a progressive who progresses first then finds justifications for it later. Most of the cooler heads turned out to be more liberal Republicans, and they've been driven from the party. When Bush the Elder lost in 1992, Republicans knew they had to get mad to win. Newt Gingrich then came to the fore. In one last gasp, the cool conservative men nominated an almost cold man, Bob Dole. With his loss, came the loss of that wing.
Here we are, almost twenty years later, and now we have the division strong as ever. Romney, doing his best as a moneyed man with a cool head and practical ideals, as are Pawlenty and Huntsman. However, these days, all the attention and money go to louder voices crying for more ideological purity, even if the policy wavers. Palin, Bachmann and Beck don't truly have a platform FOR anything. They're just against anything Obama can put up. Obama, himself, is a cool head in a party famed for hot-headed activism, which is another rant altogether. Palin is not a woman of inherited means and certainly not a man. Neither is Bachmann or Beck. They're the other classic Republican story, people who brought themselves up by their bootstraps and became powerful for it. They're not what anyone would call well educated. Beck never went to college, Palin went to four colleges, not excelling at any of them. Bachmann is the best educated with an LL.M. degree from William and Mary, which is like a law degree but often cannot practice law or take the Bar exam. Note, this is after getting a JD (a normal law degree) from Oral Roberts University; not exactly Ivy League. They rant about whatever Obama is doing, pledge to fight it, but have no real war strategy. They don't need one. They're making money and attention off of all this but aren't actually going to change government. The Tea Party is an active rejection of the cool, conservative men. They don't want to negotiate, deal or in any other way compromise strict values. They just want to fight.
Of course, as Sun-Tzu, the best way to win is not to fight.
So it is written, so do I see it.