Understand the Left, so that you can DEFEAT the Left. The committed leftist does not care about the economic effects of their policy. Don’t waste their time trying to get them to care. Your friends CARE that jobs are leaving CA and heading to TX. Your friends CARE that they will never be able to open that bakery they dream about. You can persuade your friend that the conservative view is better for them.
Dennis Prager points out in this great article the devastating economic facts about CA, and then points out that the left doesn’t care.
WHY THE LEFT DOESN’T CARE ABOUT BAD ECONOMIC NEWS
Most conservatives, and just about all independents, have a huge misperception of the left. They think that the gulf between conservatism and leftism is primarily about means, not goals.
This perception is wrong. It is their goals that are irreconcilable. And until conservatives, independents and the Republican Party understand this, it will not be possible to defeat the left.
Many of you know this. Many of you may get angry about it. That’s fine, but are you using this information to your own benefit, to save you time, to improve your chance at success with online activism?
Or are you just expressing anger to your friends, gaining solidarity, and having fun? That’s perfectly fine, and a totally appropriate use of social media, just make sure that what you are doing is aligned with your goals.
Understand the Left, so that you can DEFEAT the Left
If you are on social media with some thought to helping the cause of conservatism, you need to make sure that your efforts are focused, efficient, and targeted effectively.
Stop wasting your time arguing with leftists and trying to convince them of anything. Leave that toe professional debaters, the people who get paid to argue on TV, the entertainers. They aren’t accomplishing much for the movement, but they are making themselves rich and famous. Hooray for them, and horray for you if you want to become one of them, just don’t be delusional about it. That is not where the battle can be won.
DO spend your time educating genuine independents, informing the non-political, shaping your message for those who are receptive to it.
Leftists really don’t care about economic results. They care about inequaltiy and carbon emissions.
You don’t have to memorize a pile of statistics, you don’t have to hold forth on a deeply detailed legislative analysis. If you find yourself arguing with someone about whether CA is a better business environment than TX – walk away. You are arguing with a committed leftist, no one else is paying attention, and you are wasting your time.
If, however, you have the chance to mention some company that your friend cares about having just decided to leave CA and move someplace else – talk about that. How sad it is for the people in CA who are losing their jobs, how sad it is for all of the supporting companies that will lose customers. How it’s great that there are other states competing to get THEIR business, just like that company competes to get yours.
These discussions are easy to have, and they express genuine understanding, compassion, and caring for the very real people involved. THIS is the way to talk about the economic benefit of small government versus big government.
Your friends CARE that jobs are leaving CA and heading to TX. Your friends CARE that they will never be able to open that bakery they dream about. You can persuade your friend that the conservative view is better for them.
Learn about the other side. Recognize them, respect them enough to not try to change them.
The committed leftist does not care about the economic effects of their policy. Don’t waste their time trying to get them to care. Your detailed and intellectual argument persuades no one.
Find a better way. Don’t try to convert the left, they’ve already taken up arms against you. Work on recruiting the folks who are not on the battlefield yet.
It is time for the Benghazi scandal to break through the barriers set by Old Media and the Left. YOUR efforts can and will make a difference on how effective that breakthrough can be. Here’s a primer on who to target and how to get the message out.
You can just be an observer and a chronicler, just watch and report on the story, comment about it, celebrate when things go well, complain when they don’t. You can watch for New Media to force this story to the top where it should be.
OR…you can seize the mantle of Matt Drudge and Andrew Breitbart and be part of the effort that makes it happen. Get this story into the minds of people who don’t pay attention to politics. Be part of the solution.
Realize that there are different groups of people out there, and save yourself some time, make your efforts more successful. Before you engage in conversation with someone, figure out what group they are in, so that your efforts are properly focused and targeted.
The Faithful: lefty zealots, truly believe that this is old news and that you are blowing things out of proportion. They are informed about the events, just have a completely different take than you do. You won’t change their minds, ever, but it can be worthwhile to read what they write – knowing your opponent is key to defeating them.
The Shock Troops: these are the random commenters, leftists yes, but neither well informed nor politically purpose driven. They’re basically trolls. They’ll dump some half-baked slogan on your threads. Their goal is self-amusement and your distraction. Deny them that second one. The only reason to respond to anything they say would be to correct an error or provide a quick link to additional information. But that is just for the benefit of OTHER people reading the thread. Engaging in conversation with these types is a complete waste of time. Gentle mocking or dismissiveness is usually fun. “Thank you for your perspective, have a blessed day”. And then…nothing.
The Supportives: these are your friends, with varying levels of knowledge of the issue. You can learn from them, share information and tactics with them. Reshare each other’s content – your circles are different from theirs, the story will reach different people. These are the folks you partner with to increase the reach of this story.
The Non-political: THESE folks are your target. They are your family, your wife, her friends, the other parents at your kids’ school, most of your co-workers. The people who follow you for your beer review posts or your flower pictures. The VAST majority of people you know. THESE are the folks you need to reach.
Why is it going to be possible to reach them? They’ve ignored this story for 2 years and don’t care about politics.
At this point, it’s beyond politics – it’s human decency, national security, and a cover-up of terrorism for personal political gain. You can get people’s attention with that.
