This is a year old post, but I think the reasoning is sound.
One of the great ironies of life is the Uriah Heep Syndrome. In Charles Dickens's book David Copperfield, the character Uriah Heep spends the entire book reciting how humble he is. Every time he appears, he says, "I am so humble." By the end of the book, his inflated ego become abundantly clear. UHS is the syndrome where a person describes himself as being what he wishes to be, but is clearly the opposite.
I find most moderates as having severe cases of UHS. They believe that they are the smartest and best informed people in the room. As a result of this information, they are best able to assess which candidate is best by looking at each candidate issue by issue.
In practice, these moderates are not interested enough to do the research to find out issue by issue what each candidate believes. But even if there is an exception or two that does do an analysis issue by issue, moderates by definition have no political philosophy to inform their judgment. They have no knowledge base to draw on. I don't mean to say that a moderate physician has no knowledge of medicine to draw on. I mean that moderate physician has no political philosophical knowledge. Ask that physician to compare and contrast Marx and Burke. In my experience, that physician can't.
That physician has every reason to proclaim his depth of knowledge, experience, intelligence, and practicality. If not for those, the physician could not succeed professionally. Unfortunately that professional focus risks depriving the physician from being able to converse in great depth in political philosophy. He is an ideal candidate to seek comfort in declaring himself to be a moderate.
This declaration is really a failed attempt of turning ignorance of politics, economics, and law into an asset.
UHS is really likely to occur when a person does not like what that person observes in himself. To remove the undesirable characteristic, the person declares himself to be the opposite.
UHS is part of the normal tools of psychological defense mechanisms. We all do it. The chubby person that declares that he is on a diet when he eats the donut is playing a non-verbal form of UHS. The fat woman in the tight pants. The high school drop out that is worried about being disrespected. These people all have self-image that they are trying to ignore and play a different personality to the world.
The severe cases of UHS are not just minor deflections but are the person's identity. They embrace the UHS and will destroy themselves to live it out.
For Republicans to be successful, they need to stand firm on identified core philosophies and repeat the truth. When confronted with a moderate or a liberal, do not accept the false premises that the moderate or liberal use. If the moderate says, "I look at the candidate issue by issue." The Republican needs to look the moderate squarely in the eye and challenge them on the truth of this statement by playing along. The Republican could say, "Wow, how many hours of research do you do on each candidate to make a decision. I mean, take the last XXX race where Candidate A was a radical Democrat and Candidate B was a strict Conservative. Walk me through the issues."
I would submit that the moderate can't do that. They say the analysis is done, but they don't. They pick up catch phrases and recite those. But they don't understand the catch phrases actual impact.
Moderates need to be challenged. If they go Democrat, they go Democrat. Once they start moving though, the moderate is more likely to become a Republican. They're usually only moderates because the Democrats make them uncomfortable and they don't hear enough about what Republicans believe from non-Democrats.
Challenge the moderates. Win a Republican convert.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Compartimentalizing Morality
Absolutely brilliant point on environmentalism's failure in environmental issues.
Monday, October 12, 2009
So We're Running out of Gas?
We are running out of gas?
The left's hype is getting blown out of the water again.
When are we going to quit listening to the hype the Democrat's side of the discussion keep pushing? They are wrong every time we turn around.
The left's hype is getting blown out of the water again.
When are we going to quit listening to the hype the Democrat's side of the discussion keep pushing? They are wrong every time we turn around.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
FDR's Second Bill of Rights has Second Life?
Professor Epstein argues that civil educated discourse being drowned out by uncivil persons on your own side makes informative debate difficult and then shows simply that Professor Sunstein's reaffirmation of FDR's Second Bill of Rights is unworkable.
All true. The problem is that the good professors are too caught up in intellectual notions.
The US Bill of Rights works. Early criminal works because they took of one of the key advantages of controlling an opponent -- denying him part of the field of play.
The idea is simplest on a chess board. Trying to learn chess a few years back, I bought a book by Eddie Fisher. One of the key notions is limiting your opponent's ability to move. Use the edge of the board as a weapon, then push him toward that edge that he cannot course. Think of a king versus a queen. For every move the king makes, the queen can swift react and push the king into a corner before retirement becomes evident for even a beginner.
