I get around a lot, particularly on the net. I’ve gotten to know several hundred people on gaming sites, sports sites, book sites, and any other number of sites. And in recent months, I’ve had long conversations with well over 50 (mostly single) women. The one thing they all had in common was they ALL voted against the Republicans, and I think it’s important for you “high information voters” to understand why.
Let me start with some basic points. First, I realize this is anecdotal and I cannot attribute statistical significance to it.... BUT, the women I spoke to are a true cross-section of American women. They ranged from 16 to 55 and they were geographically diverse. Some were professionals, some worked in stores or hotels, some were nurses, one was a newspaper editor, and some were teachers. Only two were unemployed, and they were basically stay at home mothers. Moreover, the 100% consistency of their views strikes me as extremely meaningful.
In each case, I spent extensive time speaking with these women. I discussed politics with them and delved into their views on various issues. Without exception, I found that they held fundamentally conservative beliefs. They thought they paid too much in taxes. They didn’t like people living on the government. They want to see fiscal sanity and want to see the government spend less. Most were religious. Several were gun owners and only two really opposed guns. None of them believed the government could make their lives better. Yet, they all voted for Obama, and not one of them identified themselves as conservative. To the contrary, they used words like “evil,” “corrupt” and “hateful” when asked to describe conservatives - I cannot overstate the contempt they had for conservatives. And so you know, of this group, only two described themselves a liberal.
So what is the problem? Well, contrary to what certain “high information voters” want to believe, none of them collect benefits from the government, none of these supposed “low information voters” want anything from the government, and none of their votes were bought. Nor are they stupid or uninformed. To the contrary, I found them to be quite bright, very rational and surprisingly well-informed... much better informed than a lot of “high information voters” I know. Yet, they all voted for Obama.
Actually. . . only two voted for Obama, the rest voted against the Republicans. (And for those of you thinking “those damn Republicans,” you should know that not a single one of these women distinguished between conservatives and Republicans... it’s all the same to them.)
So why do they hate Republicans? Here is what they ALL told me... without exception:
● The Republicans want to raise my taxes to help the rich.(They also listed the “obsession with abortion” and lots of examples of racism, but those weren’t 100% consistent... maybe 70%.)
● The Republicans have no plan to help me get a better job.
● The Republicans hate gays and I have gay friends.
Now, I know that a lot of you “high information voters” are asking, but what about Fast and Furious? Clearly, these morons didn’t know about that, right? Actually, they did and they didn’t care. They didn’t see how one stupid ATF operation that may or may not have been known by someone in the Justice Department meant much to their lives. What about Benghazi? They knew that too. And again, they didn’t care. They didn’t see how that affected their lives either. Ditto on all the other dozens of minor “scandals” that you “high information voters” seem to think are so vital.
The truth is that these women, to a one, know the things you think they don’t, but they don’t care. They are concerned with how they will keep their jobs, how they will get better jobs, how they can afford a house and kids, and how they can pay off massive student loan debts. You “high information voters” haven’t offered them anything on how you’re going to make that happen.
And before you say they’re wrong, ask yourself if they really are. What have the Republicans and talk radio been jerking themselves off over for the past three months? They want to protect the rich from a 3% tax hike. To stop that, they threatened to cause taxes to go up for working Americans everywhere. Is it really irrational to see this as Republicans looking to raise taxes on the middle class to help the rich?
And what about the conservative plan on jobs? Oh, that’s right, there isn’t one except to grouse about those lazy people on unemployment. Student loans? Just grousing about how not everyone should go to college. Fixing the devastated housing market? Grousing about those damn minorities who never should have been given loans. Fixing our out-of-control health care system? Repeal Obamacare and something something to make big insurers richer. Who’s being more rational here... the “low information voters” who see this as a platform of crap or the “high information voters” who can’t see a problem with this?
So what about the charge of “hate”? The big thing here was the gay issue. The Republicans send the signal loudly and clearly that they hate gays. Every single one of these women picked up on that and repeated it. Now you may not want to believe that, but that is how conservatives are coming across. And when 100% of a random sample of 50 people says the same thing, you can pretty much be sure something is going on.
This is why the Republicans lost this election and why they will keep losing elections in the future. It has nothing to do with “low information voters,” it has nothing to do with voters “wanting goodies”... it has everything to do with “high information voters” not being able to see how nasty they come across or how their “policies” offer nothing to people who only want to make their lives better. These women see us as a party that hates people -- gays, minority homeowners, Hispanics, single women, the poor, the unemployed -- and a party that holds the middle class hostage to save the rich from a minor tax hike. And honestly, they make a solid case for that.
And before you blame the MSM for spinning conservatives, you can forget that. What these women complained about came directly from the mouths of conservatives. For years now, conservatives have competed like lemmings to prove they are more extreme than the other guy. Uniquely in the world of politics, conservatives despise the word “moderate” and use it as a slur. Every one of our candidates swore to a series of pledges and constitutional amendments so far beyond the pale to ordinary Americans that it makes conservatism seem like a cult... and they reveled in their purity and accused others of heresy. The MSM doesn’t need to spin that to make us sound extreme, we embrace the idiotic label.
Look, you people are smart. I know that. I’ve seen tremendous insight from each of you over the past several years. So use that insight and think about what I’ve said. There is a problem here whether conservatives want to believe it or not, and trying to dismiss these people as “low information voters” is both asinine and wrong. Not only does it not help to name-call people you want to win over, but frankly, these women are right and you are wrong. They are not stupid, they are not uninformed, they are not irrational. To the contrary, they are thinking much more clearly, and much more conservatively, than the self-described “high information voters” who are trying to mock them. These women are not the problem, these women highlight the problem, which is that “high information voters” have made conservatism unpalatable. I suspect each of these women would happily have voted for the conservatism of Ronald Reagan, but they’ll NEVER vote for the “conservatism” of today’s “high information voters.”
Anyway, this is the last time I’m going to talk about this because honestly I’m sick of saying it. But if conservatism means anything to you... I urge you to think about this.
161 comments:
I've heard some say it was a mistake to give women the vote. That's where our problems really started.
This is in jest of course.
Complaints about the housing crisis are "conservatives grousing about minorities getting loans".
In 2006 OFHEO came before congress and said that Fannae Mae was in deep trouble (the had an adverse accounting opinion) and that the banking reserves should be increased to 4%. Barnie Frank and the Congressional Black Caucaus responded "that's racist".
The problem was that many people were getting Ninja loans (regardless of race). Try to talk about this and a democrat responds that we have to give minorites a loan. Majority of these loans were not given to minorities. When it was limited to only blacks it could be handled. It became a problem when the democrats started including everyone. Especially in California where 500 million dollar loans were given to teachers and cops that did not have a salary to justify it. CIRA is that law that started it and the law that caused it. There is no argument on this.
So How then am I supposed to argue this because even if I try to carefully avoid the racial elements of this issue put in place by democrats they will bring it up.
What is especially irksome about this is the people hurt the greatest by this law were the minorities given these loans. The Resco scandal as I understand this involved Obama using his pull as a politician to force banks to give loans to minorities that had no ability to pay them. Then when the banks had to default and foreclosed Resco would buy up the propery for pennies on the dollar and Obama would have his community activists force the banks to loan to some other poor sucker. This was supposedly why Resco gave OBama a house.
What happens to this individual poor black people who may very well have gotten off welfare and were trying to make it. How do they after the fiasco of foreclosure get another loan. Especially now that the whole thing blew up and no one is having an easy time getting a loan. It has been a long while since I saw a Lending Tree ad telling us banks should compete for you,
The problem as I see it Andrew is that no matter what you say the Democrats yell Racist and then the MSM repeats this. Anyone who criticises it is forced to talk about race when they should be talking about banking reserves and government loan requirements where race should never be an issue at all.
So if the low information voter tells me this is "grousing" about minorities pretty much I have to roll my eyes at having to deal with yet another DNC talking point. The only reason Race is an issue with this is the the DNC infused the law with this when they wrote it. But the fact of the matter is the DNC is wrong, this law is wrong, the race baiting in the law is wrong. How do I talk about that without talking about that.
Max, LOL!
Actually, in all seriousness, I'm really glad I spoke to these women because they've kind of woken me up to a huge problem that I just didn't see. I think I was so busy looking at individual issues that I missed the much bigger picture.
There is a solution to this, I just don't know that conservatives are willing to try it. To that end, I'm going to start putting out an agenda soon that I think would win these women over... and most of the rest of the country actually.
Indi, First, you've missed the point. This is not a one issue problem. These women didn't say "that one time on the housing sounded racist, ergo the Republicans are racist." They gave a MASSIVE laundry list of things. And when you start to hear how Republicans ALWAYS mention race in every single context, and do so disdainfully, you start to see why these women think this.
Secondly, you are looking at the wrong time period. The housing issue they are talking about isn't the hearings on Fannie/Freddie, no one paid attention to that. What they are talking about is NOW, now that the bubble has burst and the question is what do we do about it. Conservatives have offered no solution. Instead, they've complained bitterly that minorities shouldn't have been given home loans. Just like they complain about minorities being on welfare, minorities committing voter fraud, minorities clogging prisons, blacks and Hispanics selling drugs, Hispanics bankrupting hospitals, Hispanics sucking up social services, Hispanics clogging schools, Hispanics shouldn't be allowed to go to college, they should be forced to speak English, etc. etc. The list could go on for pages.
Third, none of these women is responding to a Democratic talking point. They had no love for the Democrats and they didn't really believe the MSM either. Their objections were to things that conservatives (nationally and in their lives) said themselves. This idea that conservatives are being spun is a delusion told by conservatives to help them avoid seeing that they are causing their own problems.
Well Andrew I was responding to one item but lets take another.
It is not Hispanics clogging up up social services it is illegal aliens. Illegal aliens are coming into this country and then immediately getting on the dole in certain liberal states and there is not money for it. While I understand that the demagoguery of the DNC to label all illegal aliens hispanic (something not true buy the way, in Fort Lauderdale for instance 90% of the illegal aleins are black Haitians but that is disgressing) the problem has nothing to do with their race.
The problem is that we can't afford to simply give welfare to anyone that sneaks in nor should we. If we want to make that arguement that it is somehow mean to state this then why stop at giving them welfare here. Why force them to risk there lives coming here, why not just allow them to stay in there home country and the American Taxpayer can just send them a check there. If might actually save money as healthcare there is probably cheaper.
What I need to argue is that the immigration issue is a financial problem. There is no control whatsoever and the government hands out social services, welfare, etc. without any consideration. This is promoting more people in thrid world countries to sneak in here and they are no longer encouraged to work for the American Dream as in days past.
This is bad for us and utlimately will be bad for them. People locked into a welfare cycle are poorer than people that work and there children often don't advance as immigrants legal or illegal that came her to work have done in the past.
How do I argue this without someone forcing me into a meaningless discussioin of racism. Something made even more ironic by the fact that Hispanic is not a race. Anyone who has been to South America would know they are more diverse there than we are. Again I either shut up and say nothing and do nothing about the problem or I speak up and get shouted down.
English language issue is another concern especially in Miami. It is one thing for a first generation immigrant to never learn the language but in my view it is damning for the second generation immigrant, their children, to not learn English. There are whole communites of people in Miami that will never be able to leave that city because they have not been forced to learn English. Plus it makes the community more insular. I lived down there for two years and except to occasinally eat at a Cuban Restaraunt I avoided that area because quite frankly it felt weird to not be able to speak to anyone. I was sent to foreign countries to audit where only a few people spoke English in the office and even though you know it is stupid you get kind of paranoid when people are speaking and you can't underrstand them.
But I can't express this concerns in the political arena without the democrats screaming racism. I find it both unfair and wrong. Nor do I find seeing a need to address them as extreme. Seems common sense to me. If you have an immigrant community you make every effort to teach their kids English is school.
But my point is this. The issue gets demagogued by the left and if anything the Republicans get caught into a trap. They may start out trying to discuss the issue but the democrats force them into discussions of rac e that don't belong. So what are we to do, how do we argue this.
