1) Conservatives specialize in name-calling and labeling.
2) Conservatives get their following through negativity and fear.
3) Conservatives take a single issue approach.
4) Conservatives refuse to compromise.
5) Conservatives will go down with the ship to stay pure.
This just about sums up why Republicans got creamed last Tuesday. A majority of people share his view of conservatives and the ironic thing is that most conservatives can't believe this is how they are perceived. The question to my conservative friends is do you care that this is how you are viewed? If so, how do you change that perception? Or maybe you are fine with simply being "right" and to heck with those who don't agree with you.
15 comments:
Jeff,
Here is my problem with what Keith wrote. Granted he has been in many more churches than I, however I place my lot with Dr. Jim Garlow who is just as accomplished if not more so than Keith. But lets go line by line:
1) Conservatives specialize in name calling. The problem in the last election was that we had a canidate, whom the moderates begged for, who could not define the tags he was using. In today's two second soundbite, you have to define. McCain was unable to do so, and thus he is name calling. Rather than describe the consequences of the belief. It was the Obama campaign who tagged Bill Clinton with the racist tag, and did the same thing to McCain. There was no name calling of Obama in this campaign, or the left that did not point to their beliefs. I you want to see name calling, it was the left and middle who continually called McCain sinial because of his age.
2)Power through negativity and fear. Excuse the language but what in the hell did we just witness over the last two months. The fear that the media was creating if Obama did not win, there would be riots, there would be blood shed, and cities would burn. Oh yeah, we had a canidate who would not even use Jeremiah Wright because he thought it would be destructive. Conservatives do not use fear, they think about the next step or the next two steps. The Greatest liberal in history used fear of a race, not conservatives, and moderates did not say anything until they were next and there was nobody to stand for them.
3) Everybody takes single approach to an issue. I think Christ did that when he said the only way to the Father is through me. Moderates just seem to want somebody else to make decisions for them, or take so long to make a decision that they have been in circled and there are three new issues to be debated. That is why in the business world there is no such thing as moderates. A good excuted plan is always far superior than a perfect debated plan. It is funny that in politics and government we want people who are "thoughtfull", but in business somebody who kicks ass and asks questions later. I think unions hve become the standard barrer for that...
4) If compromising means a make a deal with the devil, take it from one who did, the only one who wins is the devil. With that said, compromising is a two way street and watch something that will not happen. I give you cardcheck if you put in the bill that unions cannot spend on political activities unless it is approved by said member. I bet there will be nobody from the left who would agree with that.
5)Damn straight. I would rather be known as a Martin Luther than a Judas who comprimised.
Jeff we lost this election because we became liberals and spent our way into oblivion. And then we began the nationalization of the economy that Democrats have dreamed of. Conservatives did not lose, we had horrible canidates up and down the ticket who could not articulate the message, and moderates in office who passed this $700 billion boondoogle that led to our collapse. Remember it was liberals who created the very institutions that have given us this very mess.
About the perception gap, well it is hard to argue what you wrote when we have a press who tries to pass along stories that it was Todd Palin who fathered Trig with the Pregnant daughter. We have done a bad job of expanding our base from a technology standpoint like libs have. Read the Dailykos, Eschaton, or Washington monthly and you will see the same thing you wrote but on a grander scale.
I want to be right, even if it means nobody else agrees with me. Sometimes, you just have to stand and draw the line in the sand and say as for me and my family this is what we believe.
CJ
Jeff,
My B.S. detector was pinging tonight and I had to wait until Chuck was over to see what the problem was. Guess it was your post.
Here's a fun game. Insert "liberal" each time you wrote "conservative" in this post.
Notice anything?
Don
I love you like a brother Jeff, but you gotta know that what "your friend" says is total BS. I do like the going down with the ship comment however, and if I gotta go down with the ship, I will.
There are so many bible verses that I could quote to argue with everything "your friend" says...but I won't waste my time on a lost cause. To tell you the truth, I am starting to think that "your friend" is not as bright as he thinks he is. No offense meant of course.