The notion of good law is that it simply prohibits part of the field of play from the criminal. Do not murder. Murder is the knowing or intentional killing of another. Done.
Don't hit people. Don't threaten to hit people. Don't steal.
How about yelling or loud music? Hmmm . . . . Let's just discourage that.
For two people in one room, you have most of the rules to provide those two sanity.
Once you start saying that you cannot intentional kill if the music is too loud, you need two lawyers. One to argue that the music was too loud. The other to argue that the complainant was too old (Remember? If the music is too loud, you're too old?). Now age is possibly the problem?
Complex rules lead to complex arguments. Simple rules, simple arguments, simple compliance.
Professor Sunstein's and FDR's failings is that they want to describe the preferred world and make it a right. They might as well say that the teenager has a right to listen to loud music. At least I will still have a job as a lawyer wearing earplugs, even if you are too old.
All true. The problem is that the good professors are too caught up in intellectual notions.
The US Bill of Rights works. Early criminal works because they took of one of the key advantages of controlling an opponent -- denying him part of the field of play.
The idea is simplest on a chess board. Trying to learn chess a few years back, I bought a book by Eddie Fisher. One of the key notions is limiting your opponent's ability to move. Use the edge of the board as a weapon, then push him toward that edge that he cannot course. Think of a king versus a queen. For every move the king makes, the queen can swift react and push the king into a corner before retirement becomes evident for even a beginner.
The notion of good law is that it simply prohibits part of the field of play from the criminal. Do not murder. Murder is the knowing or intentional killing of another. Done.
Don't hit people. Don't threaten to hit people. Don't steal.
How about yelling or loud music? Hmmm . . . . Let's just discourage that.
For two people in one room, you have most of the rules to provide those two sanity.
Once you start saying that you cannot intentional kill if the music is too loud, you need two lawyers. One to argue that the music was too loud. The other to argue that the complainant was too old (Remember? If the music is too loud, you're too old?). Now age is possibly the problem?
Complex rules lead to complex arguments. Simple rules, simple arguments, simple compliance.
Professor Sunstein's and FDR's failings is that they want to describe the preferred world and make it a right. They might as well say that the teenager has a right to listen to loud music. At least I will still have a job as a lawyer wearing earplugs, even if you are too old.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Lost our Sense of Mission?
The guys at PowerLine were commenting on the affable and clarifying Mark Steyn. PowerLine focused on the loss of will defend our culture.
Whether you call it "will" or "morale" may not make a difference. I do see a difference. Will is much more of an individual's trait. Morale is the cohesiveness of the group that reflects a collective of individual wills.
Just like throughout most of American history, America is still divided a third, a third, a third. The Democrats caucusing together is of the vintage of Anti-Federalists, Jacksonian Democrats, Copperheads, European Social Democrats. It has always gathered around the notion of a strong federal government and strong states being impossible and highly undesirable. Their rationales swing widely. At the core they just don't like the Miracle in Philadelphia. Their vision for the country starts with the proposition that the Constitution of negative liberties and we need to enshrine more positive liberties. (Good rhetorical choice of words but a terrible description of the process.) Call them the radical revolutionaries. Change away from the current institution is always good, so long it does not come to resemble the previous incarnation of the institution. In fact, new institutions are preferred over old ones wherever possible.
The polar opposite third of the population is the group centered around the Federal Constitution carrying it out as strictly as possible. Many would even suggest that the 17th Amendment (popular election of senators) was part of the weakening of our Constitution. This amendment may be good or bad. If you looked at this group, they would likely either tell why it is good or be persuaded it's worth discussion. They want change, but theirs is the harder: change to what worked better in our past; preserve the institution and evolve it slowly in Edmund Burke's preferred manner.
The middle third is where all the action is. They call themselves moderate and cling to the Poor Richard (a/k/a Ben Franklin) claim of all things in moderation. A little revolution is good. A little of institutional preservation is good.