Didn't you write an article on election day, with a gorilla flipping-off? I'm sure that was directed to the people who voted for Obama... lol
I guess you're right to a point. Yes, there are people who claim to be "high info" voters, who really aren't. But If these women weren't "low information" and "don't trust the MSM", then they shouldn't just ignorantly believe that ludicrous "all Conservatives are Evil/Racist/Homophobic" meme, in the first place. Sorry Andrew, but they are indeed "Low Information" voters... The problem is they look towards the government for help, which got us in this mess in the first place. And it also seems the made up their minds solely based on social issues, too. "That evil Mormon Romney is going to kill my gay friends and take away my tampons!". Nuff said.
I agree with you that Conservatism needs a major face lift. We need new strong leaders that are more fresh, charismatic, and eloquent. We have to make Conservatism cool again, but it that means becoming more like Democrats, count me out. I give up.
Indi, The issue gets demagogued by the left and if anything the Republicans get caught into a trap.
This is simply wrong. Conservatives dive right in and happily make all these issues about race.
Snape, Yes, I wrote that article and it was stupid in hindsight.
As for your points, you're wrong.
But If these women weren't "low information" and "don't trust the MSM", then they shouldn't just ignorantly believe that ludicrous "all Conservatives are Evil/Racist/Homophobic" meme, in the first place.
Re-read my article. None of these women "ignorantly" believed any meme. They came to believe these things based on the words and actions of conservatives.
The problem is they look towards the government for help, which got us in this mess in the first place.
Re-read my article. Not one of these women is looking to the government for help.
And it also seems the made up their minds solely based on social issues, too. "That evil Mormon Romney is going to kill my gay friends and take away my tampons!".
Re-read my article. None of them said a word about Romney or tampons or killing anyone. They didn't like the hate, that's true. But their biggest complaint was the conservatives offered nothing useful to their lives except tax hikes on them.
We have to make Conservatism cool again, but it that means becoming more like Democrats, count me out.
When did I say become like Democrats?
The religion issue on the "right" generates its own gravity. And the truth is that less and less people go to church.
I think that the abortion stance killed Romney. I am personally pro-life, however until the Republicans can say, "the law says that it's a choice", they will lose ground with female voters.
The gay thing is a separate issue.
Mitt Romney very carefully did nothing wrong in his campaign - through the nomination process. And he did very little wrong in his run-off against Obama. Mitt's problem was that he didn't pull a Ronald Reagan and make a stand. His campaign would argue that he did, but America didn't see it because he was too preoccupied with not making a mistake (not being his father, George).
The Congress is hated or mistrusted by at least 80% of America - for good reason. Boehner and friends still have no prescription for American health.
LL, The abortion issue honestly wasn't a front-line issue with these women... the gay thing was.
What shocked me though was their focus on the lack of a program by conservatives for every other issue. At first, I thought they were simply wrong and just preferred the Democratic plans, but the truth was they didn't. They didn't like what the Democrats offered either. But they felt that at least the Democrats were trying to fix things whereas the Republicans were only sneering at them. And when they started pointing at things like: "what kind of answer is it to tell me I shouldn't have gone to college" I started to see the problem.
And let me say that as a lifelong conservative who soaked in the age of Walter Williams and William Buckley and Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams, it's a depressing shock to realize that we honestly have ZERO plan on any 95% of issues.
Again, let me be clear too, nothing I say above is interpretation. These are opinions that were reported to me and they were universal. This isn't my spin. This why we lost 70% of single women.
P.S. LL, Let me add that when I started to realize this, I paid a lot of attention to things that were being written at places like National Review to see if I could refute what these women said. That's when I started to see the fudging. I noticed conservative writers everywhere saying things like "our policies explain themselves" rather than actually stating what those policies were. And the go to solution was basically "the market will fix this" which translates into "do nothing." Conservatism has become about stopping the Democrats from changing anything, not offering people our own vision. That's why we're in trouble.
- "Re-read my article. None of these women "ignorantly" believed any meme. They came to believe these things based on the words and actions of conservatives."
Who are these Conservatives, exactly? Did they specify? There's millions of Conservatives. I hear Liberals and other non-conservatives say vile things all the time, too. Regardless of politics, human beings can't help themselves being "hateful".
- "Re-read my article. Not one of these women is looking to the government for help."
I stand corrected. Claiming is one thing, but they did vote for Obama. Which make me question the veracity of their claim of "not looking to the government for help".
- "Re-read my article. None of them said a word about Romney or tampons or killing anyone. They didn't like the hate, that's true."
You're right, but I meant that phrase as hyperbole. So to them being against Gay marriage = hating on gays?
- "When did I say become like Democrats?"
Sorry, I should have been more clearer. There are people out there who wants Conservatism to be more open to "new ideas", which usually means be more like democrats.
Snape,
These are women I've met randomly. I've met them through any number of means... dating some of them, interacting on website, e-mails about my books (I get a lot of people who want to chat with me about those), etc. In each case, I got to know them fairly well and become friends with them, and I did that before I started talking politics with them. Moreover, I didn't lead them by suggesting what my views are -- as a lawyer you get very good at that because you have clients of all stripes. So basically, I listened, and then I asked questions and I listened again.
And I can tell you honestly that the first couple times I thought, "well, she doesn't know what the hell she's talking about." But then the answers kept coming and coming and they were always similar. I was shocked. That's when I started to delve into why they believed these things and what evidence they had. Basically, I slowly cross-examined them little by little.
As a group, they painted a remarkably clear and consistent image of conservatives and they based it on years of observations of conservatives at the national level, at the state level, and conservatives they know in their own lives. They did not rely on the MSM or on liberals at all in forming their opinions. Indeed, in each case they could say "candidate X said this" or "that governor said that."
This is why I've written the article. The current conservative thinking that these women are simply stupid, misinformed, or brainwashed by the MSM is just plain wrong. They are very well informed, they formed their own opinions, they based their opinions on their own observations of conservatives, and their opinions highlight a huge, huge self-destructive flaw in our side. And we should not be dismissing these women as stupid and pretending that we're doing fine. We're not. We are our own worst enemies at the moment and we need to see that and change course.
(continued)
(continued)
On your questions...
-- I know they are conservative in nature because I got to know them. THEY didn't think they were conservatives... in fact, they typically identified as "not political" because they didn't see a home in either party for their views. But I saw the traits. I saw it when they would suddenly criticize a neighbor for going on welfare and then would talk about how destructive that is. I saw it when they complained about the amount of taxes them paid. I saw it when they talked about criminals getting off, when they hated the attempt to seize guns after Connecticut, about wanting to teach their kids values like hard work and "don't be like my lazy uncle," etc. They even talked about things like people working less when you raise their taxes, and they thought the government just messed everything up. They would have fit in well at this site.
-- As for who the conservatives are, they presented me with a widespread indictment. Often with names attached, sometimes with things like "that Sheriff in Arizona." They noted everything from ads run by local politicians, to comments they saw from national figures, to the conservatives around them in their every day lives. And again, it wasn't just one-off comments that bothered them, it was volume, it was intensity, it was tone, and it was a sense that conservatives go out of their way to pick out poor people and minorities as the focus of their criticism, and that the only groups conservative defend are big companies and rich people.
Further, in terms of policies, not only did they note the utter lack of a platform that promised to address the things they cared about, but they pointed to sweeping statements by people like our presidential candidates who talked about shutting down the Department of Education and the EPA... because of which they view conservatives not only as saying they don't have plans for education, but that they actively despise education and that conservatives want the government to stop caring about clean air and water. Those are quite rational beliefs based on those statements.
-- Opposition to gay marriage is a problem because they see it as a matter of personal freedom and tolerance. BUT the hate part isn't just because conservatives "oppose gay marriage." It's about the tone of the opposition. It's the calling gays immoral and suggesting that their existence will destroy the fabric of America. It's the foaming at the mouth preacher tones that Rick Santorum used. It's the idea that Republicans are so obsessed they want to change the constitution to ban gay marriage even in states where it's wanted and the sense that Bachmann in particular, but the others as well, lied about their real goals when they talked about the various constitutional amendments on this.
Also, the hate charge comes from a combination of factors -- the perceived racism, the sneering at poor people, sneering at women, sneering at college kids, the abortion/rape thing, the obsessive rhetoric with abortion AND contraception, the gay stuff mentioned above, the birther stuff and the Obama derangement stuff where everything Obama did was viewed as him being a socialist. It seems to be a factor of it all becoming too much and being too angry and combining for a general sense of "the Republicans hate everyone." I think it manifested itself mainly in the gay issue because each of these women knew someone who was gay, but didn't necessarily know someone who had an abortion or would have been deported or whatnot.
-- In terms of new ideas, I think conservatism needs a total reboot because right now there is no conservatism in conservatism. I think what we need is a total rethink that realigns us with actual conservatism rather than not-what-the-Democrats-want-ism.
re: Abortion and Gay Marriage. If I was running for President I would advocate pushing for more power to the states by saying that in the area of abortion Roe v. Wade poisoned the debate on the issue by federalizing it (cue long spiel about how debates calm down quicker in the states) and that it would be best served by sending it back in degrees to the states.
Same with Gay Marriage by saying "let's not repeat the mistake of Roe v. Wade" and think a simple judicial ruling can solve the issue in a day.
And, since I'm having trouble sleeping, I'll try to hit the following.
"Also, the hate charge comes from a combination of factors -- the perceived racism, the sneering at poor people, sneering at women, sneering at college kids, the abortion/rape thing, the obsessive rhetoric with abortion AND contraception, the gay stuff mentioned above, the birther stuff and the Obama derangement stuff where everything Obama did was viewed as him being a socialist."
"Percieved racism/sneering at poor people". To handle this I would say take a page from Milton Friedman. Don't blame the poor for the welfare state, blame the system which incentivizes them to remain in that state.
On immigration bring up the coyotes, the drug dealers, and the criminals and emphasize how they hurt the lives of MINORITIES! Not whites but poor hispanics. How hispanic-Americans are being held back by these criminal enterprises that take advantage of poor immigrants trying to seek a new life in the US.
Also, push for a possible amnesty with conditions (no criminal record, work record, etc.) with promises from Mexico (privatize their oil industry and open to US markets).
"sneering at women". Treat women as smart people. Not as a demographic. Actually, apply that rule to ALL groups. Ask women their problems
" sneering at college kids" Why the right and the GOP has yet to make college loans THEIR issue or at least tried to by attacking the expanding bureaucracy that has made college tuition more expensive while doing nothing at all for the students except trying to justify their existence (and spending) by sending out swarms of bureaucrats to harass students and eat out their substance with myriads of speech codes*.
Taking on these speech codes and the bureaucracy that creates them has two benefits: It allows you to slash spending fat at colleges while casting yourself in the "rebel" taking on a massive bureaucracy that wants to crush freedom of expression. Two birds with one stone.
A suggestion: Threaten to cut federal grants to any public university that has speech codes that violate the first amendment as well as possible punishments for public universities that violate due process.
And make the bureaucracy your target, not the professors and especially NOT the college students (they are the victims of this bureaucracy). Emphasize the importance of free speech and its virtues.
Say "We are on the side of a massive bureaucracy that is limited your right to free speech and, in some cases, due process, hurting your education and footing you with the bill!"
THAT should be the conservative message.
To be continued. . .
Continued. . .
"the abortion/rape thing, the obsessive rhetoric with abortion AND contraception"
See above. Leave the obsessive rhetoric to the yahoos at the state legislature. It helps weed them out before they become a Senate nominee (like Akin, can you imagine if we could pull this quote out earlier from a state debate on the issue).
And on Contraceptions argue that it is about religious freedom and that women have a right to use contraception and that the best way to receive cheaper and more effective birth control is the market. (This needs to be coupled with a robust pro-Market economic strategy that goes to the core of why the Market works).
"the gay stuff mentioned above,"
See Abortion stuff at top. Punt it to states, let them hack it out. Take it out of the hands of judges.
"the birther stuff"
My first impulse is to make a joke about his own literary agent had him listed as being born in Kenya but first impulses aren't always the best.
Besides, the birther group has been a rather deranged.
I would propose a law requiring a Presidential Candidate to show his/her birth certificate saying "Let's get this s--t settled early from now on."
"the Obama derangement stuff where everything Obama did was viewed as him being a socialist"
Well, not EVERYTHING he's done has been socialist. Some of it has been cronyism. ;)
"I think it manifested itself mainly in the gay issue because each of these women knew someone who was gay"
Jindal recently called for a moderation of tone on the issue.
