#chaffetztownhall | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

tesserarius-blog1 · 8 years

Text

Recent Leaks Are the Embodiment of True Conservatism, Not Its Opponent

Instead of suggesting the leaks coming out of Washington have arrived by way of ‘shadow’ governmental Obama loyalists and that ‘mainstream’ media’s reporting of those leaks perpetuates upon the public some dreadful deceit of reality, conservatives — true conservatives — should rather admit that there has not been for decades any better embodiment of conservatism itself than that of these leaks and of the investigative journalism which has unearthed them.

Make no mistake: we are indeed dealing with loyalists, but these loyalists owe nothing to the previous administration. These loyalists are Republican — that is, loyalists to the Republic — and they embody Republicanism in ways more numbered than many members of the political party which bears the name.

Pseudo-conservatives having abandoned genuine conservative battlements long ago, journalists and leakers have out of necessity manned them. If these leaks are a crime, then Congress committed it, modus operandi failure to provide an adequate conserving force in the face of progressivism and, more importantly, in the face of regressivism.

Let us not forget what conservatism is. Perhaps we already have. Conservatism, like any philosophy, is nothing more than a body of advice. Taken together that advice should act as a tool, kept in the top drawer until the proper situation for its use arises. Many such tools build politics. As a bolt needs a wrench to be of any use, and a few washers besides, so does conservatism need to function properly other philosophies. Most crucial is the one we call progressivism.

Each of the two gives its particular recommendations on any current state of affairs, but by and large progressivism will find society’s betterment in pushing that state of affairs to unexplored areas; conservatism will find the betterment in preserving what state of affairs progressivism has already achieved.

Progressivism is therefore offense. It focuses on winning, not through any endless implementation of brilliant ideas but through generating a great number of bad ones that are weeded out until the good ones remain. To weed them out is the toil of conservatism. Conservatism thus acts as a defense, and as any good defense it should not focus on winning so much as it should focus on not losing.

But offense is sexier than defense. There is an allure to it which defense lacks. Scoring earns credit. History remembers feats of achievement but makes little record of prevented disasters. A mechanic who dissuades a car owner from an unneeded extensive repair is honest but earns no income.

Understandably frustrating though it may be, defense is the function of conservatism nonetheless. Yet conservatism has perhaps over time been neglected in favor of something else, of fielding a second sort of offense, one which must necessarily take the field at the same time as the first offense but, as a result, offend in the opposing direction.

What naturally follows from this is the scoring of own-goals.

Do not mistake the relationship between progressivism and conservatism for the mythical and much-vaunted bi-partisan Obama middle-ground, where both sides seek to implement their best ideas only to wind up compromising with their third, fourth, and fifth best ideas to the mediocrity of all involved. The relationship ought on the contrary to be one where progressivism proposes an idea and conservatism offers its skepticism, suggests that what progressivism has so far achieved may be sufficient, and proposes that in trying to gain anything more society might actually lose something.

We no longer have this skepticism towards a speculative future. We have assurance of an unspeculative return to a “known” (i.e. forgotten) past. The progressive-conservative relationship has been pirated by agents who wish not to conserve progress but solely to regress it.

Progressivism unchecked is likewise run amuck. It is also distracted. For not only did Trump’s campaign force the media to assume a conservative mantle — that is, to defend the status quo — it made typically-progressive members of society do the same. This may explain why so many described the Democratic nominee as a status quo candidate. In 2008 the balance was not so out of whack as now, and Obama’s campaign was regarded all around as a progressive one. That 2016 had been shaping up to be ‘Hillary Clinton’s year’ for years prior was not necessarily because she was Hilary Clinton: perhaps, in the face of increasing migration to regressivism during Obama’s tenure, she was Nature’s only service toward a defenseless status quo.