The revolutionaries don't have to have a strong vision of what they want. They are highly negative: no continuity, no stability. Change is all that matters. This focus on "no" allows them to build adherents quickly. If you are ever around a talented salesman, the salesman demonstrates the power of "no." To truly understand his talent, just imagine the insufferable, talentless salesman.
The talentless salesman wants to tell you how wonderful his product is. "This car is the greatest ever. Look at the engine, the tires . . . . Wow?! Huh?" When you say, "No, too big." The salesman either argues that is not actually big compared to a dump truck or changes his story to how the next car is the greatest. He wants you to say "Yes." He wants you to say, "Yes, that is a great car. Yes, I have to have it." He is always pushing his ideas of what you should like and gets offended when you don't say "Yes." He is just following the rule that every "yes" is a step closer to success in getting you to buy. An hour later, you are less likely to have bought a car and more likely to run out the door.
The successful salesman tries to get you to say "No" as quickly and often as possible. "Do you want a car with more than 20 mph?" If you say, "No," he has just eliminate half his inventory from the discussion with one question. If you say, "Yes," same solution, different direction. "Do you want a car for more than 5 passengers?" Smaller target again, a "No" gets you a sedan or a coupe, but a "Yes" gets you a mini-van, SUV, or truck. Three more questions and you are standing in front of the car that is most likely to be his best candidate for you.
No arguments. No long discussions.
There still be an hour for you to persuade yourself that you want to buy, and the talented salesman will serve as your pro-buying angel/devil on your shoulder. In ten minutes, though, he knows whether you are going to buy better than you do yourself.
The Democrats have managed to sell their snake oil like the most talented salesman. They get the moderates to say "No." "Do you want to lose your doctor when you are too old to pay the bills yourself?" "Do you want your children to be uneducated?" The moderates have so little foundational understanding of the debates that their "No" answers drive the debate. They know the customer wants to feel good. If the customer wanted a large, red SUV, the customer gets an SUV. Then salesman gets his commission. The salesman is not worried that the customer may be bankrupt next year because of the excessive car payment. I started this by discussion morale. Democrats have a high desire to cohere together when they are excited about institutions that need to change. Discussions focused on "no" are easy. Their problems in morale arise when they need to agree on the vision to replace the destroyed institution.
The Republicans then act like the talentless salesmen: "But look at how well designed middle-of-the-road sedan looks! Look at the moderate mix of space and fuel efficiency." They keep telling the moderates what to like. Republicans of a conservative bent have a common but loosely defined vision. Attacks on that vision are bad. Promotion of the vision is good. Republican morale is highest when the shared vision is most prominent.
Moderates don't have a vision of what they want the country to be. They want to feel good about themselves and their futures. They don't like shared visions, because they have become acclimated to being made uncomfortable about the federal vision. The Democrats' ability to find "No" answers in the sales questions works well on moderates. Moderates don't have a unifying morale and gyrate wildly.
The instantaneous success of the Republicans lately is that they now have a concrete example of Obamacare about which to seek a "No." "Do you want to lose your doctor?" "Do you want this 8% tax increase?" "Do you want government mandates of doctors, lawyers, and counselors sitting you down every 5 years after retirement age to discuss when you are going to die? A/k/a 'Death panels' that you appoint, but follow government rules." No. No. No.
Reveal to moderates the misery of the Democrat revolution(s). The debate becomes easier. The moderates become increasingly uncomfortable with the "No" answers that Republicans generate.
To accelerate this, Republicans must also play Toto in pulling back the curtain of Democrat tactics. The Great Wizard of Oz in the White House starts to look sillier when you quit focusing on the large face but focus on the weak man pulling the levers.
The growing discussion of Saul Alinsky and his writings has been a curtain-pulling discussion.
The discussion of treating moderates like saps who can be lead to desired answers by seeking "no" would accelerate it further. The use of the "no" technique by the Republicans will accelerate it further. Once everyone becomes aware of the "no" technique, discussion of visions because more acceptable.
I dispute whether we have had a loss of will. I think the two poles of the debate have very different senses of what drives morale. Each of their morales is high. Democrats are on a high by recent successes of getting into office. Republicans of a conservative bent on a rising morale because they sense their movement rejuvenating.
