Stop me if you’ve heard this line before: “Let’s just focus on beating Obama.”
The common-sense-sounding request (among conservatives, that is) is sure to be injected any time an internecine squabble erupts on the right.
If Erick Erickson and Jamie Radtke have a spat, someone, somewhere will make the reasonable request that they quit bickering and “just focus on beating Obama.” If Michelle Malkin questions Rick Perry’s conservatism, someone, somewhere will insist that she should (you guessed it!), “just focus on beating Obama”…
The line (or some version of it) has become ubiquitous on Twitter and in comments sections of blogs. It is also selectively employed by various sophists — when the occasion suits them. Sure, it sounds good and correct to conservative ears. Yet it is pernicious. Here’s why:
1. It encourages a “just win, baby” mentality. The same people who caution us to “just focus on beating Obama” presumably believe “America simply cannot afford another four years” of him (frankly, I remember people saying the exact same thing about Bill Clinton, but I suppose times are harder…) The problem is that winning is not an ideology (unless you’re some sort of Machiavellian political operative), and trying to turn it into an ideology creates subsequent problems.
2.The logical conclusion of the “Just focus on beating Obama” philosophy is that conservatives should settle on the candidate with the best chance of winning — no matter what. (As the saying goes, “Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.”) Electability may be a valid qualification, but should it be the primary criteria for selecting candidates?
3. It discourages the development of proactive ideas. A candidate who is nominated primarily because he was best positioned to defeat Obama will likely not be the best-prepared to lead once sworn in. Moreover, a conservative movement based solely on accomplishing a negative goal (removing a president from office) is unlikely to develop many positive/proactive ideas to implement once they have obtained power.
4. It postpones fights that need to be had. Candidates need vetting, and it is healthy for this vetting to come from the left and the right (as opposed to merely from the left). What is more, if one aims to elect a Republican president, they should also hope the vetting comes during the primary process (not during the general election). But just as candidates need vetting, ideas also need vetting. It is healthy to engage in debates and disagreements. Introspection is important, as well. And the quickest way to shut down debate and discussion is to forcefully argue that the very process of doing so is harming one’s own side.
The problem is that there is always an election just around the corner — there’s never a convenient time to have a family feud. And so “let’s just focus on beating Obama,” quickly turns into, “let’s just focus on winning back the senate.” When it comes to the world of ideas, pulling out the “Let’s just beat Obama” card is the last refuge of a scoundrel. It’s the conservative equivalent of asking, “But what about the kids?” It is a cheap way to sound intelligent and seize the moral high ground — all without ever having to think.
5. Focusing solely on winning justifies the means. This is the most extreme example, and the least likely to occur, but if one truly believes Obama is an existential threat to America — if one were obsessed with nothing more than defeating him — why not engage in some sort of unethical campaign chicanery in order to do so? There is, of course, nothing wrong with using an adversary as a motivation, but problems arise when accomplishing a negative act becomes the sole motivation.
Ideas have consequences, and this one leads to long-term disaster (even if it brings short-term victory).