Share This Article with a Friend!

Outsiders vs. Insiders: How Napoleon’s reliable advice leads to conservative triumphs in 2018

Never interfere with the enemy when he is in the process of destroying himself.”

Many have suggested Napoleon uttered these famous words when engaged in the heat of battle but you’d be forgiven if you mistakenly thought someone in the Republican Party dreamed them up more recently in Napoleonreference to the Democrats and their odd self-destructive behavior of late. Much has been written about how the minority party is destined to make big gains in this year’s midterm elections – but if Democrats keep hammering at accepted common sense the way they have been in the past month or so, they just may be in for a rude awakening come November.

Are Democrats truly in the process of destroying themselves? Time will tell, but the continuing hubbub over gun rights has a lot of them talking, squawking and pontificating – and they’re saying some pretty darn bizarre things too.

Take for example one Democrat National Committee official who took on the Second Amendment via social media the other day. Amber Athey reported at the Daily Caller, “DNC vice chair for civic engagement and voter protection Karen Carter Peterson unleashed the wrath of Twitter when she tweeted ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’ on Tuesday.

“The Louisiana state senator tweeted out Justice John Paul Stevens’ op-ed from last week in The New York Times calling for repealing the Second Amendment.

“Her tweet got only 50 likes and just over 70 retweets, but it conjured up plenty of negative responses.”

Yes indeed. One of the responses Athey shared in her report stated simply, “Please keep talking.” If we could only get Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to do the same (and/or Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, etc…) then the gun rights issue would make national headlines from now until Election Day. It’s not that Karen Carter Peterson isn’t important -- it’s just that no one’s ever heard of her. Peterson was no doubt conveying the same type of view many Democrats hold yet it would mean more if a national figure (other than retired Justice John Paul Stevens) dribbled it.

With polls skewed as to the public’s appetite for more gun control it’s not at all clear Americans are swallowing the Democrats’ call for comprehensive urgent “action” in Congress. As usually happens after a shocking gun-related rampage people freak out and demand “progress” when they’re not well informed on the ramifications of what they’re asking. Then, when they realize that every single “gun control” measure they advocate (short of mental health policies) wouldn’t do anything to stop the next psycho, reasonable people usually simmer down a bit.

When the facts rise to the surface it invariably turns out the system itself failed in some way (such as in the Parkland massacre perpetrated by troubled youth Nikolas Cruz that was completely overlooked by federal and local law enforcement). And while President Trump once appeared to be all over the place on potential gun legislation he’s settled back to defending the Second Amendment.

Perhaps Trump needed a refresher on the fact defending constitutional rights is a winning political position. As has been pointed out numerous times the Bill of Rights was intended to restrain government, not the People. While there are many, many good government servants it doesn’t mean government itself is always virtuous or correct. Similarly, the passion of the popular masses isn’t at all times a good gauge on the smart thing to do.

Having Democrat officials callously tweet out “Repeal the Second Amendment” is the type of thing Democrat leaders and strategists should fear the most; the best they can hope for this fall is an apathetic conservative voting public angry over Republicans’ failures to pass an Obamacare repeal or the party’s repeated capitulations to Democrats on the budget. Stirring up GOP and conservative voters over guns is just plain dumb – it gives people an excuse to vote against Democrats. In most election cycles that’s enough to gin up GOP turnout (if you don’t believe it look at the 2016 election).

Far be it from me to give Democrats advice but when you’re watching an enemy “in the process of destroying himself” you can’t help but shake your head and enjoy the view – especially if you’re Napoleon.

The liberal self-destructive propensities aren’t limited to political parties or the government either. Corporate America is making its own share of blunders of late, bowing to politically correct demands to pull advertising from the Laura Ingraham Show (among other things). This follows on several big business enterprises reacting hastily to leftist calls early last month to pull support for the National Rifle Association over fear of angering the snowflake-buttressing portion of the consuming public. Now they’re crossing the line of protections for the most precious of all freedoms – the right to speak.

Roger L. Simon wrote at PJ Media, “[C]ompanies are entitled to their beliefs as much as individuals but I submit that these boycotts do not truly represent their opinions but are merely reflexive displays of corporate virtue signaling. They have little or nothing to do with whatever issue is propelling it. This is not about gun violence, a complicated subject with a variety of possible solutions, none of which are close to proven. Debating the issues is the least of it. It is about power and control.

“What is going on is more precisely a mass display of political correctness augmented by fear. The groupthink among elites in our culture has become so severe that now even corporate CEOs, who once tended to be pragmatic, do not dare brook the conventional pieties of liberal/progressive thought. This urge to conform is so strong that it overrides the obvious: that boycotting might be against their business interest. These corporations are insulting a vast percentage of their clientele, those same people that made Roseanne the biggest television hit in years last week.”