The moderates in middle have a sense that don't belong to either pole. They have dropping morale. That may not last. A focused attempt to break moderates' bonds to the Democrats could unleash a rising sense of morale in middle. Then what election effects will arise?
Whether you call it "will" or "morale" may not make a difference. I do see a difference. Will is much more of an individual's trait. Morale is the cohesiveness of the group that reflects a collective of individual wills.
Just like throughout most of American history, America is still divided a third, a third, a third. The Democrats caucusing together is of the vintage of Anti-Federalists, Jacksonian Democrats, Copperheads, European Social Democrats. It has always gathered around the notion of a strong federal government and strong states being impossible and highly undesirable. Their rationales swing widely. At the core they just don't like the Miracle in Philadelphia. Their vision for the country starts with the proposition that the Constitution of negative liberties and we need to enshrine more positive liberties. (Good rhetorical choice of words but a terrible description of the process.) Call them the radical revolutionaries. Change away from the current institution is always good, so long it does not come to resemble the previous incarnation of the institution. In fact, new institutions are preferred over old ones wherever possible.
The polar opposite third of the population is the group centered around the Federal Constitution carrying it out as strictly as possible. Many would even suggest that the 17th Amendment (popular election of senators) was part of the weakening of our Constitution. This amendment may be good or bad. If you looked at this group, they would likely either tell why it is good or be persuaded it's worth discussion. They want change, but theirs is the harder: change to what worked better in our past; preserve the institution and evolve it slowly in Edmund Burke's preferred manner.
The middle third is where all the action is. They call themselves moderate and cling to the Poor Richard (a/k/a Ben Franklin) claim of all things in moderation. A little revolution is good. A little of institutional preservation is good.
The revolutionaries don't have to have a strong vision of what they want. They are highly negative: no continuity, no stability. Change is all that matters. This focus on "no" allows them to build adherents quickly. If you are ever around a talented salesman, the salesman demonstrates the power of "no." To truly understand his talent, just imagine the insufferable, talentless salesman.
The talentless salesman wants to tell you how wonderful his product is. "This car is the greatest ever. Look at the engine, the tires . . . . Wow?! Huh?" When you say, "No, too big." The salesman either argues that is not actually big compared to a dump truck or changes his story to how the next car is the greatest. He wants you to say "Yes." He wants you to say, "Yes, that is a great car. Yes, I have to have it." He is always pushing his ideas of what you should like and gets offended when you don't say "Yes." He is just following the rule that every "yes" is a step closer to success in getting you to buy. An hour later, you are less likely to have bought a car and more likely to run out the door.
The successful salesman tries to get you to say "No" as quickly and often as possible. "Do you want a car with more than 20 mph?" If you say, "No," he has just eliminate half his inventory from the discussion with one question. If you say, "Yes," same solution, different direction. "Do you want a car for more than 5 passengers?" Smaller target again, a "No" gets you a sedan or a coupe, but a "Yes" gets you a mini-van, SUV, or truck. Three more questions and you are standing in front of the car that is most likely to be his best candidate for you.
No arguments. No long discussions.
There still be an hour for you to persuade yourself that you want to buy, and the talented salesman will serve as your pro-buying angel/devil on your shoulder. In ten minutes, though, he knows whether you are going to buy better than you do yourself.
The Democrats have managed to sell their snake oil like the most talented salesman. They get the moderates to say "No." "Do you want to lose your doctor when you are too old to pay the bills yourself?" "Do you want your children to be uneducated?" The moderates have so little foundational understanding of the debates that their "No" answers drive the debate. They know the customer wants to feel good. If the customer wanted a large, red SUV, the customer gets an SUV. Then salesman gets his commission. The salesman is not worried that the customer may be bankrupt next year because of the excessive car payment. I started this by discussion morale. Democrats have a high desire to cohere together when they are excited about institutions that need to change. Discussions focused on "no" are easy. Their problems in morale arise when they need to agree on the vision to replace the destroyed institution.
The Republicans then act like the talentless salesmen: "But look at how well designed middle-of-the-road sedan looks! Look at the moderate mix of space and fuel efficiency." They keep telling the moderates what to like. Republicans of a conservative bent have a common but loosely defined vision. Attacks on that vision are bad. Promotion of the vision is good. Republican morale is highest when the shared vision is most prominent.
