The Plan

Many conservatives look at the angry protests of the Left in the 1960s and want to import into our politics that style and attitude. But the anger of the 1960s Left only succeeded in destroying the party most closely associated with it - and electing instead its fiercest opponents.

Click here for the final round in my debate with David Horowitz that started with David's critique of my posts on Glenn Beck and Cass Sunstein.

In the debate, David offers as explicit and considered a defense as I've heard anywhere of the political strategy followed by conservatives this year. I offer my countervailing vision, along with some evidence for doubting that the approach championed by Horowitz will work.

One final comment in reply to David Horowitz's third-round presentation. He writes:

I think Republicans generally want a fighter. You can be a centrist and a fighter. Why not? But in the first nine months of the Obama Administration, it is Palin who has set the standard in facing down the Left.

You say that angry protests did not work for the Left during the 60s. Are you forgetting that our angry protests were aimed at the Democrats and that by destroying the Democrats we elected Reagan governor of California, and Nixon president in 1968? Psychotic anger worked for the Democrats in 2006 and 2008 and brought them victories in Congress and the White House. What can you be thinking?

For those conservatives who want to import into our politics the style and attitudes of the 1960s, from the demonstrations to the promiscuous flinging of the accusations of "fascist" and "Hitlerite," please note David's description of its main accomplishment:

The 1960s Left succeeded in destroying the party most closely associated with it - and electing instead its fiercest opponents.

Good plan!