More on Roseanne in a moment. This latest boycott against Ingraham (prompted by an ill-advised tweet which the Fox News host subsequently apologized for) is just the latest proof that corporate America is as much a part of the movement to transform culture as leftist groups and organizations seeking to accomplish the same thing through political action.

Time after time advertisers that pulled sponsorship from conservative media figures (Rush, Glenn Beck) over “controversial statements” have felt the wrath of the people who purchase their products. Do these businesses seriously figure people won’t notice what they’re doing? You might as well sponsor an ad boasting “We hate your conservative audience” and run it continuously for years.

What do these dopey corporate titans hope to gain, the goodwill of the snowflake generation? Millennials are much too preoccupied with their smart phones and social media to take notice of who runs ads on a conservative’s program. Wouldn’t loyalty to stockholders at least compel these companies’ managers to act in their own self-interest? Jeffrey Lord of The American Spectator compiled a list of those advertisers that dinged Laura Ingraham (and included their statements as to why, if available). Lord suggested fighting back against the boycotts lest we lose free speech forever.

Lord is right. Conservatives should never allow the threat of social ostracization keep anyone from speaking out – no matter what these “activists” and companies say. They’re basically in the process of destroying themselves by choosing to isolate their businesses from the citizens who would normally be inclined to purchase their products.

Hit ‘em where it hurts. There’s lots of competitive merchandise out there – no reason not to inform yourself of the manufacturers who care about your constitutional rights. If corporate America is voluntarily going hard left then eventually they’ll discover such an undertaking comes with economic consequences.

As Simon mentioned above, the recent re-introduction of the Roseanne TV show (with Roseanne Connor as an ardent Trump supporter) has rocked media culture – and is possibly having a tangible effect in the American political realm as well. Could it be something like Roseanne could “empower” women to stand up and admit they, gulp, like Donald Trump?

Democrat pollster Mark Penn wrote at The Hill earlier this week, “...There is no question that the social pressure on people today — and conservative women in particular — is intense to conform to liberal stereotypes. In a recent Harvard Caps-Harris Poll, 40 percent of Americans said they were afraid to express their real political views in their own homes with their own families, while 60 percent said they were unable to express their political views at work. These are astounding numbers for a society founded on the First Amendment and the belief in the free marketplace of ideas.

“We see this trend in the mechanics of polling. When asked online what their views are, Americans are about 5 percent more likely to express conservative and even pro-Trump views than when asked on the telephone by a live interviewer. Based on the 5 percent differential that I observed on key hot-button issues, I estimated that there are about 15 million closet conservatives in America, making them a microtrend to watch...”

This helps explain how Donald Trump pulled off his improbable 2016 win despite a plethora of negative polls. But logic says the reluctance of conservatives to talk about their real political views goes beyond just their feelings on Trump. With the increasingly hostile reaction of liberals towards any manifestation of conservative views (such as with Laura Ingraham), people of a center-right bent know the next ideological inquisition could be just around the corner – and it might involve them being nailed to a tree.

Here's guessing not many are comfortable with openly espousing views that might get them in an argument – or even lose them friends and relationships. Penn’s article is full of interesting poll data regarding the conservative “silence” phenomenon. It’s clear we would be seeing a lot more “Make America Great Again” hats if conservatives weren’t petrified of the social censure (or even physical violence) they’d engender for declaring what they think.

Maybe there’s hope in these numbers. Penn concluded, “’Roseanne’ is ringing cultural bells that put back some balance in the world of entertainment. It shows that for every trend in America, there is a countertrend. Perhaps it will help other Roseannes to come out of the closet, and just maybe we will all get back to respecting one another’s political views instead of seeking to demean those we oppose — and that will make for a healthier democracy.”

Wouldn’t that be nice? The “freedom” to speak about one’s opinions would be very liberating indeed.

One can only hope the yyyuuuuggggeee success of the Roseanne show will lead to more programming conservatives can relate to in the future. Producers and advertisers might see what’s going on and give Tim Allen’s “Last Man Standing” another look. LMS was cancelled last year despite relatively high ratings and many speculate it was due to Allen’s political beliefs  (Allen is an open Trump supporter as is Roseanne Barr).

Perhaps the prospect of a better bottom line will inspire TV producers to give Allen a call. I’m sure Allen is working the phones right now himself.

With the illegal alien “caravan” now heading unimpeded through Mexico for the U.S. border the immigration issue is being resurrected as well. Nothing like a group of leftist foreigners banding together to knock on the proverbial American door to demand to be let in to get conservatives animated. President Trump couldn’t have choreographed the events any better if he’d tried. Just when the issue appeared dead in Congress a collection of would-be entitled losers gets the media buzzing about the “human side” of immigration again.

It goes without saying liberals’ various overreaches of late almost present the appearance of contemplating suicide. If trends continue the left may very well accomplish that result whether they seek it or not. Napoleon was right – we shouldn’t interfere when an enemy is destroying himself.

Share this