A few years ago, Malcolm Gladwell wrote an awesome article for The New Yorker: How David Beats Goliath. Read it after you read this. The story encourages and frustrates at the same time.
Encourages because we learn Davids can, occasionally, beat Goliaths. Frustrates because Goliaths tend to change the rules just before the epic battle.
That’s how the establishment wins—by establishing the rules. And changing them as necessary. Not exactly fair, but fairness isn’t in the rule book.
Insurgents win by rejecting the establishment’s rules.
The reason conservative insurgents struggle is our good, middle class upbringing. We believe in established customs, established manners, and even established music. Then we get upset when the establishment serves itself first, leaving us the leftovers.
If we’re to overcome our manners and execute Gladwell’s strategies for defeating Goliaths, then we we better understand how the establish wins. And I’m going to tell you. I’ll at least try.
The establishment wins by laying down the rules. And charming us into accepting them.
In Gladwell’s story, an unlikely girls basketball team used the full-court press to disrupt the established basketball giants in Silicon Valley. Until the championship game.
By then, the establishment had gotten together and convinced the referees to fight against the girls.
The refs called foul after foul. The insurgent team lost to the establishment.
And the slaves lived happily ever after.
In con games, the con artist gets the mark to accept some rule, some stipulation. “If I can do x then you will do y.” The mark always loses his shirt.
Why? Because the con artist knows the game and creates the rules in his favor.
In elections, the establishment follows the same pattern.
- Applaud the insurgents
- Pretend to be an insurgent
- Lay down the rules for insurgency
Establishment candidates have cash and the power cash brings. They can buy prominent endorsements. They can intimidate potential donors of the opponents.
Because cash, and the power of cash, is their strength, they establish a rule early:
- Thou shalt not discuss money
When the insurgents stop talking about money, the establishment places the next subject off-limits. Say the establishment candidate worked to save a RINO.
- Thou shalt not discuss my endorsements
And so on.
Eventually, the insurgents are left with nothing. The rules have changed. The game the insurgents thought they were playing is over, and a new game begun.
Down the road, the rules changes that preserved the establishment this time will haunt them. But they’re the establishment; they’ll change the rules again.
The reason the Tea Party happened wasn’t because Barack Obama was elected or because TARP passed.
If the Tea Party is to reassert Constitutional Conservatism, then we cannot live by the establishment’s rules.
The Tea Party happened because the establishment blinked in the presence of the insurgency. Lehman Brothers fell. TARP failed in the House. We caught them. And we’ll never fear them quite the same way again.