I'm amazed at how folks are responding to Jeff's recent posts in which he tries to be introspective about the future of the GOP. Rather than reflect and figure out how you all can grow, you dig your heels in and hope that things will change.
What's that saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results....? Drawing a line in the sand undercuts any opportunity for compromise. Your desire to be "right" may not get you to any workable solution or help you win an election in the near future.
I just want to take issue with one of the things you have said, CJ. The Republican party does articulate a message of fear. That is what McCain did. Rather than dig in and try to articulate a clear policy message (and trust me, I tried to find one), he went straight to playing into people's fears. You say that it was the "media" that perpetuated a fear of what would happen if Obama lost in terms of rioting and "blodshed". What media is that? Because I did not see/hear that on CNN, MSNBC or the liberal blogs that I read. I heard that message relayed overtly and subtly on FOX News, talk radio, and conservative bloggers who were trying to play into fears that another series of riots, similar to those in the 1960s and after Rodney King, would result if Obama lost. I NEVER once heard that from anybody in my peer group, even the most liberal of them.
I am not a 1 issue voter. There were many important issues in this election, but some are more important that others.
you can read a few of my posts here.
www.pastorjoe2.wordpress.com
deeply concerned
bound4life
1 issue voter
joe
Tamesha,
It was said plenty of times. In fact one of the most famous times was when James Carville said it on CNN after one of the debates. It had also been said in several other forms. Oh I am sorry Olbermann has never said anything irrational against a republican or in favor of a dem. Chris Matthews who said that there would be serious issues if BO lost.
What fear are you speaking of? Is it the fear that George Bush is Hitler? Or was it the one that Bush intentionally forced a failure of Katrina to kill Black people? That Bush was the one that created 9/11 in order to inialate the Arab race? Those fears times 100, were not pushed by the republicans but by the Democrats. Oh yeah, what about this whole fear of non government intervention and we will go bancrupt. It may happen either way.
The only fear I heard out of the Republican party about BO is the following:
-That his association and failure at the woods foundation with Bill Ayers. Like McCain said who cares about a sick tired old terrorist like Ayers. But what was he doing, and why would he not release the Woods foundation meeting notes? What were they trying to reform in Chicago education? Why is he following Ayers lead in wanting sex education in kindergarten? Which is by the way on video tape saying he did not disagree with. Go to UTUBE and it is there. Remember, Ayers wants to radicalize and socialize kids. That is not the education reform I want, and since Obama only spoke in platitudes about his education beliefs you can only look to his past.
- Socialism. You should be scared of this. It has never worked and will never work. The pilgrims proved it, then the Germans continually prove it, Russia proves it, Canada proves it. Freedom works. Do not forget that Obama in his own voice in his first book said he sought out Marxist-Lennists as friends, and do not forget his 2003 interview wishing that Warren was more radical. Look at history Socialism leads to Communism wich leads to genocide.
There are several more things that could lend to "fear" in this last campaign. However, the complaints and questions of Obama were founded in rational thought. Just ask Hillary, remember they labeled Bill as a Racist, just for questioning BO.
I find it interesting in the past two weeks Tom Brokaw says that America should fear BO b/c nobody knows anything about the mans worldview. Evan Thomas, senior editor of Newsweek, said that Obama is starting to look like a dictator who looks down on high on the masses. Neither one of those two men would be considered apart of the vast right wing conspiracy.
The reality of our politics is based in fear, in fact every worldview is centered around fear. Hell even FDR based everything off fear, and then said do not fear fear. The question is how do you respond to fear. Do you seek more freedom and self reliance and allow each other to succeed or fail on there own. Or do you seek a government solution which leads ultimately to dictatorship.
