I have written about this before, but I think it is time to mention it again. In many ways, the right is its own worst enemy, especially now that the "angry right" has been born, adopting many of the mannerisms of the "angry left" (See  "The Angry Right and Conservatives", "Calm Down a Little", "Partisan Arguments" and "Cigarettes, Sudan and Abortion".)

The problem I have is the way the right has been attacking President Obama, at least many on the right. Now, I will grant that most have given up on pressing the birth certificate issue *, and the "stealth Moslem" thing has dropped by the wayside, but, unfortunately, even many in the mainstream of the right have felt the need to emphasize Obama's ties to 60's radicals and continually mention Saul Alinsky and his "Rules for Radicals".

Now, whether or not you believe Obama has a hidden agenda, and I do not, the problem is that arguing as if he were some sort of Haight-Ashbury Manchurian Candidate makes you sound daffy to the average American, and worse still, wastes our opportunity to do very real damage to the administration.

Think about the Bush administration. The left had two lines of attack. First, the "Bushitler" charges, painting him as a chicken-fried Blofeld, sitting at a bank of TVs, plotting world destruction and stroking his... I guess for Bushitler it would be a 'possum. They blamed everything he did on some malicious plan, argued that he actually intended to destroy our civil rights, talked of death camps, torture chambers, blood for oil, blown levees and so on. The other group simply reminded us of every mistake he ever made. Portraying him as Jethro Clampett's less bright cousin they made sure that anything that went wrong was clearly tied to his incompetence. They did it jokingly and seriously, constantly reminding everyone that Bush got where he was through family connections and was in over his head.

And America bought one of the two. Oh, not entirely, but enough. And it wasn't the conspiracy theory. No, to middle America, that just sounded crazy. They knew the president was not an evil super villain. But the stupid charges, well those sounded plausible. After all, he wasn't the best speaker, and things DID go wrong, and if everyone on tv kept saying it, maybe there was something to it after all...

And that is the opportunity we are missing, the chance to do to Obama what the left did to Bush.

Think about it this way, while we are alienating middle America by sounding like the worst caricature of the John Birch society, we could instead by mocking a man who thinks you get rich by borrowing money to spend. A man who racked up a trillion dollars just to raise unemployment 3 percent. A man who manages to drop the stock market every time he opens his mouth. Who thinks the government which fumbled cash for clunkers should run health care.

In short, this is the perfect chance to paint Obama as a buffoon, to show up all the absurdities of the entire Democrat party and their agenda, to make America forever link Democrats with Carter, Clinton and Obama, of malaise, blue dresses and trillion dollar debts.

And instead we are wasting it with tirades about Alinsky.

And the general; public isn't buying. They hear talk of covert communism, plots to erode the government, plans to use communitiy agitation to destroy civil liberties and constitutional rights, and they think of the worst caricatures of right wing paranoia. Whether or not there is anything to it, whether or not you can back it up, you sound like you belong at a card table outside the post office, between the LaRouchers and the fellow explaining about UFO cover-ups. Conspiracy theories may sell books, but as serious political platforms, the public just isn't buying**. And, to be blunt, this all sounds too much like just another conspiracy theory. Middle America sees a bright, articulate fellow, who appears for all the world to be a normal, balanced individual, who won over a majority of their fellow citizens, who is neither frothing at the mouth nor waving a little red book in the air, and they just can't buy that he is a crazed radical. After all, the hippies and their fellow travelers made no secret of their beliefs, so why would this one man be the exception, the single stealth hippy***?

Whatever you think about Alinsky, about Obama's real goals, the end we want is the same, to be rid of him and those who support those goals, whatever their reason for doing so. So, if it will help speed those goals, doesn't it make sense to spend our time ascribing his actions to stupidity rather than malice? Whatever the truth, is it worth four more years of Obama to get that truth out there? Or is it not better to push the line which will bring the current administration to the most rapid end, regardless of whether it is true or false?

--------------------------------------------

* I have made no secret of my position on this issue. See "Not A Smoking Gun", "Legislative Intent", "A Brief Follow Up", "A New Take on an Old Topic" and "Slate Imitates Me, But I Really Don't Mind", among others.

** Despite the DaVinci Code's success, the public doesn't buy conspiracy theories any more now than they ever did. Oh, there is always a certain group wiling to believe Catholic churches are on high ground to house the Papal artillery when the war comes, or that the Watts riots were caused by Jews and Freemason, or that the Bilderbergers and guys from Bohemian Grove gassed flight 97's passengers in a secret NASA death facility in Ohio, but by and large Americans are less prone to conspiracy theories than anyone in the world. (Just look at how many Europeans buy into truther BS.) We might love conspiracy theories in pop entertainment, but we also largely understand that is where they should stay. (For my own rants on conspiracy theory see "Conspiracy Theory Enters the Mainstream", "Mumia, the DaVinci Code, Full Body Scans, and Loose Change - How Conspiracy Theories Arise", "A New Take on an Old Topic", "Conspiracy Theories", "The Delusional World of Oliver Stone", "A Shortcoming of Conspiracy Theories", "Dismissing Conspiracy Theories" and "False Flag Theories and 9/11".)

*** I will grant that during the HUAC era and before many actual communists and members of front groups did hide their true beliefs. But popular history has taught us that was almost all delusional and McCarthy was a liar, so the public at large does not think of those communists, only of the open, flow-power commune-living types. And they were hardly know for hiding their beliefs.

-----------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

For those who insist the truth must be known, think of my scheme as a tactical move. If we promote the view he is acting from stupidity, his only defense is to explain his real motives. If nothing else, it will help highlight how bad his real motives are.

POSTSCRIPT II

I do intend to write, later today, a post on the reason I think we go too far in ascribing Obama's actions to a hidden agenda. He may have some such motives, may have an agenda behind some of his actions, but I tend to think much of what he does is better explained by a simple lack of understanding of how the economy works.

POSTSCRIPT III

To make myself clear, I am not advocating outright lies in my closing paragraph. I think that simple lies almost always backfire on those who attempt them. What I suggest is, because we cannot know with certainty why Obama does what he does, why not select the possible explanation which will be most acceptable to the public? If we are wrong, he can always tell the public he is not a fool, just evil, and we can admit our mistake. Otherwise, he will be left trying to explain why his bad ideas aren't a sign of idiocy.

In general, I think that is a much more successful approach than sounding as if we believe there is some Alinsky-Ayers-Emanuel cabal trying to institute some sort of flow-power-SDS-comintern revival in DC. Even if some do actually hold to those beliefs, it is not an easy sell to the public, while stupidity is. Why not take the easy road?