Non-political folks may instinctively want to join in on the fun, we all like to make fun of crazy people, and making fun of those nutjobs who are obsessed with Benghazi is easy and fun…DUDE!!!!
But those who are just joining in the fun and haven’t thought much about it can be brought up short quite easily…
“I know it’s funny to joke about, but it WAS a successful terrorist attack on American soil. 4 people died, including our Ambassador, 10 were injured, it was a CIA group and they didn’t know this attack was being planned. That’s the kind of thing the White House SHOULD find very important, and they’re joking about it. Oh, and did you know we STILL don’t know where Obama was during the whole thing? He wasn’t in the situation room, and no one seems interested to find out where he was.”
Your first step was to agree with their ability to see humor. You are AGREEING WITH THEM not opposing them, this puts you on the same side.
Then you clarify / add to their store of knowledge about the event. You’re informing, sharing, helping.
You empathize– express the same emotions they must be feeling – shock and surprise. It’s never really described as a successful terrorist attack on American soil, on the CIA.
Most folks don’t know enough about it to have looked at it that way. Rational Americans who are not interested in politics MAY be interested in a deadly terrorist attack on American soil, that the CIA didn’t predict, that NO ONE was allowed to go help, that was blamed on some video so you’d still love the Obama Administration.
It’s never been described this way, but you have the opportunity to do so.
This is FAR easier to explain that the Valerie Plame thing. FAR more directly important than the Monica Lewinsky perjury scandal.
Most people will be kind of irritated when they see the dismissive juvenile attitude of the top level folks on the left about this story. They just aren’t hearing about it.
So…the left has chosen mockery and derision of US for considering this story important. Fine. Great actually.
The highly inappropriate and insanely offensive nature of their current response is the PERFECT way to get your uninterested friends interested in this story.
OK, now that we are arriving at the end game for the government shutdown, we need to once again find our bearings.
Many conservative commentators want to point fingers, say this person or that did or did not do damage to the GOP cause, etc. etc..
What a complete waste of time and effort.
I find the blame game to be worthwhile only in teaching us what we can do better next time. And in that line of thought, I personally do my blaming behind closed doors. Airing our dirty laundry for others to later use against us is a level of stupidity I simply cannot understand. Yes, mistakes were made. Yes, we could have done better and should do better. But bad talking our own team in the public does none of us any good.
In the weeks to come, I am sure the media and Democrats will try to maintain the public focus on the government shutdown. This, despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans barely knew there was a shutdown, nor really cared that much. The polling that the media likes to repeat over and over again showing poor support for the GOP strategy also consistently shows the public largely didn’t think this episode was all that relevant to their daily lives. Surprise, surprise.
The biggest drawback to the timing of the defunding maneuver and government shutdown was it took the media spotlight off the debacle of the Obamacare exchange website rollout. Our entire focus should be on that issue for the next few months.
Our job is to get the focus back on the issues that matter. In the short-term, that is the Obamacare rollout.
Obama will do what he always does: he will try to distract. Maybe it will be gun control, maybe some abortion issue, I have no idea. But he usually flashes some shiny object at conservatives, and we jump at it.
We need to keep our eye on the ball. No shiny objects, no ‘SQUIRREL!’ moments.
The website disaster is only the tip of the iceberg. The website itself will likely not be fully functional for months, if then. Then, early in 2014, the deadlines for IRS penalties come quickly, as everyone must have proof of insurance by February 14th. How this is going to occur with the current website dysfunction, nobody in the administration can answer.
Then, to compound matters, the sticker shock is starting to resonate. Average Americans are seeing extraordinary premium costs, on top of decreased access and higher deductibles . To be sure, some people are seeing lower costs, primarily from the large subsidies the Federal Government is providing. But these are not the people who matter; most of these people are actually going to end up in the Medicaid system.
The people who really matter, that the CBO and others state MUST buy insurance to make this system work, are young people, with young families. Their insurance rates on average are going to be significantly higher than before. These are the people who the GOP must listen to, hear their cries for help, and then allow their message to resonate to the rest of America.
So let whatever deal is going to happen on the shutdown come sooner rather than later. And then, we can focus on the grand incompetence that is the Affordable Care Act.
So in the fury of the Government Shutdown, the left has become apoplectic about the “Affordable Care Act”. You’ll more likely recognize it as “Obamacare”. They consider it to be Constitutionally tested by the Supreme Court, therefore it’s the “law of the land”.
This logic is fundamentally unsound, let’s debunk it.
1) The Constitution does not grant “kingly” powers to the Supreme Court. Their job is to rule on the law brought before them, and to clear up controversies between states.
2) Nowhere in article III of the Constitution or in the Federalist papers, Thomas Jefferson’s letters, etc do you see that the Supreme Court was supposed to be the “final say”. Jefferson in fact believed their power should be limited even further, than the Constitution did already.
3) We know for a fact the left doesn’t actually believe their own words. Let’s go through their history of fighting against the Constitution itself :
3.A) The Progressive Income tax was tried several times before the amendment was brought up and each time it was found unconstitutional. Did that stop the Progressives from trying to trash the Constitution and implement their marxist utopian tax? NOPE. They kept fighting and eventually (and illegally) amended the Constitution to add the Progressive Income tax.