CJ
Tamesha,
In regards to policy message lets look at what McCain was talking about on the campaign trail:
-Health Care. Rather than have a system that would ultimatly ran by the government, even the most ardent BO supporter has to admit his plan cannot happen without a takeover. McCain had a more free market approach. The problem was that McCain allowed his opponents to define it rather than himself. If Obama's ultimate plan goes into effect why would anybody want to practice medicine.
-Corporate tax cut. While democrats were crying that this would bancrupt the country, it is the best jobs program possible. Think about why GM has not been taken over yet. Two reasons unions and legacy costs, but also nobody wants to pay our corporate tax rate when they can go to other countries and pay next to nothing. This corporate tax is also why a lot of small businesses fail, as they get large enough to be a LLC or small corporation their tax liability is to large to remain profitable.
-Education: McCain and BO were both in favor of accountability, who could not be. However, McCain's plan had true punishment for underperforming schools: lost revenue because parents would not send their kids there. BO well who knows.
-Energy...Want to talk about Fear and liberalism this is it. If you listen to them energy is killing us. However, it was only McCain who supported drilling, while not enough. There is more oil in Colorado and Utah by four times the amount than in Saudia Arabia and we do not access it. How crazy is this.
-Govt. Spending...Does anybody believe BO is going to take a scaple to spending. However, it was McCain who said he would freeze spending. Ninety percent of our current economic problems are due to this massive government.
While McCain was not the best messanger he did believe in something.
CJ
CJ,
It would have been nice had those policy points shown up in a commercial or articulated in a debate. Instead, we got ads and stump speeches about Ayers and the definition of the "real America".
No fear in Republican/conservative politics? Hmmmm, let's start with the Southern Strategy, move on to Willie Horton, then go to the Harry and Louise ads against health care reform and now today the unending harping on Bill Ayers. That's a whole lot of playing into people's fears of change and anything that appears too "radical" to their worldview.
Yes, you are right - freedom does work. But, having a government that offers some services and supports does not hinder freedom. At its best, it opens doors and provides opportunities. Bottom line is just as you are skeptical of any government intervention (except, I'd guess on "moral issues"), I am equally skeptical of blindly trusting the market to bring about freedom. I do not trust the market with my freedom because nothing about it altruistic and is purely motivated by profit. Certain things, like health care and education in my opinion, should not be solely left to the market. So no, some aspects of socialism do not scare me in the least.
You are right, our politics are based in fear. I think that is exactly why people voted for Obama in such large numbers and the Republican party is having an identity crisis.
The politics of fear simply will not work anymore. You have to have ideas and strategies to bring about change and make government work FOR EVERYONE. You can't just scare people into voting against the other guy, you have to give people a reason to vote for you. So, until the Republican party can do that for more people beyond the narrow (minded) base that Karl Rove help build, they will not win the confidence or the votes of more Americans.
Fetz,
I understand your frustration with conservative politics, but I don't think most conservatives think politically, they see political issues through their worldview & beliefs.
1) I'm with you on name-calling, but it certainly isn't limited to conservatives. I can't believe the anti-Bush bumper stickers out there. I thought we were very harsh on Clinton, but some liberals have been just plain evil in their hatred & name calling of Bush. We all (whichever party we align with) struggle with taming the tongue. Name-calling in politics can be fun, but we're called to speak only to build others up.
2) Both parties are equally talented at using negativity and fear, but both fall way short of the media (both the lib networks & foxnews) on the use of negativity & fear.
3) I'm assuming the single issue you are referring to is abortion. The #1 issue for most conservative issues I know is the sanctity of human life, which comes out of their Biblical worldview. However, I see it as more of a fundamental belief rather than a political issue. I agree with Todd & his various posts on this topic that without respecting life itself, there is no freedom, no democracy, and no future for our nation. The right to life is fundamental in scripture and in the Declaration of Independence. The sanctity of human life is more than being against abortion & infanticide, it is being against immoral treatment of the pre-born, the elderly, the disabled, the oppressed, the poor, & those who can't defend themselves. The sanctity of human life means being for liberty and for the pursuit of happiness for all.
