Originally Posted by Jim in CT
"That common sense, rational, grown-up approach has been used against Progressives for a long time."
Not by a President. Bush just sat there and let everyone dump all over him, he never responded at all. Which is also not an approach I like.
I also don't like that approach. But Bush wasn't the only Republican to do that. Even worse, Republicans that did respond often did it on the same policy turf to which they were responding. That is a statistically losing method when your audience is programmed to see government as the distributor of goodies. No way are "conservative" policies going to consistently win in that scenario. That is asking the dependency programmed voting public to favor less goodies in favor of some idealistic personal responsibility. Sure, there are some, many, who can see the danger to liberty in the Progressive Faustian bargain. But, until the American public can be re-enlightened about the basis and reason for our founding, the goodie gatherers are going to outnumber the personal responsibility folks.
And the battle between the two types is essentially the battle between reason and emotion.
How can that battle be tipped toward reason? Infuse emotion into principle. If one cannot get emotional about liberty, especially over trading it away in order to get shiny objects, liberty as a principle ain't got a chance. Reagan was able to do that by the force of his charisma and powerful messaging of first principles. Lincoln was able to persuade half a nation to fight the other half with his beautiful rhetoric which spoke on principles of the freedom with which we are all endowed.
Wonkish nitpicking as a debate tactic favors the bigger gift giver. Sorry, but humans being what they are, that is just the way it is. I know, I know, you're not that way. A lot of people, for whatever reason, are not that way. But most are. Unless they can be revved up in the direction of "give me liberty, or give me death." That's a tough one, especially for folks who already have a fair amount of liberty.
The task is huge. "Conservatives" (constitutional) have to retake our educational system and have it sing their song rather than the Progressive siren call of the gift givers. That's a toughy. And a fairly long hall. But shaping the minds of our children in favor of freedom and personal responsibility is prerequisite to restoring the nation to founding principles. If that is done, most of the rest will follow. And appeals to the original "freedom of" paradigm rather than Roosevelt's "freedom from" will have the emotional appeal needed to favor responsibility over dependence.
At least, Trump has infused some emotion in his opposition to the lefties. And more than just the least, he has activated some urgency and energy as well. His New York brashness has its plusses and its (many) negatives. But, in the long run, he is just a beginning. If the movement (and his adopted movement), in the West as a whole, and here in particular, toward regional sovereignty and individual responsibility/liberty fails now, we may have to sink deeper into that soft despotism of dependency until another, less rational, revolution occurs.
When we show up and make our case, we win. That's why these wussies on college campuses would rather riot than let a conservative speak, because they know they have no response.
That is allowed by the lefties in power because it feeds the emotional demands of a large part of their base. It is not about "making a case." Therefor it doesn't convince lefties to become righties. Nothing, for the left is won or lost. They hold ground.
"When Progressives have academia, the mainstream media, Hollywood, on their side of the debate, polite conversation is not an effective weapon."
I disagree. When the left controls things, they don't win fact-based debates, they avoid fact-based debates. I watch NBC and MSNBC, I rarely see a conservative on there making effective points. Every once in a while MSNBC will throw a Klansmen out there, under the assumption that he represents everyone who isn't liberal. Show me a debate that Ann Coulter has ever lost. Or Trey Gowdy.
When did Progressives say that Ann Coulter has ever won a debate? No matter how quick witted, precisely on her mark she is, to a Progressive she is simply standing on the wrong ground. No matter how well her arguments defend that ground, it is wrong to begin with. To the lefties, It's like Hitler making a very persuasive reason for Nazism. Notice how even those on this forum, even if they are not pure Progressives, mock Coulter. She, like so many icons of the right, has been successfully demonized by the left. Most, even reasonable "moderates," can't get past her defined image. They'd rather not even listen to her or read her columns or books. She preaches to the choir. So don't go thinking she hands down wins debates. Even if you, or "conservatives" think she does. Ergo for Gowdy. Though when he talks law that may be a different matter.
I do agree that control of media, academia, and Hollywood, is a massive obstacle. Bush responded by sating nothing when they attacked him. It didn't work. Trump responds by flying off the handle like a teenager. That won't work. The answer, I think, is in the middle somewhere.
Again, he may not be flying off the handle. If you notice, most of the time he makes what seem to be outlandish remarks, he does so with a straight face and a rather calm manner. Doesn't often seem to go truly ballistic. Maybe emotional sometimes. And sometimes ballistic. Is that not acceptable? And a lot times it "works." Not in ways that folks traditionally understand.
But most people don't watch Foxnews, which means, most people only get the far-left take on everything.
|