4) The Supreme Court only ruled on one part of the law, the individual mandate. But as this site states;
Feel free to examine the entire text of Article III to assure yourself that no power of Judicial Review is granted by the Constitution.
“Well,” you might say, “someone has to review laws for constitutionality. Why not the Supreme Court?” Some possible answers:
First and foremost, it is not a power granted to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. When the Supreme Court exercises Judicial Review, it is acting unconstitutionally.
It is a huge conflict of interest. The Federal Government is judging the constitutionality of its own laws. It is a classic case of “the fox guarding the hen house.”
The Constitution’s “checks and balances” were designed to prevent any one branch of government (legislative, executive or judicial) from becoming too powerful and running roughshod over the other branches. There is no such system of checks and balances to protect the states and the people when multiple branches of government, acting in concert, erode and destroy the rights and powers of the states and the people.
Even if the Supreme Court could be counted on to keep the Executive and Legislative branches from violating the Constitution, who is watching the Supreme Court and will prevent the Judicial branch from acting unconstitutionally? Unless you believe that the Supreme Court is infallible (and, demonstrably, it is not), then allowing the Supreme Court to be the sole arbiter of Constitutionality issues is obviously flawed.
Justices are appointed, not elected and may only be removed for bad behavior (which has happened in the distant past but these days, appointment to the Supreme Court is like a lifetime appointment). If the court upholds unconstitutional laws, there is no recourse available. We the People cannot simply vote them out to correct the situation. Thomas Jefferson wrote, in 1823:”At the establishment of our constitution, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account.“
Therefore, it doesn’t matter if the individual mandate was ruled constitutional by the Government. They are exercising an authority that doesn’t belong to them. It certainly was never meant to be the *final* verdict on constitutionality. As http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html – so poignantly points out;
“It is the Constitution, not the Supreme Court, which is the Supreme Law of the Land. Even the Supreme Court should be accountable for overstepping Constitutional limits on federal power.”
Obamacare is bad and unconstitutional law, just like the Alcohol Prohibition, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, and Slavery, which was also upheld in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is not the final say in our Country, we are not a country ruled by Justices. The Constitution is the final say, and it’s up to EACH body and Representative to uphold and fight for that document. The Government Shutdown MUST continue until we defund/delay the implementation of this HORRIBLE law, that none of the proponents bothered to read before voting YES.
The goal of Obamacare, is not to increase Health Care access.
It’s goal is to decrease the amount of money we’re spending on Health Care. That’s all the left talks about. How much more we spend on Healthcare than countries with “wonderful” universal Healthcare.
I hate to burst their bubble, but life is not all sunshine and lollipops with Universal Healthcare. ObamaCare AKA the Affordable Care Act, is a step towards Universal Healthcare and will destroy the wonderful Health Care this nation enjoys.
It is completely appropriate to compare it to Slavery, as the Government will judge your worth, and determine if you are worthy of being helped. You belong to the state.
That is why Republicans need to keep the Government Shutdown! We CANNOT stop fighting hard enough against this bill, it is bondage.
What American Exceptionalism Meant, What Destroyed It, and How we can Re-establish our Heritage
While listening to the September 10th episode of the Adam Carolla Show(Warning and apologies!!! Not Safe for Family Setting or Work! I love ACS, but he’s rough. Not for those averse to cursing and VERY blue humor!) I was pleased to hear Adam’s continued collaboration with Dennis Prager. The discussion they had inspired me to write about the decline of the very spirit that drove the first Americans to fight tooth and nail, risking annihilation, to defend the liberty they believed was their right as a matter of natural law.
Our Nation’s Founding was an Anomaly
Our Nation’s Founders belief that their rights were not given to them as a result of their government’s benevolence, but were instead theirs simply as a result of the citizen’s existence, was a foreign concept in all of the world. Furthermore, that the government didn’t derive its status as the overseer of these natural rights from some other source, but that the right to govern was bestowed upon the government by the citizenry, was the most revolutionary idea ever implemented up to that point, or since. This seemingly complex, but in reality, very simple concept is the primary reason why America is Exceptional. This is why people who believe in the Constitutional Republic our Founders created as the “most perfect” form of governance also firmly believe in American Exceptionalism.
Dennis Prager spent a large portion of his life studying Russian history, philosophy and political culture. You could say he’s something of an expert in the subject, both in terms of what the Soviet Union was like before the Iron Curtain fell, and afterward in a post-Soviet Russia. His understanding of the gestalt of Russian society is profound, and can be summed up thusly:
Russians want very little out of life. They want their vodka, they want their housing and their heating in the winter. They want their health care, and they want to be left alone.
Simply put, Russians are content to be taken care of as long as that which they have been promised continues to come to them unbidden. Entitlement is a way of life in Russia, and has been for generations. The people know very little of the more noble aspects of human nature, that which drives us to achieve more than previous generations in an effort to better the self, and through self-improvement, better society. That isn’t to say that Russian society is absent these aspects; there is simply no reason to better the self when one’s needs are seen to absent effort beyond what is asked for by the government. The effect is a muting of aspiration and the desire to excel.