I would say: "Whichever route your state has chosen on gay marriage, as President I will stay out of it."
Maybe allow some federal benefits for gay servicemen and women who have civil unions.
To be continued. . .
And, now, our conclusion. . .
---------------------
"Further, in terms of policies, not only did they note the utter lack of a platform that promised to address the things they cared about, but they pointed to sweeping statements by people like our presidential candidates who talked about shutting down the Department of Education and the EPA... because of which they view conservatives not only as saying they don't have plans for education, but that they actively despise education and that conservatives want the government to stop caring about clean air and water. Those are quite rational beliefs based on those statements."
Well, I think the Department of education should be shut down or at least folded into the HHS.
But I would advocate it on the banner of "cutting red tape" and "giving power of education back to the states and the teachers and parents of the students."
EPA: "It has gone away from its original purpose and has become an ever-expanding bureacracy that grows to meet the needs of the ever-expanding bureaucracy by infringing on freedom by bizarre and excessive regulations passed by unaccountable bureaucrats and prosecuting ridiculous and silly case (cite a few, there are plenty".
Tie this into the overall theme of an expanding bureaucracy as well as over criminalization ("three felonies a day").
"-- I know they are conservative in nature because I got to know them. THEY didn't think they were conservatives... in fact, they typically identified as "not political" because they didn't see a home in either party for their views. But I saw the traits. I saw it when they would suddenly criticize a neighbor for going on welfare and then would talk about how destructive that is. I saw it when they complained about the amount of taxes them paid. I saw it when they talked about criminals getting off, when they hated the attempt to seize guns after Connecticut, about wanting to teach their kids values like hard work and "don't be like my lazy uncle," etc. They even talked about things like people working less when you raise their taxes, and they thought the government just messed everything up. They would have fit in well at this site."
That one gives me a lot of hope. I even see similar things in a liberal friend of mine.
"They would have fit in well at this site."
Why don't you invite them? :)
re: Gay Marriage
I came to a realization about 12-24 hours ago. Most of my reservations against gay marriage was that it would bring the wrong sort of people.
A breed of people. A people who move from state to state turning each into wastelands of left-wing kookiness and once they've sucked all its energy and vitality they move on to the next state. Never stopping, never ceasing until they have destroyed the very foundations of America from coast to coast.
I am talking, of course, about Californians.
Andrew: I don't doubt that the women who you communicated with mentioned gay rights as a reason for not voting for Romney. I very much doubt, however, that if the Republicans were solidly pro-abortion and were in favor of more perks for what is, in fact, an ad hoc women's union movement that Romney would have won handily.
If Obama wasn't black, Gays would have been a net loser for the Dems, as shown in California with prop 8 - put over the top by the black vote.
If only 64 percent of the single women voted for Obama instead of 68 percent, he would have lost - the popular vote anyway. IMO, that's the minimum number of low information young women who thought Romney was going to ban tampons. My opinion on this is influenced by John Ziegler's Media Malpractice doc. If you haven't seen it do so, particularly the closing credits where he asks young women - some of whom are college grads - questions about which candidate did what.
Andrew,
The thing I like about your article, and while I might have some quibbles with it, unlike previous writings it does articulate a fighting chance for the GOP and Conservatism.
In short, it has given me hope.
And that means a lot.
- "Re-read my article. Not one of these women is looking to the government for help."
Yet they need people running the government to help them out paying for their mortgage.
And if we bring up the fact that government programs designed to help people pay for their mortgage were in fact the reason for our econonmy and the mortgage crisis that was so four years ago.
"This is simply wrong. Conservatives dive right in and happily make all these issues about race."
Why is it I don't ever meet these conservatives or talk to them. Most of the conservatives I know fall into the category of sick to death that every issue they bring up no matter how mundane starts witb some discussion about race that they are then forced to justify.
Most conservatives I know are so sick to death hearing about dog whistles and code words that they ignore the issue of race altogether.
Unsound Banking Policy is not a racial issue.
Departing illegal immigrants is not a racial issue.
Fact of the matter is anyone who would even suggest that they are is to my mind an extremist nutjob with no comman sense to use the left's venacular.
I argue that we need some sound controls over both these things. I should not have to answer for 300 years of slavery and the Klan promted by people who called themselves democrats at the time anyways just to bring the issue up.
Andrew,
Can you elaborate on the racist point because Individualist brings up a good point. Many conservatives are tired of being called racists by people who use race as a political tool to divide and conquer.
Does the argument need to be better framed?
What?
The home mortgage argument could be framed as the government subsidizing bad dealing at the expense of helping low-income families at the future expense of low-income families (a.k.a. conning them.)
Similar thing is going on with the college loans.
Of course, the Dems will still call you racist.
Immigration. The left has been framing that as a race issue when it isn't. Are Conservatives, in frustration, playing into the left's hands without realizing it?
Its worth bearing in mind that the results of Andrew's impromptu survey would impact the voting patterns of a lot of groups besides women.
I think the gifts notion is bizarre and I've consistently said so. People vote on a wide range of issues besides economics (Asians and Jews are two of the most successful groups in the country by any measure, but they vote disproportionately Democratic). You can't just look at someone's wealth and tell how they vote (lots of the 1% vote Democratic and lots of the 47% vote Republican).
Right now in terms of attitude, many Republicans are in the same place many Democrats were in 2004, attacking the electorate ('Ignorant savages who failed to recognize our opponent's awfulness and our awesomeness!'), the other guy's unfairness ('He swiftboated us, curse his effective attacks!') and the candidate ('Clearly he was the wrong guy').
Of course, the Republicans didn't take the pounding in 2012 that the Democrats took in 2004 (in part due to the quality of many Republican governors, in part due to the wonders of redistricting) so they may be more tempted to just keep doing what they are doing and hope the electorate recognizes their inherent awesomeness. We'll see.
Actually, you could make that argument I just made:
Portray the housing crisis as a con, a scam, by the government and bankers against low-income families.
And the Obama Administration is now doing the same thing to college students.
You (1) distance yourself from big business, specifically cronyism, (2) cast Democrat administration and policies as the villain*, (3) gain some traction in low income families and possibly those single-women as casting yourself as someone who will protect them from the political games of big gov cronyism, and (4) it ties into larger arguments against cronyism and for free markets (deflating market prices = bad things).
*Mention both that Bush tried to raise the alarm and DEMOCRAT Barney Frank's response to the alarm: "Nothing to see here! Move along!"
Individualist said:
What I need to argue is that the immigration issue is a financial problem. There is no control whatsoever and the government hands out social services, welfare, etc. without any consideration. This is promoting more people in thrid world countries to sneak in here and they are no longer encouraged to work for the American Dream as in days past.
-------
Bear in mind that illegal immigration has fallen off a cliff since American's recession began. So based on the evidence it is the hope of work that drives people to the US, not the hope of welfare.
Also, illegals aren't eligible for most benefits (legal permanent residents aren't eligible for a lot of benefits).
AndrewPrice said...
Indi, The issue gets demagogued by the left and if anything the Republicans get caught into a trap.
This is simply wrong. Conservatives dive right in and happily make all these issues about race.
------
I'd say elected politicians on the Republican side are much less guilty of it than elected politicians on the Democratic side. Below that level (pundits, ordinary citizens) both tend to be happy to play the race card (often in an attempt to put the other side on defense).
If I was developing a platform I would build it around a theme of freedom and tie every issue to it.
Gun Control: The Freedom for every citizen to protect himself or herself from those who wish harm.
Abortion & Gay Marriage: The Freedom of the states to decide for themselves the issues of marriage and abortion and freedom from the federal government's interference in those matters for whatever end.
Smaller Government
-Freedom from burdensome regulations that even the authors themselves can't keep track of.
-Freedom from back-breaking taxes that cripple the growth and prosperity of the American people.
-Freedom from a massive debt that will be levied on our children and grandchildren for years to come.
Welfare State: Freedom from a massive welfare state that incentivizes remaining in a status of near-poverty.
Foreign Policy: Protect the Freedom of ourselves and our allies around the globe from the threats they face.
And so on. . .
Frame Every. Single. Issue. On the Principle of Freedom.
Conservatism has become about stopping the Democrats from changing anything, not offering people our own vision. That's why we're in trouble.
You're spot on. The conservative movement has to explain nuts and bolts and "our" politicians don't want to delve too far into it because it feeds the liberal media more material to attack on. Part of the problem is who controls the argument - sound bites from the right that are taken out of context or the soaring rhetoric from the left.
Great. Once more, thank you Todd Akin for opening your mouth.
Also, and this doesn't help, but hearing about this just makes me hate the public even more.
I don't know what to add to this conversation. And I can't really argue with anything that you've written. I have been screaming and screaming that social conservatives who harp on abortion and gay marriage as signs of the "End Times" are hurting ALL of us and they are just plain wrong. I agree that we must win the women's vote, if we are to succeed.
As for Conservatives - Listen up! The debate on abortion rights is over and abortion is here to stay. Get over it!
Gay marriage is here and isn't going away and it will be the law of the land shortly. And why not? Massachusetts has allowed same sex couples to marry for years and there hasn't been a run on the courthouse. New York approved gay marriage in 2011 and we're still here. And, there is no reason why gay couples shouldn't have to suffer like the rest of the country legally and with full rights. We cannot get around the Constitution on this one. Next comes the polygamists, btw, and why not? If two or more women can share one man/kitchen and NOT kill each other in process, all power to them!
We need to drop both of these issues from the Conservative agenda and the next old white man who says anything about rape being amything other than a heinous crime should be put in the darkest hole in the most remote island that we can find. Period!
We're screwed. If dealing with that unserious group of women is our challenge then all is lost. "High information"? Try "low discernment".
Indi, Kit, et al: Here's the thing about race. For one thing, most conservatives are not racist, but some are. I have worked in politics some in the past, and while I didn't know any genuinely racist people active in the GOP or grassroots orgs, I did hear some people throwing racial slang around from time to time. I tend to think that was a function of their cowboy personalities more than anything, but if some Joe walked in and heard it, would he have cause to think them racist? Sure. And however widespread this sort of thing is or isn't, I think a lot of people believe it is; therefore, they believe issues such as illegal immigration are racial, especially since most illegal immigrants are Latinos.
And the problem is, the people making these issues racial might be "extremist nutjobs"--I would tend to agree--but they're extremist nutjobs with a really big megaphone and lots of political influence. I mean, taking the "Haters Gonna Hate" approach might be comforting, but how does it help us, really? They've still got the megaphone.
Unfortunately, I don't see much of a way around this, at least not in the near future. Right now, the GOP is without a rudder, and given that voters just proved they have the collective IQ of a housefly, I'm not sure it would matter much if it did. But crushing out any instances of racism wouldn't hurt.
"As for Conservatives - Listen up! The debate on abortion rights is over and abortion is here to stay. Get over it!"
Do you know how that sounds to pro-lifers. You are basically saying "Murder is here to stay! Get over it!"
Imagine if you were an abolitionist in the UK in 1800s or the US in the 1840s and someone told you "Listen up! The debate on slavery is over and slavery is here to stay. Get over it!"
Because that is essentially what you sound like. You are telling them to "get over" what is to many a very important issue.
The issue will NOT go away. It will remain as long as Roe v. Wade and the issue of abortion is federalized. Roe V. Wade is the worst legal decision in the 20th Century, it took what was a local issue (and not a really big one, at that) and made it one of the most polarizing issues in the country.
You want it to go away? Overturn Roe v. Wade, overturn Casey. Send the issue back to the states. Things calm down quicker there.
That is the emotion behind the issue on the right. Though I agree ago
about what should happen to Todd Akin.
I don't think the right will be so up in arms about Gay Marriage if IT REMAINS IN THE POWER OF THE STATES. Send it to the federal government and its abortion all over again.
And you do realize that just about every society that has polygamy tends to be autocratic -at best. Look at the Fundamentalist Mormons as well as Islamic countries. It makes women no more than property.
Want proof? Look at the Muslim ghettos in Europe, Look at the Muslim world.
Polygamy is bad for democracy.
Bev,
Now for a tamer comment.
If I were running for President this would be my platform on gay marriage and abortion: Kick it back to the states.