If we had had adequate conservatism, issues raised by Occupy Wall Street and Citizen’s United might have been avoided with the suggestion that advantage toward outcome should be freely granted until it comes into conflict with equal opportunity, whereupon it must be at once adjusted in favor of opportunity and set free to once again pursue advantage wheresoever it may find it. Political correctness, instead of morphing into a doctrine which denies offensive figures the right to be offensive, might have become a considerate standard of etiquette to which public figures of influence would hold themselves in order that groups lacking a proportionate degree of public influence were not obliged to counterattack against unfair advantage. The entire argument against questionable climate change science might have been nullified by the simple observation that to argue about whether the science is correct misses the point: the consequences of acting as if it is wrong are too catastrophic to risk. When conservatism retreats excessively to regressivism we must navigate a society in which outrage becomes a form of currency, in which controversies become opportunities for political posturing, and in which bi-partisan efforts like NAFTA gleefully sneak into law and end up twenty years later making both political philosophies look equally inept.

Most crucially, where true conservatives ought to have been in early 2016 denouncing as fundamentally un-Republican Donald Trump’s elevation of harmful rhetoric above political substance, there were instead merely unblinking eyes, volleying back and forth from Trump to the electorate, as if rhetoric over substance could pass for conservatism nowadays; or as if the small, unhappening town of conservatism would resist the vines of nature taking her back once all her residents left on the next bus to regressivism, since the price of a ticket was only going to increase anyhow.

Turns out the return trip will be even pricier. In the aftermath of hefty allegations of collusion with a foreign government, these same pseudo-conservatives would like to avoid the cost of a ticket home. They would much prefer that the current administration be allowed to go about its business as though this ignorance too represents conservatism at its finest.

Defending the status quo is no longer the interest of any member of Congress who stands in the way of further investigation. These people have asked for the leaks by not fulfilling their function in the first place. It is all rather like a school janitor who skips a day of work, content for the hallway floors to become scuffed in his absence, and is yet outraged on arriving the following morning to discover the floors polished, subsequently demanding whoever it was who did his work for him should speak up and be fired.

These pseudo-conservatives’ interests are elsewhere: in the next election, in the small number of intolerant regressive constituents to whom they must answer should anything of worth be uncovered about their party’s administration; in pleasing that visible and vocal minority above all else; in their own hides; and in not damaging what little remains of the Republican brand.

These leaks set a precedent, certainly, and perhaps a dangerous one, but it is a precedent that was always waiting to show itself, and at least we can now recognize it. However, to direct anger about it anywhere other than at the abandonment of a conserving force in U.S. politics is anger misplaced. Barring the limited actions of a few Republicans, Democrats, and journalists, these leaks represent the first massively conservative action our government has taken in years.

Regressivism is no doubt required in a democracy. Logically, if progressivism advances and conservatism hangs on, a third force which seeks to go backwards must be possible and sometimes, in the course where conservatism fails to keep hold of the status quo as it ought, necessary. So I make no argument there. My argument, as a skeptic, is rather, first, that the throngs of conservatives who have flocked towards the regressive space have left the conservative space too few resources to be healthy; second, that owing to this, journalists, the so-termed ‘Deep State’, Democrats both genuine and opportunistic, and a few true Republicans have been drawn into that space to prevent its collapsing wholly; third, that the space needs to be repopulated by all politicians as soon as possible; and fourth, that of the three philosophies discussed here, conservatism ought to be considered most valuable.

For this is now evident.

To all members of Congress who have so far stood in opposition to further investigation, be it independent, journalistic, governmental, or otherwise: if in moving away from conservatism you hoped to save it through well-remembered achievement, be aware that now is your chance.

What remains is not if you will be remembered but how.