4) It is interesting that you raise the issue of compromise. In the mediation world, compromise can be a very helpful tool in resolving surface issues, but it never works to try to get parties to compromise on their underlying interests or beliefs.
5) I agree, most conservatives will go down with the ship. And I think you are right that is out of a desire to stay pure and true to their faith and their worldview.
Thanks for asking the tough question about perceptions. Personally, I don't want to be viewed as angry, stubborn, fear-mongering, or any other negative characteristic. I am confident in my faith and my worldview AND I want those who don't agree with me to go to heaven, not heck. We are called to be salt & light. Defending our conservative beliefs is salt. Being compassionate, gentle, and selfless, is the light part.
I'd also add that since conservatives supposedly don't put their faith in government, it seems to me that we shouldn't fear the liberals political power. I think some are prematurely calling the death of conservatism. Haven't the conservatives won 2 of the last 3 presidential elections?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, too, Tameshia. You raise some very valid points.
Tamesha,
I appreciate your critiques, it is hard to find a liberal who articulates rather than name call. Trust me here in Cali, there is not just mental persuasion, but in some places physical persuasion is used by many liberals.
However, I would like to clear up your statement on Willie Horton. To this day I do not see anything wrong with using an ad to display a policy inacted by the sitting gov., who was running for Pres. It just so happened Willie was A-A, but what Willie did was down right disgusting and the blame did fall on Dukakis, just like the same blame fell on Huckabee for the white idiot who did the same thing. I think we can both agree it was not Bush who was the first to use Willie, but rather the Pantheon of Liberalism and fair play Al Gore. If you view that commercial as vile, which is your right, than it is not only fair to point blame at GHWB but also at the Democratic party as well.
Southern Strategy, what is wrong with having one? The main reason McCain and Bush both lost this last election was their endorsement of more government. The exit polls showed that 56% of people hate the bailout, and punished a REPUBLICAN if they voted for it, ie Saxby Chambliss.
I do not remember anything wrong in those Harry and Louise Ads that was demogagry. In fact the fear of that disastor was the government taking over 1/7th of the economy, and that there were government organizations such as the rural water and electrical developemental consortion which would have a say in somebodies health care. I created a poster with all the govt, intities and I had to copy it down to a size font 4 to have it fit on regular posterboard. One of the reasons we did not have Mitt Romney was the health care bill that he compromised on. He did not want the penalty for not having insurance but added it, due to the demands of the dems. Now you have these fines being greater than the heating bills, since the state is trying to find revenue streams due to a massive increase in spending. You know have people not paying for heating bills, because they are worried about further civil penalties by not having insurance. No matter what BO said durring the campaign, his plan will be single payer due to the debt and increase in costs in the health care field. It has worked so well in Canada that they cannot keep doctors due to the lack of money making opportunities. There are surveys which show a large number of doctors will leave medicine or go to a cash only system because they do not want to mess with a medicare style system. Also, if medicare and medicaid are so great, why is the national debt/future obligations really $53 trillion due to those two programs. Also, why did Hawaii after 7 months due away with their universal childrens health care plan. Simple, govt. cannot run it affectively.
Why the fascination with Ayers. We know nothing of BO, who is the guy? Heck, the Friday before the election Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw were stumping each other on what does he believe, what is his world view, how does he lead. The funny thing is they could not answer the question and only came up with worse questions. That is also on UTUBE. Ayers is one of many assocations of people that are troubling, and it was not the bombing that bothered me or a majority of others who were concerned. It was his education philosophy, and how Obama is on tape saying he agreed with it. Yeah, Obama kept up his association after several interviews were Ayers said he wish he did more than what he did. Well, he is doing worse now with this crazy stuff he is teaching.
Why did you not hear about the programs of McCain. Lets see Obama was sending up thrills up people's legs, the WAPO said they knowingly and approvingly were more favorable to BO than McCain. Look McCain should have known that going in, but he thought that all the friendships he made would stay true to him. He did a horrible job of getting on talk shows. In fact BO did a better job of going on friendly press or arenas.