Soundbite: "Gay Marriage is an issue for state legislatures and ballots not judicial fiats or federal amendments."
Same on abortion. "I will, within the law, work to move the rights back to the state to manage their abortion laws as they see fit."
And, on Todd Akin, "He is an idiot."
John Yoo & Rob Long debate the issue
http://www.nationalreview.com/media/uncommonknowledge
Nice BEV. I read more charitable comments on liberal websites.
a lot of women have said a lot of stupid things and what does his age or race have to do with anything? That comment was an 0-fer.
T-Rav, Two points...
1. This isn't Todd Akin. Yes, Akin was like a cherry on top, but the problem is much broader, runs much deeper, and has been building for much longer than that.
2. As for hating the public, don't hate the public. They are right this time. Ask yourself what we honestly offer? Seriously, I ask you write to me what the Republican platform is? Abortion, gays... which they disagree with you with, got that. Stopping a 3% tax hike on the rich, yep, got that too. Then what?
Try answering that and I think you'll see what the problem is and what these women have taught us. They've shown us that we are not offering conservatism, we're offering nothing.
LL, I'm not saying the MSM isn't a problem, but let me point out that Reagan faced the same set of jackals and he had no Fox News to help him. He had no talk radio. He had no internet. The MSM controlled every single media outlet and they were brutal and vicious. The Democrats were just as vile. Borking was invented in his era. YET, Reagan had no problem winning over massive amounts of the public.
The reason was they couldn't spin him because what he offered made sense to people. It was hopefully, it was obvious how it would work, it was obvious how it would make everyone's lives better, and it was simply undeniable. So no matter how much hate they tried to hit him with, people just loved him more and more.
Our problem today is that the few things we advocate are easy to spin into the meme that our side has created.
I firmly believe that citing the MSM as a hurdle is just an excuse being used by conservatives who simply don't want to examine their own failures.
I do see a light in Bobby Jindal.
LINK
Kit,
I have hope in the sense that this would be EASY to fix and conservatism could easily reclaim the country. But I have no hope because the conservative response continues to be putting their fingers in their ears and mocking these women. Conservatism is doomed as long as conservatives refuse to examine their own words and deeds fairly.
As for having quibbles, there is nothing to quibble with. This is what these women said. You may not like it, but it's true. And you may not agree with them, but whether you agree or not isn't really relevant if you want to win them back. You need to understand them and find a way to win them back, just disagreeing with them just leaves the problem in place.
In terms of punting to the states, that doesn't help. When a state legislature does something stupid, it gets attributed to the party nationally -- the same way conservatives assume California Democrats represent all Democrats. So when a state like Arizona passes a birther law, that reflects poorly on all of us -- especially when conservatives then take to the airways to laugh about it and suggest other states follow suit.
Kit, Bobby Jindal gives me hope. But one man is unlikely to be able to make a difference with the waves of stupidity coming out of our side at the moment.
Actually, it would help. A bit. It would move things to an area where they can be much easier managed. All the national Republican Party would have to do is pledge non-interference. "We oppose gay marriage personally but we feel it is best left to the states to decide and we will not interfere with that decision."
Yes, the birther law was stupid. Though I do support it nationally simply because I don't want to be dealing with this cr@p again.
My main quibble is I don't think we need to chunk abortion. We need to alter our tone.
And here is the hope: A leader sets the tone of the party. Even during the last election we were leaderless. If we get a leader in the coming years then we may gain a victory.
Anthony, What these women have shown me is a serious problem with our side. We really offer nothing but anger. If we fixed that... by offering a worthwhile platform... by dropping the anger and sucking the venom out of our rhetoric... we would make inroads with all groups. And I'm baffled by the people who have decided that mocking these voters is a solution. Are conservatives really just assholes or did they just get rock stupid over the past decade?
The fact is we lost every single group except very old, married whites. We lost women, blacks, Hispanics, young whites, middle aged-white, singles, working men, working women, college kids, professionals, Jews, the non-religious, Muslims, Asians, rich, poor, lower middle class... and we lost each of these groups by unbelievable margins. To pretend that there must be something wrong with all of them is patently ridiculous.
Reagan won most of those groups and only lost the rest by half the margins. And he did it by offering actual conservative solutions and doing so without needing to hate anyone. So I ask people, WHAT DO WE OFFER TODAY? I dare people to answer that. Seriously, stop mocking the people who pointed out you have no clothes and showing me the clothing.
The GOP is currently in a bit of a funk. The election and the fiscal cliff fiasco and the loss of Andrew Breitbart has left us rather leaderless.
I also disagree that it is solely the fault of the right. There are other problems. Incompetent leadership at the top is another.
Without good leadership to set the tone it is disorganized.
Bev, I think Republicans need to embrace gay marriage, I'll write about that soon. It's an issue that is killing us for no gain whatsoever.
But beyond that, the Republicans need to drop the loony part of the social issues. They need to realize that the public doesn't obsess over these things like they do, the public doesn't want constitutional amendments and total bans. They public doesn't want to hear old white guy weeping on stage and spouting out pseudo-religio-science about rape. They basically don't want to talk about the issue.
But this is just the tip of the iceberg. We are doing everything wrong right now, right down to our refusal to believe that we could possibly be doing something wrong.
Floyd, On race and age, let me defend Bev's point.
Do you recall Tina Fey calling the Republican party "gray faced old men"? I heard very similar things coming from these women long before Fey spoke. When I forced them to discuss abortion, an issue few wanted to discuss, they inevitably noted that the issue was raised by "old white guys... who sound like angry preachers." If you want to convince women that abortion isn't an "old white guy issue" then you need to start finding spokesmen who are women and minorities, and you need to change the tone.
"If you want to convince women that abortion isn't an "old white guy issue" then you need to start finding spokesmen who are women and minorities, and you need to change the tone."
There is a rebuttal to that: They get demonized and fetishized by the "Party of Women" (See, Sarah Palin). How do we combat that?
Ok, several people have asked about racism. Here's the thing. Do I think conservatives are racists? Some, sure. Just like there are racist liberals. Do I think the GOP is racist? Hardly.
BUT....
...when I asked these women why they viewed the party as racist, they made the point that on every single issue, conservatives found a race angle. So let me give you some examples. Here are things you routinely hear from conservatives:
● Conservatives routinely equate welfare with being black, even though the vast majority of people on welfare are white.
● Conservatives routinely equate minorities with criminals, even though whites dominate prison.
● Conservatives routinely equate drugs with crack, and crack with blacks, even though the big drug epidemic is meth, which is a white problem.
● Conservatives equate illegal with Hispanic and Hispanic with Mexican. An illegal Brit or Canadian doesn't bother conservatives, an illegal Mexican is a national outrage.
● Supposedly states’ right conservatives were outraged Rick Perry said Texas allows the children of illegals into college.
● Conservatives put up websites, endorse songs, and put out t-shirts sneering about speak English or get out.
● Conservatives defend racial profiling.
● Conservatives equated blacks and Hispanics with voter fraud. They also obsessed for months and in hundreds of articles about a single incident involving the Black Panthers.
● Conservatives chose to sneer at minorities as causing the housing bubble when the problem was caused by a huge margin by low income whites.
● Conservatives equate all Muslims with Arabs and all Arabs with terrorists.
● Conservative publications whine about the destruction of “our” culture by minorities. They launch periodic attacks on black culture: “I hate rap.” And they speak of “ghetto culture.”
● The GOP and GOP leaning groups simply don’t promote minorities and when they do, they treat them like bait.
● They complain about “foreigner” in our schools and foreign doctors, but the complaints don’t arise when the foreigners are European.
● Even now, conservatives whine that blacks and minorities can’t be reached because they were “bought” by Obama.
The sheer volume of these things is the problem, along with the tone. Standing alone, no one issue is a problem, but when you combine them, you start to see a pattern. And if I'm a minority, the pattern I see is that conservatives don't see me as American and see me as a scapegoat for society's problems.
Indeed, conservatives seem to bend over backwards to find a racial angle – like the housing bubble, which suggests a per-occupation with race, and conservatives obsess over tiny issues like the Black Panther thing which really are nothing more than 1-2 idiots, but which conservatives spin into nationwide race conspiracies.
This is the problem.
Kit, As I said, the GOP and conservatives are a distinction without a difference. These women saw them as the same thing. And in truth, they basically are. I know it's popular on the right to think that the GOP is dominated by RINOs, but that hasn't been true since the age of Reagan.
As for the abortion/women thing, that's not a valid rebuttal. That rebuttal translates to: "we need more women, but the left will only attack them, so we shouldn't bother." Huh? That's nonsense. If anything, that's a reason why you need more of them... lots of them.
Kit, As for the GOP being in a funk because of the loss of Brietbart, we are indeed in a funk, but it's a funk that began in the 1990s and has just gotten worse year by year. NO ONE on our side is proposing any ideas. Seriously, what was the last idea anyone on the right offered?
This is not something that just happened this election. It began in the 1990s and has been getting worse each year.
Bev, I think Republicans need to embrace gay marriage, I'll write about that soon. It's an issue that is killing us for no gain whatsoever.
Andrew - I think they are in some quarters. The Log Cabin Republicans certainly are, but are being ripped by the left (of course) for not speaking out. Ugh.
As for all of those who think that all of these rights should be "sent back to the states"...abortion is legal by federal law and gave the states the right to decide already. So, the states have decided to already allow abortions. All 50 of them and there is nothing you can do that will change that. The best that you can hope for is that the courts will decide that religious institutions will not be compelled to provide/pay for them or contraception on the Constitutional grounds. But it is never going away. Don't get me wrong, I believe it is the right of anyone to fight for the rights of the unborn, but to expect a full repeal of Roe v. Wade and that abortion will somehow become illegai again is just never going to happen.
Same Sex deniers have no Constitutional leg to stand on. It is no different than not allowing mixed race couples to marry. It looks like we are the racists/homophobes that we are portrayed to be. If you want to argue the issue, then argue that religious institutions and individuals who provide "wedding" services should not be compelled to marry or participate in same-sex weddings because it goes against their religious doctrine/personal beliefs. But we cannot deny the right of two people to engage in a legal contract based on their sexual orientation and call ourselves a free and open society!
So what you are saying is not that they are racist but that they come across as racist. And with a media slanted against them, this is just asking for trouble? (I have some responses to a few of the statements coming up).
"Don't get me wrong, I believe it is the right of anyone to fight for the rights of the unborn, but to expect a full repeal of Roe v. Wade and that abortion will somehow become illegai again is just never going to happen."
Remember we are talking about TONE right now. And if we want to actually keep the party intact, then that above section is a far better tone than "Get over it!".
I am staunchly against abortion and if it came up for a vote in my state my vote would go in the against.
Now, I think Christian Conservatives should work towards creating a climate that is friendly to the idea of an amendment ending abortion. But until then, be practical.
It took William Wilberforce HIS ENTIRE LIFE to end slavery. 26 years to get the slave trade abolished and then another 26 to get slavery abolished throughout the Empire. And he died a few days before that bill was passed (though when he died he knew they had enough votes).
That is 52 years out of a life of 74.
And its been only, what? 40 years of Roe v. Wade.
Bev, I have given the gay marriage debate a lot of thought and I can see no valid basis to oppose it quite honestly, and opposing it is doing a LOT of harm to our side. Conservatives need to get over of this issue before it destroy us. Seriously, is this really so important that it's worth destroying conservatism over? If you want to be a martyr, go set yourself on fire, don't set my ideology on fire.
On the send-it-to-the-states thing, you've put your finger on the problem. There is a great deal of dishonesty in the rhetoric coming from the Religious Right, and these women picked up on that. There is a lot of talk about "just let the states decide," but then they propose pledges and platforms that would ban their pet peeves in all states because they don't really want the states to have the power to decide, that's just cover for getting what they want. Bachmann got caught in that one when she talked about her constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage being about "states' rights."
It's the same way they start to mix abortion and contraception so you don't know which they are talking about and when they get backed into a corner, like Ricky S got backed into a corner, they will admit they want to ban contraception, not just abortion. The drug people do the same thing -- they talk about pot, but they mean pot plus meth and everything else.
If you can't even state your beliefs in a straight up manner, then why should anyone trust anything you say?