Cross-posted on medium.com

#us politics #politics #trump #donald trump #flynn #michael flynn #flynnghazi #republican #democrats #democracy #liberty #jason chaffetz #chaffetztownhall #mitch mcconnell #mcconnell #conservative #conservatism #progressive #progressivism

1 note · View note

overwhelmsion · 8 years

Photo

So this is a thing that is happening now. Chaffetz and the Utah GOP are wanting to delay Town Hall meetings after the heat he got in the last one, and are essentially saying that the opposing party is organizing mobs and disruptors. It is an utterly unbelievable act, full of cowardice and division. Just more republican party tactics under 45. This was the response from the Utah State Democratic Party on Facebook: Executive Director Lauren Littlefield, released the following statement in response to the GOP's recent Press Conference. "The Utah Democratic Party doesn’t condone all of the behavior displayed at Congressman Chaffetz’s recent town hall meeting, but the accusation that Utah Democrats organized an angry mob is ludicrous and and "alternative fact". We are not currently working with Utah Indivisible though we do appreciate the immense grassroots organization that has sprung up since the Nov. 8 Election. For the GOP to suggest that our Elected Officials halt these town hall meetings is absolutely what is wrong with this country. That is not a solution, but an exacerbation of the problem. Americans are feeling a great deal of fear, and that fear is being manifested as anger at these officials who are SUPPOSED to represent us, whether we voted for them or not. This latest release from Evans, is nothing more than a side show to distract from the lack of change that is happening through the GOP’s control of both houses. "

#town hall meetings #GOP #intimidation #censorship #repression #congressmen #chaffetz #jason chaffetz #chaffetztownhall #utah #UTGOP #utah democratic party #indivisible utah

1 note · View note

altik-0 · 8 years

Text

I hate Chaffetz, but that hardly matters

youtube

Political ramblings about ^ that town hall meeting below.

So first of all, thanks to all the amazing people who made that town hall explode like it did. Chaffetz isn’t lying at the beginning when he says the venue had to switch -- I got a bunch of Facebook posts of conspiracy theories saying he was trying to jump around and confuse people, but I honestly believe he and his staffers didn’t expect this sort of turn out. It’s fantastic that such a dramatically liberal voice would come out of the wood works for a Utahn state representative.

That said, I can’t help but feel like this won’t accomplish anything. In fact, it feels like Chaffetz played that crowd like a fiddle, and scored a huge political win that night.

See, it’s no secret that Utah is a Red State, through-and-through. Districts are gerrymandered to all hell, Salt Lake is pretty conservative compared to other urban areas, and almost everywhere else is exactly the rural American landscape that elected Trump in November. In short: unless a major political upheaval comes to Utah, the only chance we have of electing a non-Republican candidate is a very compelling, Mormon, third party candidate (*cough* McMullin *cough*).

So from Chaffetz’s perspective, a jeering crowd of liberals simply isn’t his constituency, even if they are technically living in his district. Even if they voted for him! Chaffetz is a politician, and his motivations are driven by political gains; in Utah that means being the most compelling Republican he can be.

When I watched that town hall meeting, I was struck by how clearly Chaffetz demonstrated he knew what the majority of the crowd cared about, but fed them controversial standpoints that disagreed consistently all night. Many of his political stances were introduced by “I bet you liked <X>!” or “Now, you aren’t going to like <Y>...” And as the night wanes on, he became more and more audacious with his opinions, saying things like “I do believe in my heart of hearts, that given the choice that was before us, by far Donald Trump was the better choice (23:29)” and “So, what do y’all think of Ms. DeVos? You like DeVos? Yeah! (33:38)”... “You’re gonna like the bill I introduced, though, to abolish the Board of Education! (34:05)”

Statements like those were obviously met with uproar from the crowd, and usually a huge shit-eating grin from Chaffetz. I suspect because the congressman knows full well that riling up that crowd just gives him a narrative to spin to the side of the aisle he actually cares about winning over. And sure enough, in the few days after the event, Chaffetz spun the tale of how the crowd was “a paid attempt to bully and intimidate”:

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/319081-chaffetz-crowd-used-bullying-and-intimidation-at-town-hall

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/chaffetz-town-hall-believes-paid-protestos

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=43144461&nid=148

He’s wrong, for the record. I can’t personally testify for each person in that crowd, but I can personally testify that at least a dozen people there were personal friends who posted savagely on Facebook throughout the event. There is a strong progressive sentiment in Salt Lake that Chaffetz is intentionally trying to disguise, because the political base he has control of will believe that story, and because it paints him as a hero standing up for what he believes in, rather than a scumbag politician lying through his teeth to grab at power.

