Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Agreed. But the time to do that is in the primaries, and once a nominee emerges, we all need to support him, even if it means plugging you rnose a bit as you do so.
|
I explicitly referred to the primaries as the time to do that, to not act out of fear. I said: "So, go for the gusto in the
primaries. Don't be afraid of losing. If you are, you will surely lose. If not all at once, then little by little."
There is this belief by some football wonks that teams who have a lead, especially a small one, in the fourth quarter, and play from then on not to lose, rather than playing to win, will usually lose in the end. Those who habitually try to win close contests with defensive offense can comfortably be exploited. Their predictable timidity and strategy of safe plays for fear of making some fatal mistake, renders them vulnerable not only to be countered by a bolder and more imaginative strategies which can exploit predictability, but also vulnerable to fear itself. Fear can constrict mental and physical ability as well as erode confidence.
If you play the "game" of politics with timid, predictable "centrist" rhetoric, retreaded "safe" messages geared to impress a complacent, comfortable "middle," and your opponent historically has already and mythically owned that ground, and can demagogically cast you as the hypocrite trying to be what you are not . . . that you are not for the "middle," they are . . . and if your opponent has long ago, and continuously since, sowed the seeds of class warfare . . . then you are fighting on ground that they own. If that is all so, then you will likely lose. And if you win, having fought on their ground, then you must govern by the rules laid out for that ground. And you will govern, and be, like them.
So, if you are truly not them, you will have lost by "winning." You will have lost the soul of who you are . . . if you have a soul.
If you claim to be a "conservative," and if such a thing still exists, then you should be able to describe that thing--in a political, not a personal sense. Is it strictly economics? The "economy" is a great and important thing. Is political conservatism balanced budgets? Can "liberals" never balance a budget, and would they then become "conservative" if they did?
Please tell me Jim, what a political conservative is at the federal level. And then tell me how such a politician should campaign for election. Should he/she be true to that conservatism, or should she/he dissemble, play to the so-called "middle"? Should the conservative be afraid to ask for votes because of his true conviction on what is good and proper government?
Then, if such a conservative is running in the primaries against moderates, should we not passionately and openly encourage and bolster his campaign? Fearlessly approve and support it rather than discourage it, suppress it, silence it , for fear that it might be demonized by liberal press and politicians? That it might not appeal to the "center"?
I understand the fear of losing by being "hard core conservative." But history doesn't support that being "moderate" is the best strategy. Republicans have been losing the presidency of late as moderates. And winning at State levels as more open conservatives. And Democrats, contrary to accepted wisdom, have been winning, not as moderates, but by constantly shifting to the left. This might, especially, be the time when Republicans discard the "moderate" mantle.