Kit, What I'm saying is that I believe that only very few conservatives are racists, BUT as a group, conservatives go back to the race issue so often and so obsessively that it would be irrational for outsiders not to see them as racists.
Also, I don't blame the MSM on this. Yes, the MSM gleefully pushes the idea, but conservatives are giving them the ammo. Look at the birther thing for example. Whenever some whacko did anything on the birther front, conservative pundits would applaud them and rank and file conservatives would go to blogs (and presumably their friends) and would comment how great this was. Then an entire state of conservatives, Arizona, passed a law based on birtherism and they made no bones about it that they were gonna git that Obama who ain't even no American... and again, conservatives ran with it. They introduced similar initiatives in other states, talk radio bragged about this, pundits wrote about it as "well, they may be a little nuts, but it's a good idea." Who needs the MSM when we're out there embracing this stuff?
Look at the outrage when a single Muslim judge was appointed in Detroit. Look what that caused. Talk radio went insane. Oklahoma (which probably has a Muslim population of ZERO) introduced AND PASSED an initiative to ban sharia law.
These insanities get noticed.
Bachmann, not the intellectual brains of the GOP.
I don't remember that moment. I only remember her for two things. One good, one bad.
The good: Sending Ron Paul sputtering nonsensically over Iraq and making him coming across as even more wacko on foreign policy. All with a hilarious look on her face that would have brought applause from the Straight Men of Old Vaudeville.
The Bad: Gardisil. Gardisil. Gardisil. Gardisil. Gardisil. And the Gardisil-causes-retardation incident. While she was not high on my list of candidates, she dropped from it right there. (Vaccinations are a bit of a pet-cause of mine).
I've got a response to that list above about race. It's a long 'un!
● Conservatives routinely equate welfare with being black, even though the vast majority of people on welfare are white.
-I'll grant you that one, but that is more of statistics because statistically more blacks are on welfare. Though I think we should be targeting the system not the people as they are simply following their incentives and self-interest, its just the system incentivizes a lot of bad things.
● Conservatives routinely equate minorities with criminals, even though whites dominate prison.
-Ditto on above point about statistics. In fact, I would turn you to the writings of the wonderful Heather MacDonald who has written powerfully about the evils of crime and race hustlers who allow it to fester to gain power by attacking cops.
● Conservatives routinely equate drugs with crack, and crack with blacks, even though the big drug epidemic is meth, which is a white problem.
-Again, ditto.
● Conservatives equate illegal with Hispanic and Hispanic with Mexican. An illegal Brit or Canadian doesn't bother conservatives, an illegal Mexican is a national outrage.
-Good point here. Though I think they may have more to do with
● Supposedly states’ right conservatives were outraged Rick Perry said Texas allows the children of illegals into college.
-Even the guys at threedonia, who are thrashing you out right now, agree with you here. ;)
● Conservatives put up websites, endorse songs, and put out t-shirts sneering about speak English or get out.
-A national language is important for preserving national unity. Despite how cool it would be to speak a hybrid language like they do in Firefly. :)
● Conservatives defend racial profiling.
-Some. Not all. But unfortunately it has been used to attack those who do not support it like Heather MacDonald. In fact it really doesn't exist. This is more of conservatives not doing the research on what they are talking about. (Yes, we are capable of it too).
● Conservatives equated blacks and Hispanics with voter fraud. They also obsessed for months and in hundreds of articles about a single incident involving the Black Panthers.
-Agree on this about voter fraud -a bit. We should be focusing on it but how it AFFECTS blacks and hispanics. They can be VICTIMS of it too. Instead of making it about "my vote" only they should be saying that not having a voter ID law opens minorities to being victims of it as well as how racist the Dem opposition is (In a nutshell: "But Miss Scarlet, I don't know nothin' bout getting' no ID!").
● Conservatives chose to sneer at minorities as causing the housing bubble when the problem was caused by a huge margin by low income whites.
-Not well versed on this enough to respond to that adequately but I know it was also caused by the government deciding to subsidize these bad loans in the name of "helping low-income families" (I'm guessing "low income families were among the hardest hit).
● Conservatives equate all Muslims with Arabs and all Arabs with terrorists.
-I think there are multiple causes behind this.
● Conservative publications whine about the destruction of “our” culture by minorities. They launch periodic attacks on black culture: “I hate rap.” And they speak of “ghetto culture.”
● The GOP and GOP leaning groups simply don’t promote minorities and when they do, they treat them like bait.
● They complain about “foreigner” in our schools and foreign doctors, but the complaints don’t arise when the foreigners are European.
● Even now, conservatives whine that blacks and minorities can’t be reached because they were “bought” by Obama.
Great discussion as always, guys.
Thanks for the additional info, Andrew. I also know a good number of people, despite of what they say, are actually Conservative. But with me living in CA, I also know a lot of people who are just kooks, most of which are not bad people, but kooks nonetheless... I guess it depends on where you live. I never lived outside of CA. Maybe that's why the concept of "rational" democrats are almost foreign to me...
I do agree with me on winning those "rational" democrats. On the subject of Asians voting overwhelmingly for Dems is the most baffling thing ever. Being half-Asian, I know they are indeed MORE conservative than whites! So yeah, there is a problem with Conservatism, if we can't win over a very conservative group.
Sorry Bev, I won't change my views on abortion and gay marriage! :p
If that's going to be a requirement in the "new GOP". Then count this unmarried, inter-racial millennial out! Cartman said it best! "Screw you guys, I'm going home!".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTc3zcnIZOw
I'm with Kit. It's best to settle these issues at the state level and be done with it. BOTH SIDES ARE OBSESSED with social issues.
Snape, I know a good number of Koreans and they are all very conservative. But they've also made it clear to me that they don't feel very welcome in the GOP anymore. They did in the 1990s when I first met them, but they don't today.
As for there being rational Democrats, I know that's hard to believe, but there are. Southern Democrats are actually quite rational and typically rather conservative... which is why they've been leaving the national party.
Andrew, I found the same thing when I talked to intelligent women I knew (predominately single women) who did not self-identify as conservative. Several specifically relayed to me that they were concerned with the abortion issue not for themselves, per say, but as a fundamental right to choice. Same thing with gay marriage.
These were women who understood how disastrous Obama's economic policies are, and who were at least peripherally aware that his foreign policy is confused at best, nightmarish at worst.
Yet they couldn't vote for Republican candidates because they were already identified as racist, sexist, fundamentalist, and solely for the wealthy. It didn't matter how much I pointed out that the Democrats were as guilty or more so of each of the above; these voters knew what they knew because of a media that perpetuated the stereotype and candidates who did everything they could to perpetuate it.
Other than citing examples of Democrats who had done far worse than Republicans on those items, though, I couldn't actively point to a Republican plan on any social issue as a counter. Sure, I argued that practically, Republicans can't repeal Roe v. Wade at the federal level because there isn't enough bipartisan support to do so, or that gay marriage is so ingrained as a right in media, entertainment, and education that it's probably inevitable, or that the immigration issue is not race based, etc., but it didn't matter. I even argued that without economic reform, our national security will be at such risk that all of our freedoms will be at risk, including abortion and gay marriage.
But in truth, there were no clear rebuttals of the Republican stereotype except for me to argue that wealth distribution can and will happen by Democrat fiat, whereas conservative social reform will be resisted to the point where it cannot happen.
That's not much of a rebuttal. In fact, it stinks, because all conservative commentary is focused on explaining conservative policy without properly addressing policy motivation, and then hand waving away the clunky messaging of the professionally-incensed right (ie. talk radio and Republican candidates).
Democrats have long embraced the methodology of explaining their policy motivations (which are usually complete lies meant to mask their true intentions) and then implement whatever legislation or executive decree that they desire. At that point, the public no longer cares what was passed nor even the consequence, because they understood the stated (bullshit) policy motivation.
And I clicked the "Post" button too quickly.
Well, picking up where I left off. . .
● Conservatives equate all Muslims with Arabs and all Arabs with terrorists.
-I think part of this is a reaction to the PC nuttiness around it which made certain discussions about the nature of Islamic terrorism and where it comes from out of the realm of discussion. Which drives it underground and more extreme. Which, is more or less what Greg Lukianoff describes in his book UNLEARNING LIBERTY and Bill Whittle describes in this video for Lukianoff called "Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate".
● Conservative publications whine about the destruction of “our” culture by minorities. They launch periodic attacks on black culture: “I hate rap.” And they speak of “ghetto culture.”
● The GOP and GOP leaning groups simply don’t promote minorities and when they do, they treat them like bait.
-Not sure if "bait" is the right word. "Treat them with more awkwardness than a father has when talking to his teenage son about sex" maybe or "talk to them in a condescending manner that is both offensive and counter-productive."
● They complain about “foreigner” in our schools and foreign doctors, but the complaints don’t arise when the foreigners are European.
-Never heard that complaint.
● Even now, conservatives whine that blacks and minorities can’t be reached because they were “bought” by Obama.
-You are probably right on that. Though personally I prefer the word "conned" over "bought".
Kit, Don't get me started on the vaccine idiocy.
On the race stuff, the point really is that none of those issues should be focused on race. For example, welfare is a problem no matter what the race of the recipient is, so why turn it into a race issue at all? Ditto on the rest.
And again, I'm not saying every conservative does this, but enough do it and enough endorse it and run with it that it becomes very easy to see a strong suggestion or an obsession with racial scapegoating.
"As for there being rational Democrats, I know that's hard to believe, but there are."
Its true. They exist. I think I saw a special about them on the Discover Channel once. ;)
"On the race stuff, the point really is that none of those issues should be focused on race. For example, welfare is a problem no matter what the race of the recipient is, so why turn it into a race issue at all? Ditto on the rest."
But what to do when liberal Democrats turn around and make it about race.
Look at what they do w/ stop-and-frisk and other anti-crime measures. They've made it ENTIRELY about race when its not at all. It effects more poor black neighborhoods more than rich white neighborhoods. Ergo, it is racist. And of course, this causes police to pull back from these neighborhoods and crime to return.
Of course, some on the right has NOT helped on this matter by trying to defend the measures by saying Racial Profiling is a good thing. Which, in turn, makes it that much harder to argue for its benefits.
I firmly believe that citing the MSM as a hurdle is just an excuse being used by conservatives who simply don't want to examine their own failures.
The Republican Party has lost its way. That's true. The Democrats don't seem to have much more going for them than the Republicans do - but they package it better. Both Obama and Biden are simply a part of the same corrupt and broken political structure that Boehner speaks for.
Until somebody can rise up and explain things and "re-boot" Reagan, things will continue to slide and the deficit will pass 20 trillion -- and sic transit gloria mundi.
wahsatchmo, You make two very excellent points. First, on motive, you are absolutely right. Democratic rhetoric is structured like this: "I want to make your life better... details to follow." Republican rhetoric is "here are the details... everything else is self-explanatory." That's a loser. That's horrible salesmanship.
The other point is exactly what I encountered. When I tried to rebut what these women believed, there was simply nothing I could point to. Take the issue of student loans. There is no Republican plan. There was a lot of grousing about not everyone going to college. There was a lot of grousing about Obama screwing banks by taking them out of the mix. There was a lot of anger about voting more money for student loans. But there was nothing I could point to show these women that anyone on the right had a plan to help them or their kids or their kids' kids.
That was true on issue after issue and that's when I realized how little we actually offer.
Kit, On being bought, how often have you heard conservatives cite the Obama phone? That's one example among many of people saying that minorities were bought. Look at the people who keep saying these "low information" voters just want things from the government. Translation: minorities and women (i.e. Obama voters) are stupid, lazy people who want to live on the government. The 47% comment. The "they vote for a living" comment. Etc.
On the bait thing, I meant it in the sense that conservatives hang these people out there and basically say, "look, we got one of you... you can vote for us now." There is a real awkwardness between conservatives and conservative minorities.
LL, I agree. Conservatives need to rediscover conservatism and they need to learn how to sell it. Unfortunately, no one is doing that right now. Everyone is just content to take shots at everything and hope it all works out. There are zero conservative ideas being discussed today.
Kit, The thing is, our side needs to stop raising the race issue. The Democrats don't get traction when they are the only ones screaming. They only get traction when Republicans feed their propaganda machine.
