A Troll Types

Trolling at Pajamas Media (while it's still there) we encountered one Eric Florack.  Eric Florack has spent 25 years discussing politics in online forums. He’s also a veteran of some 20 years of Broadcast (radio) experience and blogs at Bits Blog. Impressive c. v., there, Eric. 25 yrs. of trolling. Wow. Must have been an early adapter. Eric's thesis (widely shared; it's the "principles" thing they harp on) is that the right can't possibly afford to alienate the Republican/conservative base (which consists of somewhere between 25% & 33% [we're being generous there] of those polled nationally) w/ any new ideas (well, any ideas, really). And right he is, as bitter old white clingers/haters are only on the increase, nation-wide. Aren't they?

Nor does one need new ideas when the old ones have been working perfectly. And if, in your leftist, socialist-realism world, those ideas haven't been working out so well, it's because the leadership are just a bunch of ne'er-do-wells who lose it when the moronsgrass-roots aren't keeping them in line. (That is, their leaders are highly-principled. Or profess to be so at a higher rate than leftish leaders do.)

The problem, of course, is that once those middle-class symbols are removed, or limited in their impact and exposure, the Republican Party leadership tends to forget the values of the middle class that they claim to represent. [...] Under these conditions, when Republicans are in power they tend to spend more time in “go along to get along” mode than they do governing on conservative principles, essentially guaranteeing a loss at the next electoral opportunity.

So conservatism is a grass-roots, bottom-up movement? (Yet their "economics" work the other way. Funny.) Yes it is. (By the way, could anyone for even a moment imagine snowbilly Sarah Palin in "go along to get along" mode? Or just "looting Neiman-Marcuses from coast to coast" mode?)

Those Americans traditionally supporting Republican candidates tend not to let their entire beings get wrapped up in letting one politician or another be the answer to all their problems — or the cause of them. By that same token, Republicans tend not to need an elite leadership to do their thinking for them. [...] It comes as no shock then that Republican Party leaders find it harder, if not impossible, to maintain the “leader walks on water” meme that the Democrats promoted with Obama and Clinton.

We have no answer to Mr. Florack. The obvious statements he's made above certainly can't be refuted. Except by one man, the Greatest American, the Maximum Leader, The Hero of Bitburg & Man Who Single-Handedly Brought Down Both The Berlin Wall & The Evil Empire of Soviet Communism: "St. Ronnie" Reagan. The guy who gives them orders from the grave, whose orders they blindly followed when only his brain was dead. (But we'll grant that the "leader who taps on men's room floors" meme doesn't work too well for them either.)

Most of the literate, at least on the first read, would think (liberal "literature classes" having corrupted their minds) that here Eric is saying Un-Joe the Plunger's popularity w/ the baser elements may be a symptom of some of the things wrong w/ the base &, by extension, the Party/movement. (Why not get personal? Or at least psychological?) But no.

Joe’s instant celebrity should have been a red flag waving in the face of the Republican leadership, warning them that something was seriously wrong with the direction of the party. Alas, that warning has been ignored thus far. And at CPAC, we saw people reacting negatively to those waving that flag.

After the fourth or fifth read, it clears right up.

One respondent at CPAC, writing from the convention floor, spoke of a need to update the intellectual platform to accommodate a “changed era.” He complains that “it’s as if Jimmy Carter is still in the White House and Roe v. Wade was just handed down.”

The reference to Roe ignores the concept that conservative principles do not change. You do not check your principles at the door.

We await w/ bated breath the calls for a return to slavery & child-labor, & the disenfranchisement of all women, & men who don't own property. And hell, why should women be allowed to own property, anyway? Didn't used to.  But let's leave on a positive note. Positive for us, not as much for Florack. ( Where's that sunny, optimistic, "principled" Reaganism, Eric?)

The main reason for the objections to many grassroots heroes is not that people like Wurzelbacher lack forceful, clear articulation. Rather, it’s that they espouse traditional conservative positions. The suggestion by the elites is that those principles need to be ditched if Republicans want to regain power. The major critique is not whether they are effective spokesmen for the cause. Sadly, what I’ve been seeing the last couple of days in a lot of the anti-grassroots traffic coming out of CPAC is that we’re about to repeat the history of the pre-Reagan years. Then, Republicans lost sight of their principles and ended up aping the Democrats in promoting the worst aspects of the welfare state.

Oh, if only they could promote (or even vote for) the best aspects of the welfare state. Oh, he means corporate welfare? Forget it, then.

UPDATED (4 March 2009 @ 1852 PT): The troll knows all internet traditions (as pointed out in the comments):

There is perhaps no more disturbing theme to come out of this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) than the undercurrent of elitist commentary leaking out on some blogs and on Tweeter.

Yes, "Tweeter."