Repainting America’s Canvas of Beliefs: Part I

A Note on Maintaining Productive Discourse in Politics:

Now I know many of you probably think this article is going to be about how America has strayed away from Christian values – but that is not what this particular article is about. This article is about re-orienting how we operate in the political sphere on a very basic level as conservatives – in an effort to better represent ourselves and be more effective.

Part 1: Built in Bias?

Part of the reason that Republican conservatives have struggled – is because their image to the country is being painted by the brushes of those who disagree with their ideas, beliefs and policies. (Not all Conservatives are Republicans and not all Republicans are conservative – I would like to make sure to acknowledge that to begin with – since until the recent past – they have been nearly synonymous.) Now although conservatives are not usually characterized as being the ones to play the victim card – when it concerns media bias – this could be an easy time to do so with some degree of legitimacy. But that is neither productive, nor does it represent taking personal responsibility – which conservatives value and promote. So in the interest of putting our money where our mouth is – I propose we reshape the direction with which we are approaching advocacy of our positions.

Yes, the typical media outlet is biased towards the left, but most people who are not to the right (even moderates) most of the time do not realize or acknowledge this. Obviously our tactics are not working for exposing the fact that truth and reporting are not being done objectively or accurately anymore – it’s almost all commentary and entertainment. We cannot likely change the profession (at least not any time soon – unless it dies out with the newspapers that are all failing – but there are other mediums). We cannot likely change the opinions of the people who are faithful CNN or MSNBC watchers – who are loyal to and even get defensive and protective when those stations are attacked when people attempt to discredit their reporting. It is reasonable for those who are loyal viewers to be insulted, since they trust the particular news source enough to rely upon it and we are saying they have poor judgment and are being misled because they don’t realize they are being lied to.

What needs to be done is that we have to examine all the tactics used against us – anticipate new ones, and preempt them. Easier said than done I know – especially while maintaining your integrity and honesty by not using the same tactics.

However, one tactic being used is creating associations between ideas by repetition. You link same-sex marriage – and fundamental right enough times, people start to believe it if they are not careful – you link republicans as greedy and heartless – people start to believe it, you link pro-lifers with not caring about women and wanting to put the women in jail for having abortions – people start to believe it. It does not make any of it truth – but it makes people think it is.

So how do we combat those associations that evolve into a conception of reality for a large part of America’s population? We have to combat repetition with repetition – because exposing isolated facts does little good, since the opposition will just claim we are lying, or create their own “facts.” Emphasizing and creating constructive, accurate, and TRUTHFUL associations by way of repetition is not dishonest. But the points of repetition must also be designed in a way to disrupt the CURRENT associations, and they must also be positive. We need our own short sound bites.

For example:

In response to the mantra “Bush lied about the weapons of mass destruction” one could perhaps say something like, “The CIA lied about weapons of mass destruction.” [Note: THIS IS NOT ONE I AM ADVOCATING SAYING – I HAVE NOT DONE THE RESEARCH TO ACCUSE ANYONE OF LYING – THIS IS TO POINT OUT SENTENCE STRUCTURE. – In fact – I think what happened is that Saddam was so successful at making all his neighboring countries think he had WMDs that he tricked the CIA too…]
– Rather than saying Bush didn’t lie, and bring up the negative association with Bush, we only bring up the damaging/untruthful statement and then RE-ASSOCIATE it with something else. Though I do not thinking focusing on Bush is productive or helpful for anyone at this point anyway.

So the general idea is to think about how to frame statements so that can combat misconceptions in a way that can work – specifically the misconceptions based on people being given incorrect facts under the guise of truth. We need to use a multipronged and not a unilateral approach – some people react well to facts and some people discredit facts as being “partisan” ploys or just plain lies if they are not from the sources they typically rely upon; some people react well to arguments based in ideas or beliefs, but others do not; but some people don’t even consider other perspectives ever – unless they are mentioned enough times to enter into their minds as a valid perspective. This is not a frontal, confrontational attack on misconceptions and lies (about people, policies or motivations), it is a way that may help people become more open to THINKING about what they hear by using accurate, truthful, positive statements in a manner that doesn’t direct the person TO the misconception we are trying to dislodge, but nonetheless interferes with their inaccurate associations.