Human Nature is What Drives Us to Excel
Human nature is, at its very core, selfish. The betterment of society is never really the goal while the individual is pursuing betterment of the self; more importantly, self-improvement has the very catalytic side effect of the bettering of the society in which one lives. When you mow your lawn and care for the upkeep of your home your neighborhood is improved by the aesthetics of your home’s facade. Your neighbors see your property, and, through the mechanics of human nature’s more basic trait of jealousy, more often than not will endeavor to emulate or improve upon the conditions your home’s facade presents, thus spreading the improvement you have made of yourself throughout your neighborhood. This cascading of competitive behavior and outcomes is what shapes positive societal evolution. This all, of course, depends heavily on the preservation of personal property rights. Absent ownership, the desire to improve one’s material conditions loses meaning. If your home is yours, but your neighbor’s home isn’t theirs, well, they may very well not care a whit about the attention you pay to the aesthetics of your home’s facade. Therein lies a fundamental problem. Without empowerment through the ability to possess property obtained through one’s efforts above and beyond that which sustains the self and the family, one finds no need to excel. Excellence garners rewards. In Russia, there have been no rewards for excellence for quite some time.
Russia is far from a utopian society. However, Russians having their simple needs fulfilled by an all-powerful centralized government, and in such a manner and for so long so as to render desire for more pointless, had a grand purpose. A pliable and uncomplaining workforce focused toward the sustainment of the status quo created a means for continued control of the populace to support the avarice of the ruling elite. There is no equivalency between those who “serve” in Russian Government and the citizen. There never has been. To allow for the citizen to hold the same status under the law as the ruling class allows for the ruling class to be pulled from their towers to be judged by the same laws and regulations that were created to control the citizenry by that same ruling class.
What Exceptionalism Created, Progressivism Attempted to Destroy
America, in similar fashion, has lost her way. We’ve begun wholesale emulation of what the Russian Government has been doing to its citizenry, albeit in a much more benevolent manner. Starting in 1913, the Progressive Movement, with several well–aimedstrokes, weakened the constraints which, until that time, had prevented direct Federal interaction with the citizen in fundamental ways. The passage of the 16th Amendment created a means with which the Federal Government could interact directly with the individual as a “taxable person”. Never before in American History was the Federal Government able to impact the individual so fundamentally. The scope of this Amendment has been considered the catalyst that created a cascade of Statism through American society; a society which, until that time, had never seen direct interaction between the Federal Government and the individual in any regard. Following the passage of both the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Act of 1913, the relationship between the individual and the Government whose power was derived from said individual had become radically altered. From 1913 on, individuals were expected to provide proof of their income from all sources, under penalty of law, so as to provide revenue to the Federal Government. This revenue was to be used to fund such activities as were to be apportioned by the Congress. For the first time in American history, save for the years preceding the Revolutionary War, Americans were forced by a Government to pay a tax to said Government; a tax that didn’t have a direct defined purpose. 126 years earlier the Founders of the United States had just finished ratifying a Constitution that was birthed from the ashes of a war fought for, among other things, the very purpose of casting off the shackles of taxation without purpose or representation. In two very clear examples of Progressive Statism, Woodrow Wilson and the Democrats who controlled the House and Senate at the time did to America what Americans had bled to defend against at our Nation’s Founding. While it can be argued that the Revenue Act of 1913 lowered tariffs in such a way so as to encourage commerce, the development of the individual income tax created a means through which the Federal Government was able to, in six short years, eclipse the entirety of all tariff revenue which, up to that point, had been the bulk of the Federal Government’s revenue stream. The direct confiscation of income from the American Citizen was to become the proverbial golden goose, and, it was thought, she would never stop laying eggs.
As if to add insult to injury, and, quite possibly in defense of the Progressive Movement’s steam-rolling of individual sovereignty with the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Act of 1913, Congress passed, and the States ratified, the 17th Amendment, decoupling the State’s only influence over the legislative activities of Congress. Prior to 1913, Congressional Senatorial Seats were filled by an electoral process governed by the individual State Legislatures. The States had a means of controlling the Senator they sent to serve in Congress, and therein the States retained a measure of sovereignty, and through that measure a means of influencing Federal legislative outcomes. Because the House of Representatives was elected directly via popular vote, the Founders saw the Senate as being a means for the States to have the ability to counter pure majoritarianism in Congress by allowing for the States to place Senators chosen by their legislatures as opposed to chosen by the same electoral process as elected the House Congressional Representatives. This was seen as a means of divesting power from those states that enjoyed a large population, such as New York and New Jersey, when compared to the Southern States such as Georgia and the Carolinas. With each state only having two Senators, the legislatures in the various states selecting those Senators allowed for the states to check the House of Representatives’ population based representation; Two Senators for every state as opposed to a Representative for every 647,000, giving each state an equal ability to counter legislation by more populous states, should a counter be desired or warranted.
Following the ratification of the 17th Amendment, the Progressive Movement had established a means of controlling outcomes in the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government by effectively institutionalizing majoritarian rule. This single act flew in the face of 126 years of Federalism, having the crippling effect of creating a democracy where a republican form of government had been established. From this point forward the will of the people in population centers would wash over the land, flooding over the banks of Federalism and effectively eliminating the boundaries created by the 10th Amendment by establishing an all-powerful centralized government absent the ability for individual states to redress their grievances through legislative action in the Senate. The 17th Amendment, though seemingly simple in language, decoupled the states from the legislative process, and thereby destroyed over a century’s worth of Federalism. Following its ratification, the 17th Amendment created a Congress whose power derived directly from the popular vote in totality, and, as such, the political power of population centers such as New York City, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles and San Francisco became the means through which Congress’s power was expanded. As Statists were elected to more and more seats for more and more terms, the representation of the states waned, and eventually became irrelevant.