Sorry, but I just don't buy it that these are closet-conservatives and we just need a brilliant leader to bring them into the light. I agree that many on the conservative side have done a poor job explaining positions. More likely though is that these women really didn't see much difference between the two and went with the one they knew. If you look at the overall picture of all the races, the incumbents won by a landslide. People were afraid of change.
I hate to say this, but many women are pretty stupid when it comes to birth control. I have seen democrats use this twice in the last two elections. Using ads spouting that the republican candidate will take away some forms of birth control if you vote for them! Neither situation did the candidate or anyone associated with them made any previous comment to indicate they would do this. But in both cases it worked. They did it against Ken Buck and I warned everyone here that the Dems found a winner and would use it for Obama. They did and it worked.
And Gay Marriage? Obama was totally against it until his polling showed it was a loser. Now he is for it? Only a dem is allowed to change his position without screams of hypocrisy coming from multiple sides.
"The other point is exactly what I encountered. When I tried to rebut what these women believed, there was simply nothing I could point to. Take the issue of student loans. There is no Republican plan. There was a lot of grousing about not everyone going to college. There was a lot of grousing about Obama screwing banks by taking them out of the mix. There was a lot of anger about voting more money for student loans. But there was nothing I could point to show these women that anyone on the right had a plan to help them or their kids or their kids' kids."
If I was head of the RNC or on the House Committee on Education I would demand my staff looking to smart, CONSERVATIVE proposals for college education.
Andrew,
I meant I, KIT, would say "conned", not bought.
Other conservatives are definitely saying bought. I'm saying conned.
Koshcat, You're wrong about these women. I've gotten to know these women and you are completely wrong about them.
Also, I think you've misunderstood my points. "Opposition to gay marriage" wasn't the problem, it was the hate attached to the anti-gay opinion as well as so many other opinions. Abortion wasn't the issues, economics was the issue.
And let me challenge you as well... if you think we offer these women something worth voting for, then tell me what it is.
Kit, I popped over to Threedonia. LOL! That's all I have to say about that.
Well, its gotten better since JimmyC and Eric came in. Floyd was a bit respectful in disagreement "we all make mistakes", he said.
"Abortion wasn't the issues, economics was the issue."
Explain.
Kit, I'm not worried about the disrespect. People in the midst of a tantrum rarely act with respect. And since the most vocal critics over there are actually the people I would point to as classic example of where conservatism has gone wrong, I think the response confirms the problem. Yee haw.
On abortion v. economic, these women honestly didn't care about abortion. They knew the law would never be changed and they weren't worried about it. They saw the whole thing as a non-issue. They didn't like the obsessiveness of the GOP, but that wasn't what drove their vote. What drove their vote was the utter lack of a plan on our side, combined with the general sense that the GOP is an angry party that hates everyone.
Conservatives are projecting their own paranoia and hatreds on these women, and what people need to realize is that these women (and probably the rest of America) are not the vile creatures conservatives wish they were.
Koshcat, Men are stupider.
Keep up the good work, Andrew. I don't like hearing this, but it's made me think and the more I look around me, the less I like what I'm seeing. And I think conservatives would be wise to put their emotions aside and use their brains and think about the "why" of what you've discovered.
Thanks Doc. It's very hard to hear that you've been wrong... people don't like that. But if conservatives want to win, then they better think about it.
So, Andrew,
So, if we had a clear plan, one that we could tie to the issues well (college tuition), then we might have squeaked in a victory?
Kit, There are two things we need to do. We need to drop the anger and we need to start offering a plan. I don't honestly know if we can get away with just one of those or if we need to do both. My guess is that we need to do both.
My guess is also that we will do neither.
-- "I've heard some say it was a mistake to give women the vote. That's where our problems really started."
I'm starting to think Commander Max has a point... I keed! XD
-- "As for there being rational Democrats, I know that's hard to believe, but there are. Southern Democrats are actually quite rational and typically rather conservative... which is why they've been leaving the national party."
Speaking of the rational South, is WV excluded? After seeing just a couple minutes of MTV's Buckwild, my mistrust of West Virginia has grown immensely, to put it lightly...
-- "Koshcat, Men are stupider."
ellenB, both sexes are equally stupid. I heard hermaphrodites are definitely smarter! lol
Snape, I make no effort to hide my UTTER CONTEMPT for all things West Virginia. Buckwild is just scratching the surface of what goes on in that inbred, meth-addicted, welfare-living-off-of state.
If I may sort of quote Aliens, "seal the borders and nuke the place from orbit... its the only way to be sure."
Here's an exercise to try for all my fellow radio listeners: Pay attention for the host to say something disparaging of a demographic you belong to. When he does, very deliberately do not say to yourself, "...but I know what he means." If you don't think it ever happens, you're deceiving yourself. I'm a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant male from a nuclear working-class family with a college education and a white-collar, median-salary job--in short, a "traditional" American--and I get zinged all the time.
Here is a partial list of the things I've been zinged over by some of my "favorite" radio hosts:
● I've been divorced
● I'm a single parent
● I have an adopted sibling
● I have a special-needs child
● Specifically, I have a child with autism
● I have family members who (gasp!) work for the government
● I have student loan debt
● I have debt, period!
● I rent
● I've been forclosed on
● I've declared bankruptcy
● I don't own a gun
● I don't own a gas-guzzler
● I recycle
● I work in marketing
● I lived with my parents past the age of 18
That's just demographic stuff that hits me directly; no differences of opinion. If I start to include my friends and family, I get hit even more. And there probably should be a seperate list for all the differences of opinion that are not based on anything other than the hosts' personal predelictions.
Conversely, liberals have only really hit me on two fronts, though they are major ones: that I am white and that I am male. The difference, though, is that the liberals offer many paths to absolution for white males, all of which conveniently involve voting for and supporting Democrats and their liberal causes. Conservatives offer no paths to absolution for the myriad things they denounce.
"Kit, There are two things we need to do. We need to drop the anger and we need to start offering a plan. I don't honestly know if we can get away with just one of those or if we need to do both. My guess is that we need to do both."
Right now we are leaderless. You mention the decline began in the late-90s. That would be about when Gingrich's leadership started to collapse, I believe.
I think without a strong leader to set the tone and guide the party and movement your going to have craziness.
tryanmax, You make an excellent point. Let me put this in my own words...
What conservatives are doing right now is running around mocking people. Any issue that arises, they look to blame someone or attack some aspect of it and they carelessly lump millions of people into the "bad" category because it makes them feel smug to do so. Essentially, they are doing exactly what they always accused liberals of doing.
IF conservatism were about ideas instead of just laying blame, they would be talking about ways to make lives better rather than just reacting to issues by being self-righteous.
Kit, I think a strong leader helps guide the party, but looking to a leader is a mistake. Conservatism should be about ideas. It should be about policies and philosophy. We should have hundreds of thinkers turning out ideas, coming up with policies, and basically giving our ideology a strong intellectual foundation.
We have none of that the moment. The conservative establishment has given up on that and instead focuses on being not-Democrats. All they do is criticize.
I am very serious, start naming conservative ideas... you can't.
And yes, in hindsight, I think it all started falling apart at the moment of the Clinton impeachment. That's when the idea of an agenda seemed to vanish.
tryanmax, I don't pay that much attention to talk radio, so I can't comment accurately. When I do, I only listen to Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Miller and Dave Ramsey. Ramsey usually stays out of politics. 5 of the 16 things in your list applies to me. I never once heard any of them chastise me for having those 5 "faults".
Micheal Savage is a different story... Just listening to his show, makes feel like a Liberal. lol
You know, what I don't understand (and this is particularly aimed at the stupid comments at Threedonia) is where the hostility is coming from:
Why are people so upset by the idea that maybe we shouldn't be insulting people?
Why are people so upset about actually looking to see if we have an agenda?
Why are people so upset about offering solutions?
This emotional anger and refusal to even consider the idea, tells me that conservatives have become derranged. I don't know if these women are right or not, but the resistance to even considering it makes me worry that they are.
Some are. The Republican Governors have been amazingly effective. Heck, if you want to find the real stars of the GOP look to the RGA.
Conservative ideas:. . .
-School choice/Vouchers
-The Paul Ryan Plan
Yeah, they are pretty few
Groups like the Heritage Foundation toss them around but no one in Washington ever tries to put them to the floor. I mean, Christ! Did the 111th Congress actually accomplish anything? I know Harry Reid was blocking every bill he could just to smite the GOP so they could get tarnished with being "the most unproductive congress"*. And why weren't they going to war with Harry Reid, demanding floor votes! What the hell Boehner???
The GOP should have gone on a warpath against Harry Reid and labeled him as "obstructionist". But they didn't.
*Granted, knowing half the stuff Congress shuffles out that is not the worst achievement.
tryanmax, great observation about the Democrats providing absolution for the sin of being white. Conservatism offers no such reward, other than saying that absolution is the realm of the Creator. Great, so what about agnostics and atheists who might otherwise vote conservative?
Fundamentally, what conservatives and Republicans fail to see with regard to women's votes is that a lot of women tend to make decisions based upon their own life experiences, the experiences of those around them, or of those in similar situations, rather than based on statistics or probable outcomes.
Please note that I don't think this is an inappropriate framework to make decisions from; it's just that men and women approach decision-making differently, and it's time for the party of the old white guy to recognize the difference.
For example, though I might argue that abortion can practically never be outlawed in this country, a woman may respond that in her own experience or the experience of someone she knew, she had to undergo a mandatory waiting period and then be treated to a counseling session before the state would allow such a procedure to legally occur. This, in conjunction with the rhetoric from the Republicans, tells her that the intent of conservatives is to do away with her freedom to choose to have an abortion, and that they have a means to do so via onerous regulation.
Though I then may argue that this really isn't the issue; we are simply considering who has to pay for the abortion at the federal level, not the right to choice itself, she's seen the restriction of choice first or second hand, and hears the stated intent of the conservatives.
At that point, my argument sounds like "Don't worry your pretty little head about it." That's probably the most insulting thing I could say to a woman with regard to an issue that she fundamentally perceives as intimately involving her own body and health.
It doesn't matter that the nature of the abortion issue at the federal level is actually economic and involves the freedom of religion. The Republican message comes off as insulting to women because it was never properly framed, and there are too many loud social conservatives who want to re-argue Roe v. Wade.
So I think herein lay the rub: Republican messaging comes off as "Don't worry your pretty/stupid/lazy/entitled/perverted head about it" in regard to nearly every social issue. The Democrats' message is: "We hear you, and we will address it." Even though the Democrats' ultimate tool to do so is to make the state's will absolute, they sound better.
Kit, Vouchers came up in the 1990s, along with welfare reform and enterprise zones. They aren't new. That said, I am glad the Republican Governors are using them though.
As for the Ryan plan, that's just a budget that in hindsight was neither bold nor original nor creative. It simply hacked some numbers off the top based on imagined savings that would come from reforms no one had invented yet.
If you want to see new ideas, wait until I start releasing my agenda. I've taken a whole new look at everything and come up with some really solid ideas.
Also, regarding ideas.
When you have a bunch of conservatives bouncing off ideas I bet about 90% of them are either unworkable or politically impossible. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. As long as you can get to that 10%, its ok.
wahsatchmo, I think that is another key observation. These women aren't stupid and they aren't uninformed. They see the world differently. To them, what matters are the big things in their lives -- jobs, family, security. Those are the driving factors for their votes. By comparison, conservatives are talking about esoteric things -- shifts in the rights between states and the feds, improper regulatory procedures, etc.
This is what the "low information voter" crap misses. The problem isn't low information voters, it's low-empathy voters, ie. conservatives who are unable to understand what matters to other people. We are basically car salesmen trying to sell cars by talking about how great our building looks.
On the abortion issue, let me give you a more glaring example. One of the southern states, can't remember which and I don't care, is about to effectively ban abortion. They've passed a law which requires anyone who provides abortions to have credentials at a hospital... but none of the hospitals apparently will give such credentials. So the effect will be to ban abortion providers in the state. And conservatives are crowing about this.
Given that, it would be more than rational for any woman in the country to believe that (1) abortion can indeed be banned if you can find a clever enough way of doing it and (2) conservatives do indeed want to ban abortion and (3) no restrictions conservatives propose, no matter how worthwhile they sound, can be trusted.
