Part 2: A little less talk, and Some Cries for Attention…
The next thing that needs to be addressed is WHY “liberal lies” resonate with people (for example…. that conservatives only care about money and not the poor, or how about that Christians are bigots because they are trying to deny fundamental rights to homosexuals). Because IF people thought they were patently absurd, they wouldn’t be able to stick the way they do. They are not perceived as patently absurd because conservatives have not TOLD people often enough WHY they ARE patently absurd.
Liberals tend to also do a slight of hand trick, to distract the public from what they are ACTUALLY trying to do, by what they say. Their words are often vague, they often distract – because they do NOT have solid reasoning or sound moral principle behind their actions much of the time. Some of their “goals” may seem to be moral upright goals (help people with no healthcare, or no food, or pregnant women), but their methods are VERY often not in alignment with any conventional ideas of morals, or principles considered valuable by this nation (for example, individual liberty, freedom of religion, pursuit of life, liberty and happiness…).
However – that is generally NOT a problem with the conservative message – when the message is able to get out. And that is the problem. It does not. The problem isn’t that our ideas generally are not solid ideas that will benefit the American people – its that we are not communicating them often enough, clearly enough, or doing so confidently enough.
We need to Do stuff and then BRAG incessantly about it, explaining exactly WHY we have the right to brag about it.
Now – that REALLY goes against the grain for me – and it doesn’t promote humility – which I feel like is one of the most important virtues to strive for…. BUT – let me propose this hypothetical:
First this comes with a small disclaimer – this is not meant to be an attack on the progress or any specifics in handling with this on the part of the Republican Party – I do not remember it REALY well, since I believe in 1994 at the time of the Contract with America, I was starting middle school. But the point needs to be put it in some kind of context…. so here it goes….
What if, after the Contract with America helped cut down welfare in the mid 1990s –Clinton had not gotten so much of the credit? The republicans were successful DESPITE Clinton, not because of him. What if all of the republicans had talked in sweeping generalizations about the great good they did to help thousands upon thousands of people – and how their solidarity as a party helped herald in their success, how it helped them defeat a partisan opposition that was so out of touch with how to help those most in need – and how now America will be helping millions of citizens actualize their dreams of success, by helping provide solid resources to foster individual personal achievement and financial independence – how now millions can know that their children will be given a better future than they had envisioned for them just a few short years ago, and how humbling it is to be able to help so many people have new opportunities for greatness that had so long been denied to them!
What if such rhetoric was used, referenced and slipped in during debates, press conferences, and interviews with the media, for an extended period of time – being said with conviction and passion and tact – so that it is kept fresh in people’s minds? Notice there was no direct attack on any specific democrat that tried to block the reform in my little scenario – it was not a negative message – it was not a humble one particularly – but it wasn’t overly arrogant and prideful – HOWEVER– that is the method liberals successfully use to shape the minds of Americans with falsehoods and partisan inaccurate attacks – we will just use truths and uplifting sincere messages, to promote the value of personal responsibility and achievement that will lead to people respecting themselves more and taking pride in what they accomplish, the messages that will motivate people, not to settle for dependency and victimhood.
The thing is – these broad sweeping generalizations are what people understand – our world is a world that is fast paced and full of sound bites and minimal explanations. Considering the climate there is a lot of blanket trust of politicians among the average American – so we should of course continue to give them to the truth, but give it to them in a digestible form. At the end of the day, when watching the news after work, I am sure it is welcome by hard-working, tired Americans to hear something they don’t have to think too hard about, can understand, and that doesn’t require a long attention span. (This is good for television networks too – it is much easier for them if a politician tailors their own sound bite or short clip, and requires less explanation time by a newscaster – and it also helps minimize clips being taken out of context.)
I believe this kind of approach can be successful although it is something that must be done consciously because it is against the nature of many people because they are not prideful, and aren’t comfortable tooting their own horns, and have noble intentions – but, it may be necessary to adjust our methods of communication so that we can be more PRODUCTIVE and make larger steps towards success and actually succeed in COMMUNICATING our message and our accomplishments to the people.
Most of all I want to emphasize that all I have written about was written by keeping in mind that ends do not justify means and that principles cannot be sacrificed to further other principles. But that does not mean that we cannot, in a moral and ethical way, use intelligent alternative methods of communication that have been used dishonestly and unethically by others. The key is to understand the opposition, learn from them and find a way to do it better without making any ethical sacrifices.
Paul Revere's Ride 