Frank Schaeffer the self-proclaimed "Right Wing Turncoat" has once again provided insight into the current anti-Obama/anti-health care activities of the right. If he is right in his thesis written in an article released today that essentially some conservatives and parts of the universal health care opposition are committed to a "scorched earth" campaign, then perhaps it is time to rethink our strategy.
We are not in a fight ruled by reason. Everyone here knows that.
However, in a contest where winning and losing is defined by two or more sides striving for positive outcomes, no matter how selfish they may be, there is generally at least an interest in rules of engagement on all sides. As in a debate, rules of engagement allow everyone a chance to make his or her point (no matter how weak or illogical).
In the realm of policy where we discuss to come to a decision about the use of common resources, parties recognize first and foremost that they share some commonality, some community that needs to decide something. It is an idea so basic that we don’t give it much thought.
In a scorched earth campaign neither motivation applies. In an "I win when you lose, no matter the cost" environment, there is no recognized community or commonality. One party doesn’t have a positive policy or argument, as it only wants the other side(s) to lose and win by being the last one standing.
The operative world view in a scorched earth strategy is that of a defender protecting its land from an invading force. Defense is the key here as we have seen the term used repeatedly in anti-change movements in the US from defending so-called Southern values, to defending family order by maintaining male political dominance, to defending life, and defending military unit cohesion and the sanctity of marriage. Those wanting change are not part of the community but "other".
Those who want change of the status quo are the foreign army invading a land where the stalwart, and perhaps outnumbered, defenders destroy the invader by denying it the sustenance it needs to survive. The defenders do not need to win an argument. They must only chip away and persevere. Eventually the invader will lose the will to fight and go home when he realizes the costs outweigh the benefits or is too weak to continue. Defenders believe those who believe they have something to lose are more powerfully motivated than those who have something to gain.
So the question is this, with so much on the line for a well financed, organized, news/entertainment complex supported win at all costs, destroy the opposition minded opponent, do our senses of decency and fairness apply? What strategies and tactics, and I think we need several running simultaneously, should we apply?
Perhaps the real opposition to the change of the cash cow American health care system(?) is perhaps not found in the vocal minority but in their enablers/managers. Yet this profit/power centered group is an opponent seeking its own selfish, positive outcome. When they lose, some will use their tremendous wealth and influence to move on to something else while others will fall to earth in golden parachutes.
The wild card of the inclusion and empowerment of the scorched earth minded rabble may change the equation in ways yet unforeseen. The German aristocracy thought ultimately that they could control their hired defenders-of-the-status quo too, until it was too late for the rest of the world.