Kit, I would take even 1% if they were a good 1%. Unfortunately, right now that just isn't happening. The best you can do is finding some dusty papers now and then at Heritage. All the rest that everyone talks about is attack attack attack... "not them!"
There are other things going on at the state level. That is where the GOP is most active and successful (ending collective bargaining in freakin' Wisconsin!).
I am seeing some ideas at Heritage that I read (skimmed).
-Move transportation funding to the state
-Allow Health Insurance to compete across state lines.
But you are right, not much. At least put forth by the national GOP.
State GOP is a bit different. But not much bold (unless you count what I sincerely believe was Scott Walker risking assassination).
Also, don't ever take sides against the Big Bird.
Abolishing Social Security is probably easier!
Kit, Those are the perfect example of conservatism being lost in the weeds.
First, the insurance thing is the "something something let big insurers get richer" plan. Why would an average American care about that? It doesn't help people who don't have coverage. It doesn't help people who get their coverage through work. And for the rest, it doesn't really seem very appealing to be handed to a bigger insurance carrier, does it?
Ditto on the "move transportation funding to the states" idea. How does that help a middle class family? There is no possible benefit that they will see from this... it's an internal accounting gimmick.
I agree about Walker, but again, that was a state budget issue, not a question of helping voters.
Andrew, the state was Mississippi.
The transportation thing was something I saw while surfing Heritage. I found it, picked it.
Kit, And I'm not saying that's a bad idea, I'm just saying that this is all inside baseball. To win the public, we need to tell them how we will get them better jobs, better homes, better schools and more personal security. That's the sort of thing conservatives haven't talked about in 20 years.
List some ideas.
How about for students...
1. Top 15% of high school graduates can go free to any state college in the US so long as they maintain a 3.2 or higher.
2. No school that accepts students who receive federal student loans can charge those students more than the average tuition of state schools nationwide for instate students. Room and board, if the student is required by school policy to be on campus, must be provided at cost.
3. Student loans to be paid back over 20 years rather than 10 and the interest rate is the Fed prime rate -- if it's good enough for banks, it's good enough for other people.
How's that for a start?
Severus, not knowing which 5 you are referring to, I can at least tell you that the majority of that list comes from Limbaugh. I've barely listened to Miller, I've never heard a disparaging word from Ramsay, and the only thing on that list coming from Savage regards autism.
I know I don't wear my feelings on my sleeve, b/c I've listened to Limbaugh since I was an emotional teenager. I've only lately realized that I find myself in his crosshairs almost daily b/c I stopped simply dismissing it.
That caused me to pause and consider how I would react if I did wear my feelings on my sleeve, as I've learned a far greater number of people do. I'd have never given Limbaugh--or any of the other talkers, for that matter--the initial time of day.
The talkers all say a great deal about engaging people and winning them over. Well, you're never going to get to square 1 if you keep casually insulting this group and that.
Interesting.
I would add one that might have a side benefit of reducing tuition costs by reducing the university's costs: No public university shall receive any federal funding if its speech codes violate the first amendment and it may face censure/disciplining from the federal government if it is found it violated a student's due process (a bit of a problem on colleges).
How does this reduce costs you might ask?
Well, guess what enforces those silly rules (at student expense)? The massive bureaucracy of administration that enforces these speech codes (sometimes violated the student's right to due process) does so at the student population's expense.
And its growing.
As Oscar Wilde said "The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy."
Its also an important issue regardless of the money thing because campus censorship is becoming an issue. It is discouraging debate
I mean, when a conservative goes through college, knowing that if he says the wrong word he could be expelled or face discipline are you surprised that he is willing to debate in a reasonable and open manner.
For more, click here: LINK
And before you wonder, one of its biggest supporters is Jonathan Rauch, a gay rights activist.
I told you this in an email. But one of the reasons conservatives were not overly sympathetic when the bullying thing first hit was because of what I listed above.
Some who would've been sympathetic, were a bit more worried that college campuses and even legislators would try to use it to pass a bunch of anti-free speech laws "for the children".*
*Notice laws passed in the heat of the moment "for the children" rarely turn out well.
wahsatchmo, regardless whether it's a good way to make decisions, most people of both genders make choices based on personal experience. It's just the way we're wired; we're not programmed to think statistically.
That's why people will freak out about things like product recalls. The number of people injured by faulty products is always ridiculously small, but everyone thinks they will be the item's next victim unless the whole lot of them are rounded up and destroyed.
Crafting your message to cater to this flaw in human reasoning isn't deceptive. If anything, it's the exact opposite, b/c the message makers need to find a way to counter the ways people deceive themselves. But conservatives have convinced themselves that anything besides the bare-bones facts is a lie.
tryanmax, I think it's entirely human to judge people exactly as you say. If you know them, you tend to dismiss their bad traits. If you don't, you tend to see those very quickly. So when talk radio (or politicians or pundits or whomever) takes shots at people, they will anger the people who don't already like them.
Unfortunately, so much of what conservatives say right now is angry and insulting. That makes it impossible to win people over because they won't listen.
This is something conservatives need to learn from marketing types and legal types and other public speakers... never insult your audience. There are always good and bad ways to say things and conservatives need to drop the bad and switch to the good.
Kit, I'm all for an academic freedom law. It would fit nicely with an internet freedom law. And you can get there by applying the first Amendment to state schools, and you could reach private schools through the funding they are given -- make compliance a condition of the grants.
Kit, I read a few years back that some Canadian universities were implementing "speech facilitators" in classrooms, whose purpose was to "intervene in cases of discriminating or hateful speech by other students, and push the conversation back within proper bounds." How's that for clamping down on speech?
At least we're not quite that bad...just yet.
T-Rav, This is a question, not a comment... how do you propose to find a balance between free speech in a college environment and still allowing schools to prevent students disrupting class?
Jumping in on the education discussion what do you think of this idea?
As a sop to populist sentiments, presenting legislation that would compel big corporations to fund universities. I know that many companies do put money into schools, but not all. Large companies have been using the university and community college systems to defray their own training costs for some time now. Besides that, the cycle of credentialism starts in the workplace.
In the same gesture, make a move to tie diplomas to waiting jobs in a way that would discourage pursuit of worthless degrees. If someone wants to study medieval Chinese poetry, fine, but such a person may not receive the same backing as someone pursuing engineering--that is, unless there's a position waiting somewhere for the medieval Chinese poet.
Obviously, this is just a nugget of an idea. I haven't fleshed out any of it. Just thought I'd throw it out there for discussion.
That's not something I would want to advocate. It strikes me as too "redistributionist." I have no problems with the government throwing their weight around to cut college tuition bills since government and colleges worked together to jack up tuition in the first place, but I don't really like the idea of forcing one group of companies to directly fund universities. I would rather universities needed to rely a lot more on their endowments and the charity of their graduates. I think that means they would need to learn to provide better services. Giving them a corporate sugar daddy to replace the government sugar daddy only leaves the current system free to remain unresponsive.
Okay. I guess what I'm looking for is a way to curb credentialism as well as getting companies to stop relying on public schools for all their training needs. Corporations are constantly begging congress to put more money into schools on the grounds that they can't find qualified people to hire. But it seems beyond imagination that the companies should train anyone to do what is needed. There comes a point in any market where if the needed commodity isn't being produced, you go ahead and produce it yourself. I don't see why trained labor should be any different. And before anyone asks me where that model should end, it could go all the way down to basic reading, 'riting and 'rithmetic if that was the only way to acquire the skilled labor that was needed, though I doubt it would ever reach that point.
And by "school" I generally mean colleges and universities, just so no one is confused.
I guess I don't see that as a problem because having an educated population is all around a public benefit. So I see the value of people being educated whether business gets a "free" benefit out of it or not.
I see your point though, that business should contribute more if they are basically free-riding, but I think the real answer is that once the government starts to cut off these schools by forcing them to lower their tuition dramatically, the schools will look for new income streams and that could well mean forming partnerships with business to see if the businesses can make up the difference.
"T-Rav, This is a question, not a comment... how do you propose to find a balance between free speech in a college environment and still allowing schools to prevent students disrupting class?"
Well, FIRE has defined heckling as NOT free Speech. Because you are depriving the speaker of his/her right to free speech.
So that's pretty simple
Kit said something about "for the children" and that got me thinking. For some reason, I equated it to something Andrew said a few weeks ago, that in America, freedom always wins. I believe that is true, but in equal measure it's true that safety always wins. Leaving aside anything Benjamin Franklin did or did not say, promise the American people liberty and security, and you'll win every time. That's exactly what the Dems have nailed--I suspect by happenstance since they have no qualms about making promises but never delivering.
One other thought that I think isn't being grasped completely is that changing message is not the same thing as changing position. Except for backing off of the social issues, at least temporarily until credibility is restored, the GOP doesn't need to change its position on anything. It just needs to formulate its message as Andrew described the Democrats do: "I want to make your life better... details to follow."
Kit, That's actually a pretty good dividing line. But what about someone who doesn't shout you down, but instead just makes an ass of themselves when the speak in an effort to disrupt things? Say you have someone in a chemistry class, presumably a college should be able to stop a student from spewing out curse words every time they raised their hands?
Xena, thanks! I actually had a bit of catharsis in compiling that list. Since I've started paying attention, I've noticed that I find myself and individuals close to me slighted very routinely. I put myself in the shoes of someone who isn't a talk-radio junkie and realize that I would very probably rather listen to the same Katy Perry song 20 times a day than listen to someone whom I never met insult me personally.
Oh, and BTW, in smaller doses than previously described, I actually enjoy Katy Perry. So there's one more thing for my list.
I think I managed to skim most of the comments. :-)
As I mentioned to Andrew, this Independent is kinda sorta guilty of the same behavior exhibited by these women. On the plus side, I've got this blog in my corner and I do try to get both sides of the issue.
Having said that, whether it's culture or the media or whatever, I can't disagree... conservatives just come across as mean-spirited. Now there are plenty of folks on the other side who seem to be total idiots of one kind or another... but whenever I think to myself, "Hey, the right ain't so bad!" along comes a Todd Akin or a Rick Santorum and then it's "Oh, I spoke too soon."
Now I get it - one party has to be the party of "No!" We can't afford every single thing nor can we appeal to every single ethnic/sexual subgroup who has a beef with something.
But it's gotten to the point now where certain conservatives would thumb their nose at you for drinking a latte or recycling. (Just as certain liberals would thumb their nose at a gun owner or church-goer... but this is all old stereotypical stuff.)
"Say you have someone in a chemistry class, presumably a college should be able to stop a student from spewing out curse words every time they raised their hands?"
I think that is a reasonable restriction.
Go to their website and you can see the cases they deal with.
tryanmax, Good points.
I think you're right that the public responds to promises of freedom and security. Those are the winning argument, especially when they can be sold together.
And you are absolutely right that in almost all cases, a change in message in no way means abandoning principles. This is a problem with conservative thinking. There seems to be a belief that any suggestion of any type of change necessarily implicates a change in principles. That's just not true.
That said, there is one exception and that's the gay thing. I don't think it will be possible to change the message without changing the principle because religious conservatives believe the message is the principle.
Also, Katy Perry?
Don't much care for her. Taylor Swift on the other hand. . . :)
(Well, her 2010 album at least!)
What? Its good car music, and I might or might not have a slight crush on her (shifty eyes).
Here is one I like: LINK
"And you are absolutely right that in almost all cases, a change in message in no way means abandoning principles. This is a problem with conservative thinking. There seems to be a belief that any suggestion of any type of change necessarily implicates a change in principles. That's just not true."
I wonder if that is because the big spending years of Bush's Compassionate Conservatism caused a knee-jerk suspicion of change in message. (And I'm a Bush fan, but not an absolute one)
re: Freedom and Security. Society needs both to work. Its about balance.
tryanmax, As you know from your work in communications, the problem is that when you surround yourself with like-minded people you get an echo chamber. When you get an echo chamber, you lose touch with the people outside the chamber. That means you lose your sense of what might offend them and you lose your sense of what kinds of arguments will attract them.
That's what's happening with a lot of conservatives. They surround themselves only with conservatives and soon they start doubling down on all of the most idiotic things they say, which get met with a roar of approval, and they double down again and again and again.