Moderates don't have a vision of what they want the country to be. They want to feel good about themselves and their futures. They don't like shared visions, because they have become acclimated to being made uncomfortable about the federal vision. The Democrats' ability to find "No" answers in the sales questions works well on moderates. Moderates don't have a unifying morale and gyrate wildly.
The instantaneous success of the Republicans lately is that they now have a concrete example of Obamacare about which to seek a "No." "Do you want to lose your doctor?" "Do you want this 8% tax increase?" "Do you want government mandates of doctors, lawyers, and counselors sitting you down every 5 years after retirement age to discuss when you are going to die? A/k/a 'Death panels' that you appoint, but follow government rules." No. No. No.
Reveal to moderates the misery of the Democrat revolution(s). The debate becomes easier. The moderates become increasingly uncomfortable with the "No" answers that Republicans generate.
To accelerate this, Republicans must also play Toto in pulling back the curtain of Democrat tactics. The Great Wizard of Oz in the White House starts to look sillier when you quit focusing on the large face but focus on the weak man pulling the levers.
The growing discussion of Saul Alinsky and his writings has been a curtain-pulling discussion.
The discussion of treating moderates like saps who can be lead to desired answers by seeking "no" would accelerate it further. The use of the "no" technique by the Republicans will accelerate it further. Once everyone becomes aware of the "no" technique, discussion of visions because more acceptable.
I dispute whether we have had a loss of will. I think the two poles of the debate have very different senses of what drives morale. Each of their morales is high. Democrats are on a high by recent successes of getting into office. Republicans of a conservative bent on a rising morale because they sense their movement rejuvenating.
The moderates in middle have a sense that don't belong to either pole. They have dropping morale. That may not last. A focused attempt to break moderates' bonds to the Democrats could unleash a rising sense of morale in middle. Then what election effects will arise?
Monday, August 31, 2009
Another measurement of "phoney-ness"
Another measurement request: what is the ratio of arrests at tea party's or Obamacare rallies? How many union members in the numbers arrest? How many registered members of the respective parties, including LaRouche supporters?
A Measurement of Phoney-ness
To coin a phrase, let's measure "phoney-ness."
To me it seems easy, what is the ratio of cars to buses parked near the protest area?
While organized groups use buses, self-motivated protesters tend to drive themselves or car pool. Spreads the costs of transportation in smaller, de-centralized increments.
Even to the extent that such a measurement can be manipulated, it would increase the costs and logistical headaches for the organizers. More parking needs. More money to subsidize drivers from the union coffers. Etc.
Does a tea party protest have event-parking pricing? What about a union rally? Are they the same price for the same location for similar weekend or holiday timing?
I would be facinated to learn if there were differences.
To me it seems easy, what is the ratio of cars to buses parked near the protest area?
While organized groups use buses, self-motivated protesters tend to drive themselves or car pool. Spreads the costs of transportation in smaller, de-centralized increments.
Even to the extent that such a measurement can be manipulated, it would increase the costs and logistical headaches for the organizers. More parking needs. More money to subsidize drivers from the union coffers. Etc.
Does a tea party protest have event-parking pricing? What about a union rally? Are they the same price for the same location for similar weekend or holiday timing?
I would be facinated to learn if there were differences.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Government-Option Healthcare v. Microsoft
The Department of Justice has a long running history of picking fights with Microsoft (EU is even worse) over supposedly monopolistic behavior. The idea seems to be that one player is too large and must be brought down to size.
Based on Obamacare's characteristics as written in the House Bill, does that mean that the Obama Administration has no issues with Microsoft or later Google over dominating their segments of the market?
This behavior is monopsony (a term I just learned; remember use all new terms in a sentence). Monopoly is one seller for many buyers. Monopsony is one buyer for many sellers.
Obamacare is either monopsony today or tomorrow.
So if I understand Obama, he either likes single buyers (or large ones that have the power to delcare itself a monopsony) and hates monopolists or likes monopsonists and monopolists both.
