National Review: The GOP plan is ‘surrender…then play-fight’
Have you ever wondered why after gaining a larger majority in the House and taking control of the Senate in 2014 the Republicans almost immediately capitulated to Barack Obama (and continue to do so to this day) after promising to reign him in?
I have espoused my theory on this many times in the past but I will sum it up once again: It is called the Hegelian Dialectic. The ruling class establishment on both sides of the aisle agree on more issues than they will ever admit publicly, they are on the same side, but they put on a show of controlled opposition to fool the people into believing they have a real choice.
The Dialectic is simple: thesis/anti-thesis/synthesis. Create or take advantage of a crisis, either real or imagined, create the opposition to the crisis and its solution while controlling both sides of the argument, and then implement the predetermined solution which almost invariably leads to more government control.
The establishment Republicans have made the political calculation that they stand to gain more politically by letting Barack Obama pass his agenda while they pretend to oppose it because then they can use all if it as a political issue to run against in the next election.
The National Review has finally caught on to this scheme however they call this strategy “Surrender . . . Then Play-Fight ” and you can read about it in this article entitled “How the GOP Pretends not to Authorize Obama’s Agenda” and it is well worth the read.
Here is how the National Review describes what the establishment Republicans are up to:
Step one: Obama wants to do something bad. The Republicans decide to let him do it, while appearing to oppose it. Why? Maybe because they secretly agree that it should be done but know it will infuriate their base (think: raising the debt ceiling). Maybe because, although Republicans know it is bad, they are less concerned about the danger to the country than about the media-Left wrath that will rain down on them if they block Obama. Making a calculation rooted in politics rather than statesmanship, they conclude: It’s better to let the bad thing happen than be blamed for “gridlock,” “partisanship,” etc.; plus, if they can pull off the “enable Obama while ostensibly opposing Obama” trick, their empty rhetorical opposition will poll better than taking real steps to stop the president (think: Iran deal). Step two: The legislative template — Surrender . . . Then Play-Fight — is deployed. Republicans engineer the enactment of an authorizing statute that fully permits the bad thing Obama wants to do, but it attaches a “process” that has two conditions: 1) Obama must take certain measures to formally propose the bad thing (even though the bad thing has already been conditionally authorized); and 2) congressional Republicans must be given an opportunity to “disapprove” of the bad thing they have already approved in the authorizing statute. As GOP leadership well knows, this opportunity to disapprove is sheer theater: Obama will veto the “disapproval” and needs only one-third-plus-one support in just one chamber (i.e., 34 senators or 146 House members) to prevent an override.
And here is more:
Note how truly cynical this is. The ball Republicans are hiding is the original authorizing statute, which makes everything else happen. Nonetheless, it is orchestrated so that a) Obama must make the proposal and then b) Republicans get to vote against it not once but twice (first on the “resolution of disapproval,” then in the inevitably unsuccessful veto-override vote). By then, after a months-long drumbeat of Republican anti-Obama diatribes and futile disapproval votes, leadership figures you’ve long forgotten that Republicans have already approved the bad thing against which they are inveighing and voting.
Bingo! There is much more in this article and I suggest you all read the entire thing but as you can see, what the National Review calls “Surrender . . . Then Play-Fight” is nothing more than what I have been calling the Hegelian Dialectic.
I believe the American people are finally catching onto this game and in my opinion this explains why Donald Trump is doing so well in the polls. If I did not believe that Donald Trump was also part of the Dialectic (controlled opposition) I might actually consider voting for him to send the establishment a message loud and clear.
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
America's Watchtower 
Reblogged this on Brittius.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you.
LikeLike
You’re welcome.
LikeLike
Well done. We can only hope that somehow Boehner and McConnel get the heave ho. But wait. It can’t happen. The Dems will join the Rino’s and he will be back in business.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you. It looks like Meadows is going to make a push to remove Boehner and it seems to be gaining momentum with the Republicans but you are right about the Democrats. They will move in to save him because he is one of them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Those of us old enough remember Reagen and Tip O’Neal sparing and
making concessions resulting in a quid pro quo for both sides. Today there is no debate. Para phrasing Gwen Verdon’s Lola in Damn Yankees, What Okrana wants Okrana gets. Republican acquiescence has replaced debate. Even with a republican White House and congress this farce will continue with the left controlling the verbiage and with the aiding and abetting by the media the American public will be none the wiser.
