Why conservatives lost Part 5: We're an industry, not a movement

Source: Conservative Review | August 29, 2016 | Steve Deace

….

A conversation I had several years ago with former Congressman J.C. Watts really opened my eyes. And unfortunately, it confirmed my worst suspicions.

….

“I was the first black starting quarterback at the University of Oklahoma, which would’ve never happened without the success of the civil rights movement and for that I’ll always be grateful,” Watts said. “But after I graduated and was finished playing football that same movement criticized me for trying take advantage of the opportunities they gave me to live my dream. It was like they loved stories like mine until I became successful. I came to the conclusion it’s because there’s money to make off the (victimology), not so much off the success stories. The civil rights movement had devolved from a movement to an industry.”

Watts continued.

“I witnessed the exact same thing happen to the conservative movement. During my time (Watts retired from Congress in 2003) it changed from selling ideas to selling books. Many of us like myself went to Washington with plans to change things, but instead it became about managing the decay. I realized toward the end of my term that for the second time in my life I had been a part of a movement that had devolved to an industry.”

If you think Watts’ assessment is a little harsh, ask yourself this question: What is conservatism? Furthermore, how many Americans do you think could affirmatively define conservatism? More depressing, how many elected Republicans in Washington and/or their staffs/consultants could affirmatively define conservatism?

….

How many of those people I just mentioned could tell you who Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, or Glenn Beck are? We all know the answer is a lot more than could affirmatively define conservatism.

….

So, yes, movements need compelling personalities to drive them forward into the mainstream, and then onward toward influencing culture/public policy. But the personalities cannot define the movement. The movement must define the personalities. Otherwise, you’re no longer a movement but an industry that is not known for advancing shared values, but by which personalities capture the public imagination (rightly or wrongly).

Here’s what that looks like: “I’ll trade you a Phyllis Schlafly rookie card for your Hannity/Ingraham future stars card.”

How ridiculous does that sound? Yet that is the impulse that often drives us. I cannot tell you how often I’m told “how dare you” disagree with some fill-in-the-blank conservative industry star. As if because they’re a big star and I’m not, that means they’re infallible and above reproach. My bad, I guess we were here to advance conservatism, not your crush. Hopefully you got your cover of Tiger Beat signed.

Heck, we’ve become such an industry that the Republican presidential nominee is sending out fundraising emails offering fanboy memorabilia as an incentive to donate to his campaign! Yes, that is happening.

Consider the following:

– Movements have leaders. Industries have stars.
– Movements advance values. Industries advance careers.
– Movements sell ideas. Industries sell merchandise.
– Movements have an activist base. Industries have a customer base.

Which are we?

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Discussion
  • Consistent #9617

    Consistent #9657

    Consistent #9659

    Consistent #9669

    Consistent #9670

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.