Let's watch Microsoft and Google and learn.
Based on Obamacare's characteristics as written in the House Bill, does that mean that the Obama Administration has no issues with Microsoft or later Google over dominating their segments of the market?
This behavior is monopsony (a term I just learned; remember use all new terms in a sentence). Monopoly is one seller for many buyers. Monopsony is one buyer for many sellers.
Obamacare is either monopsony today or tomorrow.
So if I understand Obama, he either likes single buyers (or large ones that have the power to delcare itself a monopsony) and hates monopolists or likes monopsonists and monopolists both.
Let's watch Microsoft and Google and learn.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Fire the Journalists
I have an idea: let's fire all journalists. No one likes them. They are irritating. Their content is worthless.
With that one statement, we have just created a lot of new openings, so who should fill those chairs?
I propose people with degrees in advertising or marketing from business schools or experienced sales people. They know how to tell pithy stories. They understand that telling a good story is imperative to making a profit when the subject matter turns difficult. They know how to make you feel good about the most depressing or mundane subjects. They know how to turn grammatical variations into phrases repeated around the world by teenagers and young adults.
Journalists go to school to learn to tell stories, but advertisers tell better stories with pictures or shorter scripts. Why waste time reading 500 words of journo-babble when we can get the idea in 30 seconds or just a neat picture?
Journalists go to school to learn how to get two sources for every article, then they turn to old school chum or neighbor to be their representative of the general public (less effort you know). Advertisers and marketers are far more skilled at finding out what the general public wants and thinks and giving it to them.
Journalists go to school to learn how to take polling data and make it a tear-jerking human-interest story about one person that illustrates the point that the journalist wants to make without any regard to what the polling data shows. Marketers have experience in digging into polling data and giving any one segment of the population exactly the product they want. Marketers don't care if one segment of the population agrees with Henry Ford and only wants black cars while another segment wants bright yellow ones. Marketers will use the polling data to order enough black cars and bright yellow cars to make everyone happy. Just imagine if the newspapers were run by marketers that told the same story for two different market segments: one liberal and the other conservative. Imagine that the number of column-inches given to each version of the story could be based on the percentage of that paper's readership who share that political persuasion.
Journalists play at marketing by constantly making the papers look more and more like Romper Room but still giving us the same Henry Ford black Model T for liberal, empty content.
With that one statement, we have just created a lot of new openings, so who should fill those chairs?
I propose people with degrees in advertising or marketing from business schools or experienced sales people. They know how to tell pithy stories. They understand that telling a good story is imperative to making a profit when the subject matter turns difficult. They know how to make you feel good about the most depressing or mundane subjects. They know how to turn grammatical variations into phrases repeated around the world by teenagers and young adults.
Journalists go to school to learn to tell stories, but advertisers tell better stories with pictures or shorter scripts. Why waste time reading 500 words of journo-babble when we can get the idea in 30 seconds or just a neat picture?
Journalists go to school to learn how to get two sources for every article, then they turn to old school chum or neighbor to be their representative of the general public (less effort you know). Advertisers and marketers are far more skilled at finding out what the general public wants and thinks and giving it to them.
Journalists go to school to learn how to take polling data and make it a tear-jerking human-interest story about one person that illustrates the point that the journalist wants to make without any regard to what the polling data shows. Marketers have experience in digging into polling data and giving any one segment of the population exactly the product they want. Marketers don't care if one segment of the population agrees with Henry Ford and only wants black cars while another segment wants bright yellow ones. Marketers will use the polling data to order enough black cars and bright yellow cars to make everyone happy. Just imagine if the newspapers were run by marketers that told the same story for two different market segments: one liberal and the other conservative. Imagine that the number of column-inches given to each version of the story could be based on the percentage of that paper's readership who share that political persuasion.
Journalists play at marketing by constantly making the papers look more and more like Romper Room but still giving us the same Henry Ford black Model T for liberal, empty content.
The Middle
I have written before about my joys and frustrations in reading a particular website. He subscribes to what I would call the "single issue anger." Admittedly this unnamed website does not simply attack the opposition to Bush's immigration deform, but several other attacks on Bush's wayward behavior. The key point for him is the supposed Conservative attack on Bush's variance from the supposed Conservative gold standard.