Everyone is well aware how toxic and unpleasant our political landscape has become. What frustrates me is that the voice of reason -- “Hey, shouting over each other isn’t accomplishing anything. We should have a calm discussion!” -- is now just a talking point to gain a moral high ground in an argument. You don’t actually need to contribute meaningfully to a dialogue, you just need to puncture the bubble of righteous (or unrighteous) indignation. In fact, I think the core problem isn’t yelling or shouting -- I think it’s the compulsion people have to win an argument, rather than engage in conversation. But now, simply saying “hey, you’re being rude and disregarding my opinion!” is enough to win, so all substance in that point is gone.

I want to believe that Chaffetz will lose favor due to this town hall meeting, and that the fervor that has clearly flared up in the progressives of our nation burns bright. I hope that fire leads to positive change, and not a radicalized left-wing counterpart to the Tea Party a few years back. And I really hope that these terrible policies that have been put out over the last few days will remain opposed, overturned, and disavowed by the rest of our governing system.

But this is politics, and politics is a game about winning -- not about doing what’s best for the people.

#politics #doyourjob #chaffetz #chaffetztownhall #cynical

0 notes

trumpfeed · 8 years

Link

via Twitter

#IFTTT #Twitter

0 notes

crichton007 · 8 years

Text

RT @Pappiness: Hillary Clinton endured an 11-hour Benghazi hearing. Chaffetz left his town hall 40 minutes early. #ChaffetzTownHall

Hillary Clinton endured an 11-hour Benghazi hearing. Chaffetz left his town hall 40 minutes early.#ChaffetzTownHall

— Nick Jack Pappas (@Pappiness) February 10, 2017

via Twitter https://twitter.com/crichton007 February 11, 2017 at 10:13PM

#IFTTT #Twitter

0 notes

inspiteoftrump · 8 years

Link

via Twitter https://twitter.com/InSpiteOfTrump

#IFTTT #Twitter

0 notes

nothingman · 8 years

Link

(Credit: AP)

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, is chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, yet he has been unwilling to perform oversight on President Trump’s numerous conflicts of interest. On Thursday night, his constituents appeared at a town hall meeting to demand that he start looking into them.

After being asked why he wasn’t investigating Trump’s tax returns, the crowd began chanting “Do your job!” at the beleaguered congressman. This was most likely a reference to how Chaffetz, by his own admission, allowed his first meeting with Trump to be conducted on the president’s terms, who opened it by demanding that they not discuss oversight on any of his financial matters. Chaffetz has instead promised to continue his investigations on Hillary Clinton.

This was the room about 15 minutes ago — it’s stuffed to the gills now. And getting loud… #chaffetztownhall http://pic.twitter.com/97DfAE5I9L

— Richard Preiss (@richardmpreiss) February 10, 2017

There were other issues over which Chaffetz was grilled. A young girl asked the Republican about his plans to protect the air and water and the crowd booed when he replied that supports an all-of-the-above energy strategy, which includes mining for coal. https://twitter.com/ericbradner/status/829873005312421889?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Chaffetz was booed so often that he repeatedly found himself saying “Hold on” and “Give me a second” when trying to answer the audience’s questions. Ultimately Chaffetz left the rally 40 minutes early.

Outside the high school auditorium where the event was being held, protesters chanted “Vote him out!” One woman was arrested.

WATCH: Jason Chaffetz being greeted with “Do Your Job!” chants at town hall. Per CNN, he left the town hall an hour early @jasoninthehousehttp://pic.twitter.com/8uw7cbwjcW

— Yashar (@yashar) February 10, 2017

via Salon: in-depth news, politics, business, technology & culture Salon

#IFTTT #Feedly #Nothingman uses feedly

0 notes