Posted on 12/12/2005 8:32:42 AM PST by NormsRevenge
If you assume, as I do, that the purpose of the political process is to persuade people to entrust you with power, the solution to the losses Governor Schwarzenegger faced in November is simple. It is also hard work. And it is the solution the Governor seems to be avoiding.
If I have any complaint with many of my California Republican colleagues, it would be that they think they can outsmart, outwit, or outmaneuver the Democrats. They believe that if they can find just the right issue, or just the right tactic, they can slick their way into a majority in the legislature. They are wrong.
The press, the Governor, the pollsters, and many others are right when they say that a majority of Californians do not agree with the Republican agenda of smaller government, less taxes, more freedom, stronger families, and stronger communities. The liberals in this state start with that advantage in any election. Today, more people agree with them than agree with most of the Republican officeholders in this state.
However, it is a big mistake to then capitulate to that fact. The great thing about good ideas is that, while people may be misled for a while, they are not misled forever. They will follow those with good ideas when they are persuaded that those ideas are good for them personally and for society in general.
Polls represent facts. We may not like the facts, but they are important for assessing a successful political strategy. If the sole purpose of politics is to obtain power, then polls will drive policy. But, as Gray Davis discovered, people are fickle. If they think all a politician wants is power, they will deprive him of that power as quickly as they entrusted him or her with it.
That is why it is important to develop a cohesive political philosophy. There really are only two cohesive political philosophies available to anyone running for office. One is the collectivist theory (upon which socialism, fascism, and communism is based) and the other is the individualist theory (of freedom, free enterprise, and representative republics like ours). Each has a set of principles that cannot be violated, and there is no middle ground between the two. There is no “moderate” socialism, and no “moderate” freedom. A ruler either embraces one or the other as his or her guiding philosophy.
Then that ruler seeks to set about to convince people that his or her guiding philosophy is what is best for each citizen and for society in general.
I happen to believe that the individualist philosophy and the principles that surround it are what are best for society, and for every person in society. I also believe that I have to spend whatever time it takes persuading a majority of the people in this state that my philosophy, and the principles that implement it, are the right ones for them. I will obtain power when I have convinced enough people to agree with me. I can’t trick them into believing me, I can’t market them into believing me; I can only convince them. And that takes work.
I won’t win by hiring a collectivist from the other side, and trying to use that individual to implement my agenda freedom and free enterprise. I will only win by talking to enough people, in groups, or one on one, to change enough minds, to get a majority.
Ronald Reagan got it. He had enough faith in his ideas that he did not take his special election loss of 1973 as a signal to capitulate to the Democrats, or to get one of their operatives as his chief aide. He just got to work changing minds. He saw with a remarkable clarity the job that he had to accomplish. And he changed the world.
That's precisely it. When a majority are net consumers of tax dollars, they know bloody well that socialism is in their best interests. How does one convince people to give up a net income in the interest of morality, fairness or the "good of society"?
The issue in the USofA is: Support the "GREATEST GOOD FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER' or support "EVERYONE MUST BE EQUAL'
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."
-- Norman Thomas, six-time Socialist Party presidential candidate and one of the founders of the ACLU.
It appears that he did not talk to enough people to get 76 and 77 passed in his district either.
Arnold's already talking about another $50B in new bonds to go with the $50B or so we already have on the books.
It truly is becoming an Atlas Shrugged situation here -- yesterday's SF Chronicle noted that population growth in Silicon Valley is like 0.7% over the past four years and that over 12,000 households moved from SV to Washoe County, NV (just across the border, where Reno is).
One must conclude that the "increase" in SV is due entirely to illegals.
Yeah I remember the good ole days when Dems said we must help the worlds poor rise up.
Now that that's happened it winds up that their rising has brought the Dems down.
Now the Dems scream no mo out sourcing.
Obviously Ray is just as upset as the rest of us at Arnold's stupid appointment to Chief of Staff infections!!!
I just don't believe that Arnold and all his supporters, athletic and otherwise, gets this!!!
This seems to also be the thinking of too many freepers.
Ain't it the trooth?!?
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.