As hated as Nixon is today and as demeaned as election strategy is too (move rightward for the primary and move to the center for the general election), he understood some basic concepts. He understood that the body politic is actually not just two parties but several groups. These groups are small and align around broader, similar concepts. These groups become successful and powerful when they aggregate larger and larger alliances together. Part of the process is dropping concepts from their main message that the larger group cannot support. Part of it is softening catch phrases to remove the harshness of tone. Moving between groups at different times is part of group building.
The part that few people wish to admit, except at times of radical transition, is that a common enemy is the biggest group builder of all. The common sentiments of frustration and anger allow people to shed old alliances and the older, larger groups start shrinking. These new unaligned voters may stay unaligned unless they find a group that shares their message and tone. The common enemy allows old hatreds to begin to appear petty compared to the new frustration and growing anger. This allows a courtship, similar to the old lyrics from the "Facts of Life" theme song: "The boys you used to hate, Now you date."
The famous French philosopher La Rochefaucauld wrote, "La haine est plus proche de l'amour que l'amite": Hate is closer to love than friendship. Obama has succeeded in causing a growing number of his passionate followers to turn on him. These ex-followers are his greatest problem because they will turn forever on him and his party.
The middle that does not wish to ever be passionate but wants to appear reasonable, those are moving away from him. He can get them back so long as they stay dispassionate. They want to reason issues out and find a middle way. These are the people that socialism and its kissing cousin fascism have always played to. Mussolini invented the modern use of the phrase the "third way." He sensed that coloring his socialism for the middle of his body politic would get him elected. He played to this desire for dispassion and made them passionate for an undefined "something else."
Obama rose to power on his version of the third way: "Hope. Change." Like Mussolini, he was less than clear on the stump of what he sought to do. He allowed the radical left to see the details to keep them happy by having white papers on his website that gave details. He knew that the middle of population would never research the white papers. They had too little passion to research his ideas. It was too big of a burden to challenge their hope for a third way. Why deal with the facts when you are comfortable in the middle.
Now Obama has done something that few have done successfully in recent American political history. He has made portions of the middle uncomfortable and angry. They are getting angrier every time they learn more about his health plan.
What's worse is these angry people start doing research on the plan and run across articles on the global warming myth. They get angrier still.
We may soon start to see a disappearing middle. The middle won't disappear because of the brilliance of current GOP leadership. The middle will disappear because they have focused anger that won't allow them to pretend they are being reasonable. They will start to see that reason has a home in the GOP's body politic (even if it is remarkably absent in the Republican party establishment in DC). The GOP's thinkers and middle America members are the real intellectual powerhouses of the country. Their ability to communicate without the DC establishment as an intermediary has created chorus of strong-minded, clear-thinking, passionate, and all-too-polite people. The middle won't be able to remain dispassionate nor to ignore the violence-prone thugs representing Obama's cause. Once the pendulum of political passion starts to sway, it is harder to bring back to rest.
That is Obama's problem. He is getting hit by the pendulum that he put in motion. The pendulum threatens to grow into a wrecking ball.
The quick answer to stopping a swinging wrecking ball is an application of an equal force in the exact opposite direction. Since that is difficult to do, the application of thug power in another direction will cause the wrecking ball of passion and resentment against Obama to careen into his fellow Democrats in Congress and spread the damage.
A disappearing middle and a careening wrecking ball leads to unpredictable results. Damage will spread far and wide. Republicans in Congress should not rest easy. The new class of Republicans will expect privileges that junior members only get when they are a large group (like the Class of 1994). They will insist on changes within Congress and the Republican Caucus. Smart members of the current Republican Caucus will avoid defending the Caucus's recent stupidities of boondoogle earmarks and reckless spending prior to 2006. They will seek strong law-and-order measures, such as border enforcement and immigration law enforcement (as two separate issues rather than one jumbled mess). They will seek simple laws that are easier to self-police, leading to smaller, less wasteful government.
Simplicity of law is liberty. Bureaucracy is the midwife of tyranny. When the middle becomes passionate about these ideas, Obama's agenda is dead.
