|
Posted on 11/25/2012 10:28:39 AM PST by AnonymousConservative
I am also on facebook, if anybody does that, at
http://www.facebook.com/anonymousconservative
The Republican Party lost because it lacks leadership.
And after the election it still lacks leadership.
They’re not standing up for anything. They’re not leading any movements.
They’re just the alternative to Obama - and with their calls to raise taxes and open the borders, they’re not even doing that in a lot of cases.
Romney was right about one thing: the ‘Rats won because Obama is adept and giving his voters stuff from the public treasury. The ‘Rats are a coalition of moochers. They vote ‘Rat because Obama delivered on the loot - Obama phones, food stamps, ending welfare-to-work, etc. We now have 51% living off 49%. In any democracy, this is probably inevitable. Which is why we were supposed to have a republic where the voting franchise was limited to producers, but we devolved into a let-anybody-vote democracy. What else could we expect but Jefferson’s two wolves and a sheep voting on what they’ll have for dinner?
Despite overusing the word “amygdalae”, I basically agree with you. The Soros paid communist propaganda machine controlled the narrative while the Kenyan spent 6 trillion buying up votes. In the end, the Kenyan still had to steal votes to win.
How do conservatives regain power? The easy way is if NYC, Richmond, Tampa, Philly, Denver, Chicago and Las Vegas are nuked. The harder way is to blame the coming economic collapse on the Kenyan.
Resist we much!
Paragraph after paragraph, let me do it in one word RINO.
Even you are way too kind to the socialists. You need to explain very simply how your side is better and works for the public good as opposed to redistributive malaise and capital constriction. Until then, until we have a plain speaking common sense person who can truly explain why capitalist policies are for the greater good, the socialsits will continue to keep racism, perversion, sick voter alliances and bigger and bigger governemnt as their power base to maintain control and power. The Repub/Independents need to work on controlling the Senate and House first in two years. In the end that is what it is about for them: power and control, not the greatest good for the greatest number. Think about it a lot harder, metaphysicize it more, then return with simple absolute truths about the system you promote at its most basic levels. Not meeting whack for whack, but explain why their system is flawed and yours is not. All the way down to ground zero economically. No one who has not made up their mind about left versus right will have one clue about what you wrote above. Make it simple and true. And explain WHY it works.
I stopped reading right there.
I suppose most contemporary "intellectuals" are clueless.
Busloads of the senile, dim-witted and illiterates are routinely shuttled from place to place with 'minders' who tell them how to vote.
Pure democracy (mobocracy), which the Founders feared as much as Monarchies, has insidiously crept into our body politic, even our Constitution over the last 100 years until, I fear, the Supreme Court as presently constituted will announce it "legal." The obvious observation of so long ago, that
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
- John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address
is no longer even remembered.
Close to half of the voting population does not have the brains and minds to qualify as completely human, and "appealing" to reason is a fool's errand.
No, I don't know of a possible way to fix it in the current cultural climate, but I refuse to read the remainder of this Polyanna sermon.
Ding ding ding! No more calls, folks! We have a winner!
LES, you have just explained in one sentence, why the Republicans lost the last two presidential elections, and why GWB was just barely twice elected.
We haven't had a candidate who truly lives, breathes, and owns our country's Founding Principles, since Ronald Reagan. We will not win the White House until someone who does, steps forth and decimates the policies of the left with facts, logic, reason, and real courage.
Listen to conservative icon, Bill Whittle explain this very concept:
This is probably the best analysis of the past election that has come out. I do have one suggestion. Look at the motivation of the leaders in the Democrat party. They aren’t socialists. They are grifters....con men. How would the Democrat voters react if they knew their Democrat leaders weren’t really interested in redistributing wealth, but in acquiring as much of it for themselves as they can? The Democrats have been using psychology and sociology and the Republicans have been using political science.
It’s past time for a grass roots GOP candidate to arise. The 2016 version is not yet on the horizon. Any known quantity (Rubio, Palin, Jindal) can be defined and marginalized. The GOP needs a wildcard in 2016...a member of the pop culture. Clint Eastwood please pick up the red courtesy phone...
We need a slash burn take no
prisioners policy
To answer the headline question: George Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell, Trent Lott, Bill Frist.
Where it went right: Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, Tom Delay, Jim DeMint, men who have the stomach and the desire to actually battle the liberals.
I well remember when George Bush first was interviewed about running for President. He pointed with great pride how he had “reached across the aisle” to work with Democrats. When he reached across the aisle to work with Pelosi and Reid, they gnawed his hand off and strong armed everything they wanted with no argument.