What had made America exceptional on the world stage in terms of governance was supplanted with Federal entitlement and the empowerment of sloth. Exceptionalism in America stemmed from the most admirable aspects of human nature that drove human beings to better themselves and the lives of their loved ones through self-improvement, innovation and delayed gratification in hopes of improved outcomes. The Progressive Movement saw in these seemingly self-serving character traits the supposed roots of evil, and sought to disarm those who had built, as a matter of pursuing their dreams, independence; Independence, even, from the need to be governed. The Progressives thought they had a better way.
Progressives saw government, and the pursuit of the power that it grants, as a means to an Utopian end. Their goal was a society where no one need want for anything. The core failing in this pursuit, however, is that key aspects of human nature that our Founders sought to empower so as to encourage America to thrive were entirely ignored. Aspiration is not an evil. Aspiration is what drives the Progressive Movement, at least in terms of its leadership’s aspirations of power of their fellow man. However, as is common in many progressive legislative measures, even to this day, the ends always justify any means, even the subversion of individual liberty, so as to create an equality of outcomes instead of an equality of opportunities. This phenomenon has, over the course of the ensuing century, created an entitlement mentality that has stymied the American Spirit, and thus undermines the Exceptionalism America used to be recognized for – both within and outside her borders.
American Exceptionalism, or that which drove Americans at our Founding to fight, knowing failure guaranteed annihilation, to establish “…a more perfect union…” that would endure all tests, so as to protect, defend and empower the futures of their progeny into perpetuity, had, in one short year, and the century that followed, been effectively dismantled and replaced with a form of governance very much like that which the Founders had cast off only 126 years prior. America, during World War 1 and World War 2 showed, for two brief moments in history, that she could be Exceptional again, but, as with many moments, these were fleeting, and the damage that had been done by the Progressive Movement dragged society back to the baser aspects of socialistic rule.
Welfare, a “social safety net”, Medicare; wealth redistribution methods made possible expressly by the 16th Amendment and Supreme Court decisions upholding their Constitutionality, allowed for ever more direct control over the citizenry by the Federal Government. Where the government used to derive its authority to govern from the people it was sworn to defend, now the people derive their subsistence in order to survive from the ability for the Government to tax their neighbors and the rest of society, or the benevolence of that Government to not tax all of their income to provide for the State’s, and thus the citizen’s neighbor’s, needs. These entitlements have been more destructive to society than we can ever truly know. As people find they are not truly responsible for their livelihoods they also find that they do not have a desire to see that their lives are improved through their ability to excel. The individual’s needs met, society declined due to the weakening of the will of the individual having been very softly, but thoroughly, broken. Through effective propaganda campaigns developed around the premise that those who have obviously gathered their wealth at the expense of those who have not, the poor, near poor and the “middle class” were lulled into an acceptance that Government would see justice served, and, as long as the entitlements continued to flow, the population was accepting of this fallacy.
There is Hope
Our fates are not sealed. American Exceptionalism does not have to die in the annals of history, a forgotten relic of an age that may never be realized again. There are those Conservatives who understand the words I have written here, and who feel within themselves the desire and drive to excel. Perhaps that drive is due to the indomitable human spirit and the more noble aspects of human nature. If this is the case, perhaps, then, there is hope.
Liberty’s Torch still burns. Her torch burns in the hearts of men and women across this great nation, once great for casting off her shackles of tyranny, and perhaps great again for the same act. I implore you to take the opportunity to read a book that has educated and inspired me to express my desire to see America restored to her now nearly forgotten greatness. “The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic”, by Mark Levin, is a clearly written plan to use the mechanisms established in the Constitution to begin a process of proposing Constitutional Amendments that, if ratified, have the potential of undoing the damage that has been wrought upon the American Republic by the Progressive Movement over the course of the last century. The course is suggested, and it is long, and not without hazard. The course cannot be set without action, and that action starts with the States. The 17th Amendment didn’t completely destroy Federalism, but its impacts have made it seem as though our Federal form of governance had been mortally wounded and left for dead. Article V of the Constitution, crafted specifically by our Founders as a bulwark against an out of control tyrannical Federal Leviathan, created a means through which an organized effort of and by the States can bypass Congress in the creation and ratification of Amendments to the Constitution.
Do not lose hope. America shall not die in the ashes of the fires of socialism and tyranny so long as Patriots are willing to fight to defend her honor. We are stronger than what Statism has seen us show ourselves to be. We have been before, and we shall be again.
Today, Saturday Aug 31 President Obama decided that he would follow the Constitution and seek approval from Congress before engaging in miltary action against Syria. Lots of folks are going to be writing about this from all sorts of perspectives. I’m here to talk about the political tactics happening here, and how we can make sure that Conservatives don’t lose the game that Progressives decided to play.
Obama did not call Congress back into session. This isn’t an emergency that he wants an immediate answer for. Hmmm. That’s interesting. He’s content to have the topic be discussed at length, for a week or more. Why would that be? Why is he acting all humble and Constitution minded now?