The Republican problems are two fold. First, they abandoned the core philosophy of smaller and better government. Know conservatives like myself see them as turncoats and liberals like you see them for a party that was in place in the mid 90s. Secondly, because of the first those individuals who did not participate in this overexpansion that has led to 99% of our current problems, were labeled as the abusers rightly or wrongly. Look the ancient Isreali's needed 40 years to weed out the previous generation, perhaps the Republicans need two years. However, what I am already hearing is downright dangerous and scarry. In two to four years we will have a campaign about further nationalization and one of Reaganism and the government is not the solution but the problem. Who will win, who knows in the short run, but nobody will win in a nationalized nation long term.
CJ
You did it again ,Jeff! You know how to get your blog abuzzin! I agree with you and with Tameshia and with Keith that the Republican party needs to take a look at what is going on with the American population. And, we do need to be open to talk with others and be compassionate to those who do not believe the way we do. However, I went over to Keith's blog and what he says is very confusing to me. Do we not, as Christians, need to take a stand on certain things? Should we be "all-accepting" and all-compromising of the world? Are we not supposed to be seperate from the world? Yes, we have over the many years that this nation has been founded become adopting of many world-views, and as conservatives have changed our opinions on what is "right" and what is "wrong". So, in saying that, Keith's point that conservatives take a single-issue approach and refuse to compromise is null and void. These are his own words:
"I recall when the master issue was “bobbed hair” as conservatives damned the liberals for letting their women “cut off the very hair God gave them as their glory. They said, “Ichabod—the glory has departed.” Then the issue switched to Television. If you owned a TV you were a liberal. Then came jewelry or make-up—the liberal women wore ear-rings or “rubbed their faces with rouge.”
Okay, so he just said how convservatives have compromised over the years on their issues! If anything, this is a challenge to conservatives to "stick their heels" in even further. The issues he mentioned seem very silly to me compared to the sanctity of marriage and of life. These issues we have today were not even though of by most liberals back in his day, let alone conservatives! As a conservative it makes me think where the world will be 40-50 years from now if we compromise on abortion, same-sex marriage and the "use" of embryonic stem cells. Where does it stop? Jeff, Tameshia and Keith, in your opinions what things should we as CHRISTIANS be uncompromising on? Is there anything that is "not debatable" in the Bible?? Because I think that many that label themselves as "conservative" politically are also Christian voters.
"Watch yourself that you make no covenant with the inhabitants of the land into which you are going, lest it become a snare in your midst. But rather, you are to tear down their altars and smash their sacred pillars and cut down their Adherim - for you shall not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God-” Exodus 34:12-14.
Jules,
You bring up some good points, especially your point about "conservative" voters likely being Christian voters, with one caveat, that they are likely conservative Christian voters. I make that distinction, because it is a possible to be a Christian and not hold a conservative worldview.
So, the things that I, as a progressive Christian, see as priorities are rooted in how we care and provide services and supports for the poor and those who lack opportunity; how do we show love without judgement. For me, that means being noncompromosing on choice and gay rights; but, it also includes holding firm to my belief that health care and education need to be reformed and working families need a living wage and tax relief. I know that even within some of those issues that there are opportunities for compromise with conservatives and some that there are not. I'd rather look for opportunities for compromise instead of trying to convince conservative Christians to see my side of issues that we will likely never see eye-to-eye on.
CJ,
Again, Obama's plan will not be single payer. Though for many, single payer is an ideal, most practical people involved in health care policy know that it simply will not work in this country. So, they are looking to other alternatives that include expanded public coverage but also maintaining and improving private coverage. I really wish you would stop throwing out single-payer out there as your trojan horse to shoot down health care reform in this country.
The MA plan has led to over 100K people in the state who were previously uninsured, having coverage. Are there problems with it, yes. But, I think it is a step in the right direction in getting people covered and shifting how we approach health care in this country.