As hated as Nixon is today and as demeaned as election strategy is too (move rightward for the primary and move to the center for the general election), he understood some basic concepts. He understood that the body politic is actually not just two parties but several groups. These groups are small and align around broader, similar concepts. These groups become successful and powerful when they aggregate larger and larger alliances together. Part of the process is dropping concepts from their main message that the larger group cannot support. Part of it is softening catch phrases to remove the harshness of tone. Moving between groups at different times is part of group building.
The part that few people wish to admit, except at times of radical transition, is that a common enemy is the biggest group builder of all. The common sentiments of frustration and anger allow people to shed old alliances and the older, larger groups start shrinking. These new unaligned voters may stay unaligned unless they find a group that shares their message and tone. The common enemy allows old hatreds to begin to appear petty compared to the new frustration and growing anger. This allows a courtship, similar to the old lyrics from the "Facts of Life" theme song: "The boys you used to hate, Now you date."
The famous French philosopher La Rochefaucauld wrote, "La haine est plus proche de l'amour que l'amite": Hate is closer to love than friendship. Obama has succeeded in causing a growing number of his passionate followers to turn on him. These ex-followers are his greatest problem because they will turn forever on him and his party.
The middle that does not wish to ever be passionate but wants to appear reasonable, those are moving away from him. He can get them back so long as they stay dispassionate. They want to reason issues out and find a middle way. These are the people that socialism and its kissing cousin fascism have always played to. Mussolini invented the modern use of the phrase the "third way." He sensed that coloring his socialism for the middle of his body politic would get him elected. He played to this desire for dispassion and made them passionate for an undefined "something else."
Obama rose to power on his version of the third way: "Hope. Change." Like Mussolini, he was less than clear on the stump of what he sought to do. He allowed the radical left to see the details to keep them happy by having white papers on his website that gave details. He knew that the middle of population would never research the white papers. They had too little passion to research his ideas. It was too big of a burden to challenge their hope for a third way. Why deal with the facts when you are comfortable in the middle.
Now Obama has done something that few have done successfully in recent American political history. He has made portions of the middle uncomfortable and angry. They are getting angrier every time they learn more about his health plan.
What's worse is these angry people start doing research on the plan and run across articles on the global warming myth. They get angrier still.
We may soon start to see a disappearing middle. The middle won't disappear because of the brilliance of current GOP leadership. The middle will disappear because they have focused anger that won't allow them to pretend they are being reasonable. They will start to see that reason has a home in the GOP's body politic (even if it is remarkably absent in the Republican party establishment in DC). The GOP's thinkers and middle America members are the real intellectual powerhouses of the country. Their ability to communicate without the DC establishment as an intermediary has created chorus of strong-minded, clear-thinking, passionate, and all-too-polite people. The middle won't be able to remain dispassionate nor to ignore the violence-prone thugs representing Obama's cause. Once the pendulum of political passion starts to sway, it is harder to bring back to rest.
That is Obama's problem. He is getting hit by the pendulum that he put in motion. The pendulum threatens to grow into a wrecking ball.
The quick answer to stopping a swinging wrecking ball is an application of an equal force in the exact opposite direction. Since that is difficult to do, the application of thug power in another direction will cause the wrecking ball of passion and resentment against Obama to careen into his fellow Democrats in Congress and spread the damage.
A disappearing middle and a careening wrecking ball leads to unpredictable results. Damage will spread far and wide. Republicans in Congress should not rest easy. The new class of Republicans will expect privileges that junior members only get when they are a large group (like the Class of 1994). They will insist on changes within Congress and the Republican Caucus. Smart members of the current Republican Caucus will avoid defending the Caucus's recent stupidities of boondoogle earmarks and reckless spending prior to 2006. They will seek strong law-and-order measures, such as border enforcement and immigration law enforcement (as two separate issues rather than one jumbled mess). They will seek simple laws that are easier to self-police, leading to smaller, less wasteful government.
Simplicity of law is liberty. Bureaucracy is the midwife of tyranny. When the middle becomes passionate about these ideas, Obama's agenda is dead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