There is ALWAYS a political reason with these guys. ALWAYS. Look beyond the surface. What else is going on, what political purpose is he serving?
Distract the people, and divide the opposition.
Distract us from the push to defund Obamacare. He just has to run out the clock a few more weeks.
Divide us into pro-attack and anti-attack camps. Keep us argining amongst ourselves.
It’s brilliant. And it will probably work. Enough conservatives will decide to focus on Syria and pontificating on the war and terrorism and all of this, that discussion of defunding Obamacare will disappear.
We’ll be arguing amongst ourselves. The vote will be SOLID Democrats in favor of whatever Obama wants, his agenda will continue to progress without interruption, there is NO opposition to whatever he does.
Our side will be split, we’ll fight amongst ourselves, and we’ll lose EVERY battle. Not just Syria – we’ll lose Obamacare, Immigration, Syria, Debt Ceiling, everything
What to Do?
You can’t change how Congress works, so just quit worrying about that. YOUR time is precious. I value your time enough that I’m making this short and to the point about what you can do.
Quit thinking about, worrying about, talking about, fighting about the things you cannot change.
Spend your precious time on the things you CAN change – YOUR Congressperson needs to hear from you about TWO things, only two things – NO to Syria, and DEFUND Obamacare. Tell him everyday, those two things. Once you get a yes from him, move on to the next thing…
Motivate your conservative friends to do the same. Teach your apolitcal friends what they can do. Inform them, help them, and move on.
What about the liberals? What about the people that argue with you on FB, Twitter and G+? What about them? IGNORE THEM. You won’t change their mind, see them as what they are – time vampires. Their comments don’t need to be answered. Whatever they say to or about you doesn’t matter. Stay on target.
NO to Syria bombing. NO to funding Obamacare.
And if you only have time for one? Focus on defunding Obamacare. That’s the one that has serious long term consequences for the nation.
Don’t let Obama’s tactic of “kindly allowing Congress to debate the Syria issue” be the distraction that they want it to be.
Wait, what? Birtherism as a tool that the left is wielding against the right? Hold on a minute. The left has dismissed the birthers as cranks and fools, now they ARE birthers? What’s going on.
It’s just another way that the left is kicking our butts tactically. WE LET THEM WIN, ALL THE TIME. Because we are foolish. Figure it out, and just stop it.
John Hayward explains and in his last paragraph nails the strategy, and makes you understand why it is another in a long list of small victories of the left over the right. They bat us around like the cat playing with the mouse. It’s sport for them.
To recap: Ted Cruz was born in Canada, to an American mother. He was a US Citizen at birth, no naturalization process required – US law says so. He was also a Canadian citizen at birth. The two countries have similar laws, and Ted Cruz ended up a dual citizen, at birth.
You’re a citizen no matter where you are born if one of your parents is a citizen and lived in the country for 5 years.
You’re a citizen based on where you were born.
We know this – if a pregnant American is traveling, and has her baby while in Mozambique, that kid is American. (So yes, even if Obama’s mom had the baby in Kenya, he’s a citizen). That’s part 1. Pregnant Mexican citizens cross the border so that the baby is born in America and thus and American. That’s part 2.
So yes, Ted Cruz has been an American since birth. It’s a non-troversy.
The left has started “just asking questions” and poking around and doing their deceptive “investigations” which are simply attempts to wound good Conservative politicians, issues, or groups.
This is not something that the left cares about. They know it’s an irrelevancy. They know it disappears tomorrow.
But they trot is out, hoping that the right will form a circular firing squad and that they can just sit back and watch us fight amongst ourselves as they enact some other bit of progressive economic or cultural destruction.
It’s working. They have actually succeeded in getting the Paul campaign sniping at the Cruz campaign. You know what that hurts? The defund Obamacare movement. Because the staffers will be angry at each other rather than working together.
The Washington Examiner reports it, Drudge highlights it, and we spend time talking about it, fighting over it, and now we have to divide into Paul camps versus Cruz camps? Really? Victory to the left. Well done. That was easy.
We have GOT to stop being so freaking stupid. Seriously.
It’s no secret that the Democrat Party knows how to win, and has absolutely won the culture, conventional wisdom, public opinion, etc. If we want to win long-term we have to figure out what we are doing wrong, and stop doing that. We have to figure out what they are doing right, and copy it.
We can copy many of their tactics, and use them to achieve our strategic objectives.
Today I saw an example of a group doing two things right, one thing completely wrong, and thus losing completely and providing ammo to the enemy. It’s a little story, a little event – but in the end, everything starts that way, so let’s look at this one and maybe learn from it.
Some City Councilwoman in San Antonio was caught saying some homophobic stuff. Public denunciation by liberal city officials ensued, demands for her resignation, etc. The typical thing. Elected officials say harmful things all the time. It makes no sense to spend any time trying to find that perfect candidate who will never say something the other side will use against them. It makes no sense to spend any time trying to make the left not seize on every stupid thing and try to win points. We can’t change other people. We can change how we react to those other people, how we choose to neutralize a bad situation, or even turn it into a positive.
“The River City Tea Party hereby expresses its support for our fellow Conservative, District 9 City Councilwoman Elisa Chan and her anti-homosexual stance.”