I think part of the problem is for a while Democrats attacked every Republican leader who stood up to them. Gingrich, Delay, Bush, Cheney, etc. Once a Boehner got in, and didn’t attack, they left him alone.
Now our party is lead by the weak kneed and limp wristed.
The only hope is to show them the power they could attain, if they went on the attack.
This analysis is far too simplistic and naive to pin it mainly on salesmanship. Reagan would have lost CA and the presidency with today’s demographic. Demographics is destiny. This could be good or bad depending on the cultural make-up of this new bloc of voters in the post Cold War era. Gay marriage would have been unheard of during Reagan’s time. Nor did we have the massive influx of immigration, legal and illegal, Asian and Hispanic, who don’t relate to America’s cultural and religious values. Much of Detroit is now “Little Kabul.”
In California, Orange County was the bastion of conservatism, but no more. Just look at what was once staunchly conservative Republican congressional districts (Palm Springs) going liberal. San Diego now has an openly gay Supervisor as is the Speaker of the California Assembly. No, this was a quiet revolution of culture that took place with the express if not tacit support of our RINOs and those chickens are coming home to roost with a squawking vengeance. Think Bushes’ “compassionate conservatism” and Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty among ideas to be blamed for this rot.
“You need to explain very simply how your side is better and works for the public good as opposed to redistributive malaise and capital constriction.”
Yes and no. The case I am making is a technical case that the brain is most easily programmed to be averse to things. It is a consequence of evolution, where you really needed to learn what was bad for you, in your environment. As a result, you actually have a brain structure, which spends its time spotting things which are bad, and linking them to perceived causes, so you can avoid the bad in the future. Interestingly the more developed the structure, the more likely you are to be Conservative, and understand the bad things which need to be avoided.
My point is, this is an easily exploitable hack for the brain, because all you need to do is emotionally attach Liberalsim to negative feelings, through denigration, ridicule, humiliation, and adverse consequences in real life.
This is not so much a feeling/opinion piece as a mechanistic, “here is a simple mechanism you can exploit” piece.
“Not meeting whack for whack, but explain why their system is flawed and yours is not.”
This piece is a simplified introduction to how neuroscience should mold strategy. Based on it, we should be going two whacks for every one from a liberal. Whacks are what make ideologues, particularly among the mushy center, who wouldn’t even take the time to listen to a reasoned argument, or inform themselves.
“No one who has not made up their mind about left versus right will have one clue about what you wrote above.”
Exactly. Because they have the attention span of chickpeas. That’s why the piece doesn’t advocate for making detailed arguments to them. This is being written for strategists. Again, a cat can be trained to panic at the sound of a whistle, if their amygdala links the sound of the whistle to aversive stimulus.
Look at my piece as explaining the following mechanism. I have a really delicious apple pie. I want you to eat a piece. If I offer it to you, you will eat it. If I hold a shotgun loaded with 3” 00 buck to your knee, and tell you I’m pulling the trigger in 30 seconds unless the piece of pie is finished, you will eat it, very fast.
The first method uses a dopamine release, which motivates nicely. The second method uses the amygdala which motivates with certainty. In a political game of rock/paper/scissors, amygdala trumps dopamine.
Machiavelli said the same thing when he said “It is good to be loved, but it is surer to be feared.”
If you focus on technical manipulations, emotionally linking Liberalism to aversive stimulus, you will motivate people to turn right far better than the feel good pablum the GOPe uses now, and even the logical arguments which would motivate you.
It is a geek piece for a narrow audience, though.
Pollyana?
“Close to half of the voting population does not have the brains and minds to qualify as completely human, and “appealing” to reason is a fool’s errand.”
If you read my work, you’d see I agree. I’m advocating an emotional/neurological manipulation to gain control over a percentage of the half which are too stupid for logic. It would likely be enough to win, and was the method Reagan used to drive Liberalism into the gutter.
But by all means, read the first three sentences, and then render your verdict.
Thank you for the kind words.
Your suggestion is an excellent way to attach aversive stimulus to the leaders of the Democratic party, in the minds of moderate Democratic voters. Guys like you (Reagan comes to mind) see this ability to mold minds innately, and do it instinctively. I am writing mostly for people who don’t see this, and assume everyone thinks like them. They inariably want to present a logical, reasoned argument for why Conservatism is good. But that doesn’t create aversive stimulus, and attach it to liberals the way arguing why Liberalism is bad will.
It’s a subtle distinction, but a vital one to grasp, if you are formulating strategy.
Aggressive denigration and humiliation, in a social context, will drive Liberals at least underground, with a percentage taking Conservative positions for socially beneficial reasons.
Thank you for the comment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
