Politics Over Personality

As an underground conservative working in the arts community, I tend to suffer a bit from the Elijah mentality. That is, it is easy to look around and say, "I am entirely alone! I am the last true Republican conservative in a liberal Democrat emotional mudslide! Send sustenance, oh God! Send me some ravens with copies of 'The Weekly Standard' in their talons!"

Alas, one of the places I turn to when I feel this way (albeit very secretly) is conservative talk radio. I am an avid aficionado of the Maha-Rushie, listening to his program on my iPod at every opportunity. I like Glenn Beck's rattled every-man logic quite a lot as well. Laura Ingraham strikes me as one of the most balanced and moderated voices out there. On the other hand, however, unlike many of my underground conservative brethren, there are one or two of those radio voices I don't love. In particular, I don't like Sean Hannity, and I'll explain why.

I'd like to say that Sean Hannity is probably a fine individual, even if I don't like his show, but I'm not sure even that is true. Anyone who throws around the term "You're a great American," like he does, spending the compliment on anyone and everyone based on the mere qualification that they can obtain a telephone and dial his show's number, is suspect in my (admittedly rather long) book. Frankly, he is only bearable on his Fox show because he is offset by the relatively more odious Alan Combs (although I fear I must admit that I'd sooner drink a beer with Combs than Hannity, as long as we don't talk politics).

But all of that aside, my issue with Sean Hannity is really my issue with current politics in general. The problem with the discussion of American politics is that it is bogged down with the relatively superficial vaguaries of personality instead of idealogy. It's easy to preach to the choir about how awful the enemy is, but it does nothing to engage those who are on the fence, or even to bolster the intellectual arguments of the faithful. As much as I'd like to think otherwise, Hannity strikes me as simply a mean-spirited dimwit whose main argument against the opposition is that they are dopey-looking, silly-sounding, anti-American dum-dum-heads.

In a nutshell, while I tend to agree with Hannity that Howard Dean's famous barbaric yawp is funny, I do not think that it is reason enough not to vote Democrat.

Here's the problem: I am convinced that most of those who voted for Barack Obama and all the rest of the Democrats were not voting for the primary ideals of liberalism. They were voting against George W. Bush, even though he wasn't on the ballot. Why? Because they've been trained to dislike him personally. Not for his policies, specifically, or his Republican ideologies, or even his record. They simply voted for Obama because they don't like Bush himself, personally. Poor John McCain couldn't get out of Bush's shadow enough to differentiate himself-- and let's be honest, he doesn't have all that winning of a personality either.

The main problem with the Hannitization of politics is that, once we reduce the discussion to an argument over who looks the funniest, sounds the dumbest, lies the most, produces the most scandals, or looks the most or the least presidential, we are doomed to a relatively equal slap-fight. There are liars, cheats, thieves, incompetents and screw-ups on both sides. Of course, we on the conservative side at least aim for a higher standard, and arguably there is less out-and-out corruption on the Republican side, but our politicians are a long, long way from perfect. Therefore, the moment we allow the discussion to center on personalities instead of idealogies, that is the moment we surrender our greatest and most meaningful tool in the debate: the soundness of our core ideas.

I propose this: next time we have a discussion about politics, challenge all involved to avoid reducing it to a slap-fight about personalities. Challenge yourself and your conversants to have the discussion without mentioning any specific politician, even by inference. The more we can center the debate on ideals and common sense concepts, the more succesful we will be. And this goes for politicians themselves, progressing all the way through this next election. No name calling or insults or smack-downs. As fun as they are, they reduce our message to a mere popularity contest, a mere debate of one-liners and put-downs. If it comes to that, we will be doomed, not only because it takes away the irrefutable strength of our core convictions, but because, let's face it, pretty much all of the one-liner writers are on their side.

Think about it: why are we conservatives? Is it because we love George W.? Hardly. Is it because Obama is a snarky, pompous elitist? Not in the least. We are not conservatives because of personalities. We are conservatives because we believe in personal responsibility, and the power of the free market, and liberty. We are conservatives because we believe everyone and anyone can achieve, and should be free to, without the roadblocks of a nanny state, or the hobbling of a welfare state. We are conservatives because we believe government's job is, contrary to current experience, extremely limited and necessarily small, and that a huge, tax-and-spend Washington D. C. money machine is a proven failure and should be mercilessly pruned. We are conservatives because we believe in the sanctity of life, and are willing to make the pragmatic, difficult, and honorable choice to sacrifice it in the short term so as to preserve it in the long term. We are conservatives because we recognize that a simple-minded ideal of universal peace only foments the bloodthirsty tyranny of murderers.

And the reason these ideologies will win, if we subtract from them the shifting superficialities of personalities, is that, deep down, almost everyone shares these core beliefs. It's true. Reduce conservatism to the lowest common denominator and almost everyone agrees with it. In their personal lives, all but the most suicidally liberal would use lethal force to protect their families from evil people. All but the most deluded radical knows that he cannot give millions away to charity if his wallet is empty. All but the most knee-jerk Democrat drone knows that he cannot freely fulfill every whim of his child without reducing that child to a helpless, directionless bum. Where the rubber of action meets the road of life, nearly everyone is a conservative. Our duty is to help them see that what is true for themselves is true for nations and governments. This message, however, will be instantly lost the moment we allow it to be hijacked into a debate over personalities.

Conservatism does not need to be redefined. It needs to be unvarnished. It needs to be stripped of all the labels and fluff and superficial personality worship and defamation that well-meaning conservatives have bogged it down with. Under all the tripe, the machine of conservative is still well-oiled, effective, and universal.

It's time to de-Hannitize our message. The discussion isn't about this Democrat's cheating or that liberal's lies. It's about the strength of our ideology versus theirs. If we can manage this, we will see a vast reawakening to the logic and common sense of conservatism.

If we keep arguing personalities, we'll be stuck defending George W. Bush's pronunciation of "nuclear" and Sarah Palin's wardrobe forever. Think about that, and then ask yourself-- Politics or Personality: which do you think will be more effective?