RCTPP president, Brandon Burkhardt, also told KENS 5, “She has her opinion and she’s entitled to her opinion and we think she should stand by it and we stand behind her.”
GOOD – A little group like the Tea Party issued a statement to the news media. That’s excellent tactics. You raise your own profile in the community, position yourself as a thought leader and source for the news folks to go to. Make it easy for them to contact you, get copy for their story. That’s good publicity for your organization. Put yourself out there, well done!
GOOD – Stand by the conservative politician who did something stupid. Resist the urge to toss her under the bus. This is VERY important, and it’s the kind of thing we need to go much more of. FAR too often our bloggers, pundits, and consultants will take to the microphone to eagerly denounce the silly thing that the left is getting outraged about. No one wanted to be thought of as crazy or stupid, so they just tossed Todd Akin right under that bus. Their own ego was more important than the race, than having another GOP Senator. They chose the easy way rather than the “best for the country” way. So, good job standing beside her.
BAD – Explicitly stating that you support the anti-homosexual stance. And now…you’ve killed yourselves, and caused some damage to the conservative movement, and to the Tea Party name in general.
With that one bad, they wiped out the good. How can any outreach to the gay community be successful now? Any other conservative group that chooses to work with you will now have to fight the impression that they are anti-gay. They have limited the potential coalition, dramatically. They have reinforced the accusations that Tea Partiers hate gays.
Would have been quite easy to come out with some relatively neutral statement of support “We support Ms Chan and everything she has done for the City of San Antonio. Her comments were part of a private strategy session, we believe they were ill-advised. We hope that she continues to make political decisions based on the needs of her constituents and what is best for the City rather than personal issues she may have” or whatever.
You stand by her, you find a way to highlight the good things she’s done, and brush it off as off-the-record, and move forward with your own agenda. Always move forward with your own agenda.
The effort to defund Obamacare is a winnable strategy, and the other side knows it. We have facts on our side. We have polls on our side. ALL we have to do is stick together and win the messaging war. Sure, that is the worst bit of it, because the GOP has really never done that in the history of ever, but hey, it could happen.
That’s what I’m thinking when I see THIS story, and watch the first 45 seconds of the video. I see it as the first successful step in the left’s tactical broadside. How so? This is a Republican Strategist. How is this a lefty tactic to defeat the Defund Obamacare campaign?
Did you notice that immigration has become a big topic again? Did you notice that the left is sending their shock troops to Congressional Townhall meetings during the recess? Do you think that’s just kind of odd?
Yeah, this was supposed to be Obamacare Townhall Summer part 2. It was supposed to be all about us pressuring our Congressmen to support the Defund Obamacare movement. It was possibly victorious. We on the right had figured out that the cronyism and corporatism and Big Government Big Corporation exemptions were making the anti-Obamacare coalition pretty damned big. FAR bigger than just the Tea Party folks. We figured out that Union workers agreed with us, blue collar and white collar employees all over the nation were getting notes from their employers that the rates were going up or the coverage was going away.
Or that the BIG company was exempt, but the smaller company they work for wasn’t, or that they personally weren’t exempt. This seemed bad. We were going to be able to get them on our side.
We were going to be able to get a lot of the GOP folks on our side too, the opposition to the plan amounts to “well, it won’t work so let’s not even try” – and we can counter that at a Townhall by challenging our Rep to stand up and fight for us. I was pretty optimistic.
But the left saw it too. They activated THEIR side. They activated their standard, consistently winning strategy. Do I know for sure that it was discussed on Journolist? No. They all pretty much think alike, they don’t actually HAVE to write it down.
IMMIGRATION! That tears the GOP apart! It’s an easy topic to cover because it’s all about feelings and we can get people all kinds of worked up. It’s easy to find Republicans willing to come on camera and bash other Republicans. The Tea Party folks will get their knickers in a twist and fight each other over this. It totally kills any kind of expanded coalition that the GOP could have built.
So…instead of the GOP, and the Libertarians, and the Union workers, and the unemployed, and all of the middle class coming together to STOP Big Government Obamacare, we’re gonna just fight about immigration some more.
People…don’t fall for this. Focus. OBAMACARE. DON’T FUND IT.
Go to your Townhalls, write and call your congressman, pressure them to defund it. IGNORE IMMIGRATION FOR NOW. Don’t pick a fight with your anti-Obamacare allies on that issue, until the Obamacare issue is handled.
Pay attention to what the left is doing. When you see the subject change like it did – from Obamacare to Immigration – and when you see Republican Strategists go on the liberal shows and call other Republicans names, realize that this is the LEFT fighting a battle. Don’t fight on their side.
A very clear difference between the Left and Conservatism is that the Left has shown itself to be very adept in the use of hatred as a political motivator. In polite conversation most Americans would happily acknowledge that racism, sexism, and all of the other -isms that are active components of discrimination and prejudice are very dark parts of humanity’s collective gestalt, and would very much like for these aspects of human nature to cease to exist.