LikeLiked by 4 people
“Controlling the verbiage.” You nailed it with that one! That is precisely how they are able to control the debate and when you have the MSM on your side pushing the agenda it is tough to beat. The revolution will be complete when the language is perfect…
LikeLiked by 4 people
A bit OT but related: I recently heard it said that ‘Politics reflect the thinking of the populous.’ I’m going to bring up a very unpopular and old fashion fact. 50 years ago people read the Bible (King James Version) and believed it – they were ‘influenced’ by what God’s Word said. Today few read the Bible, and if they do read it they read ones that have been ‘revised’ from a different source than the KJV- translated from the original text copy. There are 2 Bibles sources: one is Pure (Antioch – KJV) and the other Corrupt (Alexandrian – all the revision Bibles today). Just as history is rewritten for the gain of the few so goes w/ Scripture. Just as the Serpent deceived and beguiled Eve in the Garden by twisting the words of God (Ye shall not surely die), so do these ‘new’ revised bibles – totally ‘changing’ God’s intended meaning and truth. One faulty version was literally taken out of the trash at the Vatican and used to write versions on the market today – and it is a MARKET. With a faulty premise comes faulty thinking and believing (which ‘feelings’ derive from). THAT is part of the Hegelian Dialectic too Steve! Rewriting truth and fabricating a the Lie as truth, to replace it; which the populous learn and live their lives by. These politician are only the reflection of this corrupt spiritual ‘truth’ and ‘reality’ we’re living today. THAT is a spiritual issue. Instead of ‘spirit, soul and body’ (notice the order), it’s been twisted into ‘body, soul and spirit’ – basing the importance on the desires of the flesh (which is debase in nature – more is never enough!). Unbelievable? Probably to many who have been ‘socially conditioned’ to think the way of the Hegelian Dialectic Order! Garbage in, garbage out. We are what we take in. Godliness of character or ungodliness. Politics will display the choice. And isn’t that part of the Agenda plan, corrupt the fabric of society, fracture it, destroy the moral and ethical base, for an easier take over into bondage = spirit, soul and body.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Very interesting Zip, I did not realize they were using two different sources to interpret the Bible but somehow I am not surprised by this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I just recently found that out and it just makes sense considering how things work in this world! Glad you found it interesting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haven’t heard you say that much all on once in awhile, Zip. Interesting observation, thanks for sharing it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks Lou, yes got a burst going there – motivated to share it!
Hey is your hubby back from Alaska? Did he get to have dinner w/ Palin!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why yes, yes he is home! No, I think Sarah was down in the lower 48 when he was there. His bad luck, huh?
LikeLiked by 1 person
We have the power, have had for at least a season. We could have ripped the throat of this out all this year at a minimum. How about term limits? That might just work. One does so tire of all this politik.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yeah, we had the chance and they threw it away but yet we keep voting for them so we cannot blame them for continuing to take advantage of us. Perhaps term limits is the answer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is. No more than 2 terms, and no “retirement”. Do your elected job, then go home and go back to whatever you did before you were a congresscritter.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think the retirement is the big thing here even more than the pay. It was called “public service” for a reason and that was because people had to sacrifice a little bit in order to do this. When I hear a politician today talk about being a public servant it makes me sick…
LikeLike
CM, I think the majority of the electeds want to make a career out of it if they can. I am all for term limits,,,we would be alot better off, minus a few that we would still like to keep in there….those would be a big loss. I don’t know what else we can do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They never planned on taking control, CM, they just had to throw it out there, you know, throwing us a bone so we would shut the hell up for awhile. Didn’t get us very far, did it? I am of the opinion that there is not much difference in the parties, but for a handful of people that have tried to change things for us.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The great thing about living by in Jersey is my republican vote counts for squat so I won’t feel guilty if I boycott the establishment RINO come November. 2016, should one of those Bosco Bears be the nominee.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have to question if ANY of our votes count, Peter! Anymore it seems like they know who will be the nominee and we will like it….wrong!
LikeLiked by 2 people
We may end up in a true pickle then. Again.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The parties are the same in my opinion Lou. There are two classes in America; the ruling class and the ruled and that is why nothing changes no matter which party is in charge.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep, Steve, you got that right! As long as we are able to pay taxes, they will take it from us. I see a problem with even more illegals entering our borders as well as the “refugees” that Obama feels the need to bring in…at that point we DO have domestic terrorists, after all, aren’t they here to assimilate into this great country? Both parties are now in it to screw us out of what we have and give to those that don’t have! Leaning Socialists?
LikeLiked by 1 person
But somehow I don’t think these refugees are what this regime has in mind when it talks about domestic terrorists… 😉
LikeLike