What Was the Lesson of 2016? Letter Five
Continuing our letter series, we pick up with our exchange with Grant Brooks on the lesson of 2016. You can find the first post here, which has links to every letter. As always, be sure to subscribe to Grant’s substack to keep up with his letters and overall good content.
Grant,
Of the internet’s many advantages, its ability to bypass the USPS is one of the best! Your letter reached me before I drove home to see my family for Christmas. I hope your Christmas was nice, full of laughter, smiles, and good food! My stomach is slowly recovering from the feasts we had with family, friends, and friends’ family.
Having arrived back at my house this morning, beginning to prepare for what should be a great New Year’s party, I have been mulling over your last letter. There is one paragraph that particularly stood out to me:
“One of the issues I think the right has failed to understand is that public policy cannot simply materialize out of grievance. Because of the left’s effectiveness and because of a lot of attention on the dog and pony show, a belief in this has crept in. So we want school vouchers passed, its not sufficient to simply have people who think its a good idea or people who dislike public schools but actual living organizations and people who will directly profit from this. I remember an old episode of Myth of the 20th Century, the terrorwave one I think, where Hank was speaking of how insurgent groups were effectively funded. He stated the most effective situations were ones where material support was not given until the people in question had demonstrated their ability and capacity. Now, I don’t believe we necessarily have to be so stingy, but the point is one that bears repeating - we must have the actual manpower that is ready to absorb and consume the fruits of our public policy victories. To put it very simply, we cannot simply spin networks out of thin air via food, rather, we must feed what exists to grow it and make it more powerful.”
I am fairly guilty of this type of thinking. Many of the policies I propose assume an existing network in place to benefit from said policies, but at times, being so confident in the power of spigot pointing, I imagine that we can create networks from the top-down. Edmund Burke spoke famously of the “little platoons”, those basic organic social units that make up society. From the local parish to the town’s bowling league, Rotary Club to Scouts, or even the cigar lounge where men come to talk for hours, these small units are not formed by the spigot, although they can be aided by it. Likewise, larger networks, be they educational, religious, legal, etc., are also formed organically. We have to support our networks, of course, but trying to start a network, let alone multiple, by simply throwing money at a group of people and yelling “organize!” at them will not work. There have been attempts to do this, particularly on the more nationalist/activist side of the sphere, and, lo and behold, you cannot speak a “metapolitical movement” into existence, no matter how many times it is tried, leadership is changed, rebranding is done, or money is dumped.
This brings me to your second point, that funding, when done effectively, should go towards competent groups. Going back to the language of spigots, we water good fruit, but never weeds. At the risk of sounding too harsh, many on the right are weeds. Being unproductive themselves, rarely contributing a new idea or making tangible improvements in the country, they crowd the scene, choking out those trying to make a real difference. An example of this principle can be found here, a news story about an organization of parents who got a number of LGBT+ themed books taken out of Texas public school libraries. As they honed their message and organizational skills, they received more money and friendly publicity (notably from Steven Bannon). Granted, we have to acknowledge that conservatives face an uphill battle, and cannot, therefore, demand perfection prior to giving them funds, but this does not give excuse for handing out money without first seeing (some) results.
Providing timetables is risky, as the future is neither the present nor the past. Not providing a timetable, I can say that we do not have time to spare in turning the country around politically. While this might make some feel pressured to support half-competent causes, convinced that there is not enough time to wait for something better, what we don’t have time for, in reality, is supporting anything other than the best. Should we invest in a given network, it needs to be done with the impression that this is the horse to cross the finish line. Investing in a sick horse, or one that is just sub-par, will only end in us losing. If our chosen horse doesn’t win, we will not be given the chance to try again. This is a terrorstate, as you mentioned, that we are up against. Should America’s future be bright, it is incumbent that competent, and proven, networks are identified, and then supported.
Unfortunately, sub-par networks have been supported, and anything promising has quickly attracted public attention (in no small part because of people in the networks being unable to brag). In conjunction with the overemphasis on a “Ceasar”, a meme promoted by most segments of the right, the middle management, those generals who guide the networks, has been ignored. Without decent networks, and without a class of intelligent middle managers, people like Trump are sitting ducks for a group that plays less by the rules of debate and electoral politics and more by the rules of warfare and espionage. No messaging, optics, “hardline” stances, or change in political philosophy will prevent another 2016. A single soldier, no matter how well trained or equipped, is helpless against an army.
I pray that you and yours are happy and healthy,
Yours,
Rose