What won’t be discussed in polite conversation, however, is the application of the emotional response to publicized hatred as a means of control of a political point of view. Take, for instance, the over the top coverage of the George Zimmerman murder trial. If an analyst were to take apart my words here today I’d be accused of being a racist because I didn’t refer to the case as the “Trayvon Martin murder trial”. Well, while that attitude wouldn’t have a lot of merit even while the trial was still in progress, the audience receptive to that sort of dangerous rhetoric would be incited to call me down for my racism, and it is entirely possible I would be the target of some of the death threats Zimmerman faces even to this day.
The fact of the matter is Zimmerman is not a racist, as evidenced by the FBI’s admission that they were not able to find any sort of racially charged motivations for his following Martin the night of the incident. That, however, isn’t critical to the core of the message from the hate-baiters that Zimmerman is a racist, that hatred fueled his murder of Trayvon, regardless of the facts being found to prove no murder took place in a court of law, and that anyone who supports Zimmerman is a racist just as guilty of spreading hatred and danger to the communities of America as those very lynch mobs who murdered so many black Americans in decades passed.
The Left doesn’t even try to square their use of hatred as a tool against the realities presented to the public they’re trying to drive toward their goals. The general theory on the Left is that the public either isn’t paying enough attention to reality, or that the public will listen to the Left’s version of reality before thinking for themselves. Sadly, this directed use of hatred as a political motivator has shown itself to be extremely effective throughout humanity’s history.
Conservatism doesn’t allow for hate to be a component of our psyche because hate is damaging to the soul. Of course we all feel hate from time to time, and Conservatives engaged in politics often feel it most when battling Statists, or when confronting infringements on individual sovereignty by an ever strengthening government. We simply know how to shunt that emotion out and channel the adrenaline rush it gives us into a productive avenue. For a Conservative, to give into an emotional response generated by a stimulus and allow for that emotion to motivate our discourse is anathema to our moral core. There are those who allow emotion to control their actions, but one of the planks of Conservatism is to address negative stimulus with a rational, measured response.
The Left truly knows how to channel hate. They know how to enrage a populace to action using hate as the progenitor to violence, all while sitting back and allowing for the incited rage to be blamed on the people and not the politician or media figure. A mob is a very effective tool because it substitutes the will of the individual for the will of the mob, thereby eliminating rational thought about the motivations of the mob by any of the individuals that make up its numbers. Because mob mentality can be so very successful in accomplishing a goal, regardless of the moral efficacy of that goal, the Left has seen fit to use hatred as a driving force for much of their rhetoric. Think about the “war on women”, the “war on poverty”, the “war X”… The Left paints their opposition as waging wars against everything the Left is for because it galvanizes their constituencies into joining up against the oppressive opposition.
A prime example would be the “war on women” rhetoric during the Sandra Fluke fifteen minutes of fame. Conservatives do not want to prevent women from being able to obtain contraception. That has rarely been the case, and most certainly isn’t the case in the modern era. The Left, however, neatly painted Sandra Fluke as being oppressed and that the Right was denying her access to free contraception because the argument at the time was that forcing religious organizations who provide private health coverage for their members and employees to fund the purchase of contraception violates the religious organizations freedom to practice their religion as they see fit, even if that practice denys insurance funding for contraception. This isn’t a stance grounded in hate, as the Left would purport, but a stance grounded in faith and the religious interpretation of the Bible by Catholics and other organizations. This doesn’t deny contraception; individuals are entirely capable of obtaining low cost contraception absent funding from their employer’s health care coverage. The opposing view is that contraception is a civil right to women, and that the college Fluke was attending owed it to her to provide it free of charge based on this premise. The stance that free contraception is a civil right for women is an untenable stance to hold, as there is no language in the Constitution or the Civil Rights Act that protects a woman’s right to free contraception. The Left’s rhetoric, though, was very effective in making it seem like the Right hates women because of their defending of religious organization’s First Amendment rights.
Of note, this issue has yet to be adequately resolved. Instead of addressing the issue head on, the Administration and Congress has deigned to delay the potential issues this creates until after the Affordable Care Act is actually stood up, since the potential of infringement of a protected right is not an actual infringement, and thus the religious organizations suing the Government to resolve this issue have been found to not have standing due to their rights not currently being infringed.
The Right doesn’t see hate as an avenue to success because hate is dangerous. There is no way to prevent it from being felt by humanity, but there is a way to stymie the effects it has on rational thought. Conservatism’s goal is to empower the individual. A single individual consumed by hate isn’t dangerous to society as a whole. Plainly put, a group of individuals seeking a common goal will focus on the goal because the accomplishment of that goal is the motivator for the individuals making up the group, not the emotional response their hatred may have on their state of mind. Groups of individuals are also self policing. If the goal is shared by all in the group those who harbor hatred as a motivator within the group will be quelled or removed based on the damage their hatred causes to the goal’s odds of accomplishment.
The Left, on the other hand, wants to focus hate because hate clouds the rational responses of human beings. Without rational responses to stimuli people tend to be very malleable when grouped together and focused, lending themselves to a mob mentality. The Left will do everything it can to subsume the individual in order to create a mob mentality that will be driven by hate toward a common goal, absent rational thought about that goal within the mob, and thus more likely to accomplish the intended goal without resistance to the methodology by which that goal is accomplished. This is especially true when that methodology is detestable, as most hate-baiting is seen to be when addressed in polite discussion.
This is one of the many diametrically opposing characteristics that separates Leftism, or Statism, from Conservatism.