The penalties for not having health insurance are there to help pay for coverage in a more transparent way. The bottom line is we ALL currently pay when people do not have health insurance, by way of higher premiums and longer lines at ER to just name a few. The penalty for not having health insurance in MA is about $70/month AND CAN BE WAIVED IF THE REASON SOMEONE DOES NOT HAVE COVERAGE IS IF THEY CANNOT AFFORD IT. So please, again, stop spreading half-truths and scaring people out of even considering the possibility of acheiving health care reform in this country and continuing down a path that is simply not working now.
Tamesha,
The fines are now actually up to $97 per month. The law states that the fine is half the cost of what the insurance is provided by the state. One can go to another state and buy insurance for the same price as the fine, but since the state mandates it the insurance companies know they can charge more. Frederick Bastite called that legal plunder. There insurance program is already $147 million in the hole and those are numbers from Feb. 2008.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58146
About Barry's health care plan...since an August 19th townhall meeting in New Mexico, he stated that he favored single payer and that was his perferance. A CNN report in Sept. before the financial mess, stated that his health care plan led to excessive costs and more uninsured and would need to become single payer. It also stated that there was no means by an Obama administration to be able to lower costs like he suggested. It is hard to believe that a 60 seat Democrat controlled senate would not pass anything but single payer.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/19/obama-touts-single-payer-system/
Now granted the system that Max Baucas (d-MT) issued yesterday is interesting. It does not have incremintalism in it, it goes right to the throught. Here is something interesting, they may tax health care benefits. Yes, the same people who complained that McCain was going to tax it (while giving it back in a tax credit), are going to do it without a mention of a credit. I might have missed it and if so I am sorry, however simple hypocrisy. Also, there will most likely be mandates, and how is that going to get handeled? You know those mandates are going to be passed on to job producers. Look the current system is complicated, I know all to well the complications of it.
However, I do not trust a government that does not know how it is spending $700 billion to run health care. It does not matter if it is democrat or republican, I do not want it, because we cannot afford it. Tamesha besides defense, what government entity would you do away with to cover the cost of this new plan? Would it be Education? Energy? labor? Until liberals are willing to not just cut the cost of spending, but rather completly do away with sections of government will people trust them. Look at congressional approval ratings they make Bush look high. I will always contend if the republicans stood against this bailout, the current roles would have been reversed.
I live in a state that is $28 billion in debt, they are raising sales tax 1.5% and have already announced that it will only increase the deficit and not produce the results they want, but have a backup plan. Is that what we will get with government ran health care, rather it is mandated or single payer? Do we really want these guys and gals to run it?
If you want a reason why I distrust government and am a conservative, it is my friend whom is not allowed to see his kids without approved suppervision. Why has he lost them? Not because he was abusive, but his child has brittle bone syndrome. The baby almost rolled off the changing table, and when he grabbed him his arm broke. The state says that was abusive, even though three geneticists have all said it is classic brittle bone and that the child was actually fortunate to not have a worse injury. Here is a child who has a severe life issue, discovered through a bone that should not have responded like that. The state agency concerned about budget cuts, is digging in because they want to show value, is driving my friends into depression in which the 3 year old sister has stopped talking to people. This is a power grab, where their defense lawyer has already stated that Child Protective Services, and I say that loosely, is on the verge of losing tens of millions of dollars in lawsuits due to overreaching. Is that the kind of government progressives want? At times I think it is, because they only want more and expanded power. This is not the government our founders invisioned. It is not the government MLK, JFK, Reagan, heck Warren Harding wanted. That is one reason why I am a conservative, I do not trust government.
cj
cj
Jeff,
With all this talk of worldview, it is a good thing I can relisten to Doc Martin about worldviews, the complete Francis Schaeffer collection, Russell Kirk, Augustine, and Martin Luther Books in the garage. Oh and who can forget Todds ancestor what is his name again...and what was the real thesis of that book??? LOL...Man I miss WISH
CJ
Post a Comment