And the further they go, the more they lose touch with reality outside the bubble, and the more they become incapable of grasping how anyone could dissent because "everyone I know agrees with me." It's the old "I don't know anyone who voted for Nixon" done by conservatives.
Scott, There is a lot of sneering on our side. The "low information voter" idiocy is what finally pushed me over the top. Even if these women were wrong, which they aren't, calling them names is a childish and stupid thing to do which is unbecoming for conservatism. Yet, it's become par for the course.
And you're right, I am amazed how angry conservatives get at people who recycle or drive efficient cars or try to make their homes more efficient. For an ideology that claims to respect personal freedom, there certainly isn't much respect for people who make "the wrong" choices.
"That's what's happening with a lot of conservatives. They surround themselves only with conservatives and soon they start doubling down on all of the most idiotic things they say, which get met with a roar of approval, and they double down again and again and again."
See the Greg Lukianoff Video I posted above, specifically around 3:50. So, if there is some comfort in this, we can blame the PC Left
"Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate".
Kit, Bush's compassionate conservatism was a disaster for the party. It finally destroyed any pretense of economic or fiscal competence.
As for making people suspicious, no, I think that's been done independently by all the leaders on the right who shadowboxed against strawmen to pretend that the party is secretly dominated by evil moderates.
Kit, The echo chamber has nothing to do with political correctness. It's a human nature thing. You see it in companies who don't realize their product sucks. You see it with family and friend who tell you that you are great when you aren't. You see it across the ideological spectrum.
Right now, conservatives have an easy bubble they can move into. They get their news from Fox, Rush and conservative blogs. They don't talk politics with their liberal friends... or they don't have any. Suddenly, they are out of touch.
"And you're right, I am amazed how angry conservatives get at people who recycle or drive efficient cars or try to make their homes more efficient. For an ideology that claims to respect personal freedom, there certainly isn't much respect for people who make "the wrong" choices."
Agree. Its a bizarre response. I grew up in the 90s and remember what was a near cult of recycling (Captain Planet, anyone?). So, in some ways its almost a reaction to that. An over-the-top reaction, but a reaction.
I think you can argue that Captain Planet subconsciously caused this. :)
Because anyone who watches the show gets the strong urge to club baby seals to death, drive a belching gas guzzler, and poor toxic sludge into a river. Good God! That show was pretentious.
Kit, I've had that urge! LOL!
In all seriousness though, this is a problem across the board -- not just recycling. Somewhere along the way, conservatism gave up on the idea of trusting the individual and decided that it knew what was right for people. From that point on, it was full speed ahead and conservatives started mocking everything they disagreed with. This is what tryanmax is talking about above.
Oh, and Andrew,
Roll Tide. ;)
Kit, There was never any doubt in my book. Alabama is just a powerhouse.
:)
Grrrr. I know Alabama fans. I was rooting for the Irish.
I love SEC football... ya'll take it so seriously. LOL!
True story: I had a college stats prof who was a 'Bama fan. He'd give extra credit on quizzes if we put the score of the most recent 'Bama game at the bottom of the page. I don't remember how I found that out, b/c he never announced it himself, but it worked and everyone knew about it. I've been following the team ever since.
I have to admit that I'm fascinated by Nick Saban. It amazes me what he's achieved and that nobody seems to be able to stop him. It would be pretty interesting to see how many national championships he can string together back to back.
"I love SEC football... ya'll take it so seriously. LOL!"
There are certain things we in the south hold sacred, things like God, Country, and Family. And then there is College Football.
I'm not a major sports fan and it is unavoidable. Your football team is the tribe to which you belong.
Or, as most of us in the SEC know him, Nick Satan. (Seriously, his birthday's October 31.)
But really--I was friends with people with Auburn connections, but I only went from resentment to dislike after the tree-poisoning incident. You can do a lot of things to each other, but stuff like that's off limits. War Eagle, folks.
What tree poisoning?
Andrew,
Auburn has a tree at their university. Its their big landmark that they roll every year.
A year or so ago some dumb redneck Alabama fan -from TEXAS, I might add- poisoned the tree and phoned it into a radio station admitting the act and saying "Roll damn Tide".
"Or, as most of us in the SEC know him, Nick Satan."
That's because he kicks their asses every year.
"Seriously, his birthday's October 31."
All the more reason to be afraid.
"But really--I was friends with people with Auburn connections, but I only went from resentment to dislike after the tree-poisoning incident. You can do a lot of things to each other, but stuff like that's off limits."
So, hold on, you are going to judge an entire college sports fandom over the actions of a lone idiot redneck fan? Seriously?!?!?!
Back to you, Andrew,
It's kind of hard for me to believe you knew nothing about this, but then again, maybe my perception is flawed since I live in Alabama where it was BIG news.
And, I just checked the news. And the trees, which were not expected to survive, have hung in there quite well due to a lot of hard work on behalf of Auburn University.
Of course, a dumb Auburn fan almost shot that to hell by accidentally tossing a cigarette that nearly burned it to the ground.
And also, T-Rav, the guy's motivation was that he claimed he saw a photograph of Auburn fans rolling the tree in celebration after the death of Bear Bryant. No such photographs have been found. The guy was crazy.
Kit,
I love Captain Planet because the least awful thing about it was the green mullet. It was a show so bad it became awesome. Before there were bronies, there were planeteers and there still are.
http://planeteermovement.org/
GO PLANET!!!
What has really bugged me about this post is you are right. We haven't provided clear plans.
I do think we are at a disadvantage because what we think is right, such as controlling spending and decreasing government intrusion, gets bowled over by the left "going after the rich" and "giving you a fair share."
The MSM doesn't help the cause and they definitely frame the narrative. For example, the Conn shooting. Terrible, awful crime. 20 innocent children died. We are still hearing about it. And the left is trying to exploit it with more gun control. But, if anyone tries to say "this is horrible, but you know 1200 children were killed in Conn by abortion last year" and you are characterized as a right wing Jesus freak.
The women you have been talking to also drive me crazy because they are voting their acute emotions rather than with their heads. If they truly believed what you say then there is no way they would support Obama as he believes and behave exactly opposite to what they believe.
Also, it is easy for them to sit there and criticize (heck, we sit here all day and do it), but how many have been trying to actually fix the problem? Get more involved? Run for office? The "tea party" has been criticized for pushing out some GOP people but many they pushed out were not any better economically than the dems. The mistake has been who they have selected to replace.
What can I offer? How about a future that is economically financially sound so their comfortable butts can stay that way instead of falling apart as a country. If the current trend continues, this country will break apart just like the USSR did into multiple sub-countries. It may take awhile but it will happen.
Koshcat, Trust me, I'm not happy about this post either, nor did I like writing it. Nor did I want to believe that these women where right when I first started hearing this. This was a shocking revelation to me.
And what I'm trying to get across with this post is that WE need to wake up to the fact that we are losing people because we aren't offering anything. There isn't anything wrong with them, there is something wrong with what we've been doing. In other words, too many conservatives are acting like we did it all right and these women (and the rest of the electorate) are just stupid or bought. What I'm trying to point out is that's not true. We made the mistake and we need to fix ourselves if we want to win these women.
And make no mistake, these women are there to be claimed as voters, but WE need to start offering them a reason to like us.
In terms of emotion versus reason, I don't really agree. When I look at it things fairly, meaning without preconceptions about what either side "really believes in their hearts" or may secretly be planning, I see how these women could have made a rational decision to support the Democrats. Obama ran on middle class tax cuts and "I don't hate you." That was his entire platform. The Republicans ran on constitutional amendments banning abortion, banning gay marriage, deporting Hispanics, destroying the EPA, and an obsession with preserving the Bush tax cuts for the top 1% of earners. There was nothing else we offered.
Between those two choices, Obama sounds much more sane, much more safe, and much more conservative. Now, Obama could be lying, but what credibility do we have to make that case?
Don't view this post as a reason to give up. View this post as something hopeful. This post tells us that we can win and we can do it as conservatives, we just need to shape up again and focus on what really matters.
I still think they vote a lot with their emotions or campaign tactics such as Romney is going to take away your birth control wouldn't be so effective.
Your right that the platform is a mess and needs to be fixed to better reflect what is really important to people (fair tax code, strong defense) and let go what is impossible (anti-abortion amendment).
Don't take any underlying anger in my posts as personal. I'm angry at you because you are pointing out something I haven't wanted to see. But you are right, it needs to be dealt with soon are we will be seeing another 4 or 8 years of a different brilliant moron.
Koshcat, Don't worry, I'm not taking any of the anger personally. I understand how difficult this kind of thing is to hear.
And they may well have fallen for campaign tactics, but again, if that's the case, I think the problem is that we played into that and we did nothing to give them a reason to look past it.
-- "Severus, not knowing which 5 you are referring to, I can at least tell you that the majority of that list comes from Limbaugh. I've barely listened to Miller, I've never heard a disparaging word from Ramsay, and the only thing on that list coming from Savage regards autism."
1) I lived with my parents past the age of 18 (until I was 20 to be exact, then again couple years ago for several months.)
2) I rent
3) I don't know a gas-guzzler (I don't even have a car at the moment!)
4) I don't own a gun. (But I want to.)
5) I have family members who worked for the Government. (All military)
-- "I know I don't wear my feelings on my sleeve, b/c I've listened to Limbaugh since I was an emotional teenager. I've only lately realized that I find myself in his crosshairs almost daily b/c I stopped simply dismissing it.
That caused me to pause and consider how I would react if I did wear my feelings on my sleeve, as I've learned a far greater number of people do. I'd have never given Limbaugh--or any of the other talkers, for that matter--the initial time of day.
The talkers all say a great deal about engaging people and winning them over. Well, you're never going to get to square 1 if you keep casually insulting this group and that."
I don't know, I guess I have a pretty thick skin that Limbaugh's "insults" flew over my head. Maybe society is becoming too emotionally sensitive over everything. I've had my share of insults directed towards me, my ethnic BG, and my religion, over the course of my life. I'm just used it.
Or I guess, I need to realize it's fine for Leftist public figures make insults, but when the Conservative ones dare to do the same thing (it's also often taken out of context, BTW) it's HATEFUL, RACIST and EVIL! I gets it...
Those, according to Andrew, who are ACTUALLY "high info" voters need to grow up and get thicker skin for God's sake. Sorry, I just can't take those who voted for Obama, because they feel us Conservatives are big meanies, seriously! I honestly respect devout Leftist voters more than those darn fence sitters...
But nonetheless you guys are right, we need to win them over. *sigh* Sorry for being a big meanie!
I don't believe that people are any more emotional now than they have ever been. Even so, grousing that anyone should grow a thicker skin continues to miss the point.
tryanmax, What point am I missing, exactly?
After all, I do recognize that Conservatism does indeed have an "image problem" and that we need to articulate our ideas better, so that the average voter can understand.
I tried tirelessly convincing the Obama voters I know that not all Conservatives and Romney are any of those things, but to no avail. They all say "I love you, bro, but you brainwashed." or something else in that nature. After a while, inside, I can't help but be more cynical towards the public at large. Plus all this in-fighting between our Conservative brothas and sistas ain't helping me with that. I just want party unity...
Snape, Three points.
First, I'm not saying anyone is a "high information voter." What I'm saying is the idea of dismissing people as stupid is both wrong and not helpful. These voters are no dumber and no brighter and no better or worse informed than our side. And it's a huge mistake to try to dismiss these people as stupid or uninformed or bought. The smart play is to realize why we have the image problem and fix that. And it's in investigating that the problem really does become clear that we offer nothing that most people would want to buy.
And that leads to the second point. I don't doubt that you are surrounded by idiots. The world is full of them and most are unreachable. BUT these women are an interesting group -- they are inherently conservative and I believe could have been reached. These aren't hardcore liberals... I would never suggest trying to reach hardcore liberals. These are the very people we need and aren't getting.
The third point is that I don't like the infighting either, BUT it is sadly necessary because too many people right now are content to just say "nothing's wrong" and then attack anyone who suggests a change. What I would hope for, and I think we achieved that here actually, is for people to look past the fighting aspect and to see that there is a need for a new direction if we want our ideology to survive and be able to shape America again.
Good and solid points, Andrew. I might not, agree with you 100% on this, but you did make me think more on our imperfections and on areas we lack.
Thanks all I ask... that and Tourettes monkeys. :D
Post a Comment