Posted on 08/29/2010 9:24:21 PM PDT by Lorianne
You're not going to want to hear this.
Nonetheless, you have to.
If you want to win - indeed, if you want to make any sort of serious inroad into the American Political Process, you need to read this, you need to listen, and you need to adopt this path.
If you do not, you will be marginalized into irrelevance, no matter what else you do.
Here it is:
You must discard - intentionally - all "wedge issues" as points of debate, discussion, or campaigning. You know what these issues are - they fall broadly into the category of religion in one form or another.
These are issues such as abortion and gay rights (in all it's forms, including marriage debates), but is by no means limited to these two. In short, if there's a religious basis for your position, you must not campaign on it, and indeed you must pointedly refuse to discuss it.
The Tea Party began as a protest over bailouts and handouts - that is, theft and corruption within our markets, government and economy. This is a winning position with 90% of the American Body Politic.
Any candidate who runs on these issues - and these issues alone, promising to stop it and lock up the scammers - all of them - wins.
As soon as you bring the other issues that everyone wants to talk about into this, you will lose.
Here's why.
These are called "wedge issues" for a reason.
What you personally believe is irrelevant to the political process. These issues are used by the two main political parties to get the electorate to divide on a 50/50 basis - thus leaving them having to persuade exactly one person of their position on some other issue to win.
You cannot win such a contest. At best you can force one of the other parties - the one that most agrees with you - to lose. The reason is simple - you will split that half of the electorate, which means the other party - the one that disagrees with your position on those issues - wins the election.
Drill this into your head folks:
If you allow these issues to become part of your campaign, you will not only lose you will cause the party that most-agrees with you to lose.
I know this is going to be unpopular, but it needs to be said. I've seen this happening in some of the local Tea Party groups, and it saddens me. The local Niceville branch here featured people talking about "natural law" as an important qualifying factor for political candidacy, as just one of many examples. There were times I felt like I had walked into a Baptist sermon.
The Tea Party and other political expressions like it are, of course, free to run on whatever platform they'd like, and to back candidates based on whatever they'd like. But if you're going to do this, then you'd be wise to try to take over the Republican Party instead of being "independent" or any other sort of "outside" influence, because it is the only way you can win with this approach.
The Tea Party infiltrating The Republican establishment is a long shot. Witness John McCain, who made a campaign spectacle out of bailing out the banks. How's JD Hayworth doing in challenging him? He lost, right? How'd that happen? The same way it always happens: Hayworth let the campaign's terms include those wedge issues, and then got tattoed by the guy with the bigger warchest and the ability to threaten people politically.
You either change the terms of the debate and the issues upon which the election is decided or you lose.
It's that simple.
(excerpted)
Dittos.
Couldn’t agree less.
I agree also - for the Tea Party. And that it should eschew a leadership hierarchy. I hope that it remains focused on small government and economic freedom.
At the same time I believe a political party and politicians have to state their positions on all issues in the political arena.
Political parties and the Tea Party may overlap. But I agree with the general point of the article. To win we should focus on the issue that unites the greatest number in opposing our common enemy.
I don’t care if someone is a flaming whatever that supports abortion and gay marriage, if they will vote against big government and throw the bums out in November, I welcome their vote.
Sorry, no deal. Any Republican that ignores abortion and traditional marriage won't get elected dog catcher.
Neither can I
It’s harsh but true. The message needs to be simplified and stuck to in order to counter what the Dems will try to do with the wedge issues.
One person on Denningers board told about the 3 pronged position that the Carolina Tea Party is using. It’s something like:
- Fiscal responsibility
- Limited government
- Follow the Constitution
I’d like to add “Root out fraud and corruption” to that.
What scares me is that if we fall prey to the lure of the wedge issues and lose we won’t have a country to argue about anymore.
Over my dead body.
This thread is in need of a MAJOR BARF ALERT !
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Oy. I agree, but I know there’s a lot of Freepers who want the Tea Party to get all religious. The proprietor has already weighed in with his very strong opinion, so no doubt the ostracism is coming from the majority soon.
What if my belief in smaller government and less taxes is religiously based, can I not talk about that either?
In the end, all my political positions originates from my belief in unalienable rights of man endowed by their creator. Without that I can’t really say that any form of government how ever repressive is “wrong”.
You cannot effect any change on social issues if you don’t WIN.
Time for Our Constitution to SING!
God, honor, life and liberty.
Wedge issues?
You betcha!
Ours and theirs.
Without social conservatives, the Republican will lose by default.
I don’t care if someone is a flaming whatever that supports abortion and gay marriage, if they will vote against big government and throw the bums out in November, I welcome their vote.
We've tried the fiscal conservative/social liberal Republican (See RINOLD in CA) before. It has failed miserably. At the least, I will accept a Governor McDonnell of Virginia campaign strategy of proudly stating his social conservatism but focused on taxes and spending. However, any Republican that de-emphasizes abortion and homosexual marriage might as well concede before the votes are counted.
Abortion is not a religious issue. It is a human rights issue. The same as slavery. Just because something is supported by people of faith does not mean the issue itself is religious.
Is this a recommendation for the Tea Party or for politicians? If for the Tea Party it’s quite presumptuous to assume they need to be lectured since they were formed on the issue of small government and less taxes and therefore are a specialized interest group. I would agree breaking from the principle that binds them no matter what the issue would be stupid. However if this is about what politicians should do...then FORGET IT. In case you would like to forget, the majority now considers themselves pro-life, support traditional marriage, support enforcing borders, support no mosque at Ground zero and consider themselves Christian. If these issues make YOU uncomforyable..YOUR problem. If a politician chooses to strike against the American people on MAJORITY issues...don’t count on the support of nother conservatives who don’t consider money their sole guiding principle for support.
How many campaigns has Karl run and won?
Thank you! That can't be stated enough. If we intend to restore this country to Constitutional governance using the ballot box, this is the only way to do it.
But I'm sure it will feel great to have that feeling of moral superiority to warm your empty belly as you sit in the rubble of your ruined Marxist country.
Denninger supported Obama, which is why I take his periodic hair-on-fire diatribes with a grain of salt.
And just for the record...way I hear it advocating for less governnment, cutting spending and cutting taxes makes you a right wing extremist. There is NO issue that isn’t considered a wedge issue by some MINORITY group out there. People who are uncomfortable by the other issues may like to think themselves “reasonable” but in truth they label you just as extreme.
I agree abortion is not a necessarily a religious issue. But it is framed as such so much so that you can’t fight that battle and all the other battles and win.
I am 100% pro-Life ... but I think Denninger is right on getting elected you must stick to fiscal issues, which can be a big winner right now more than ever.
Sure you can. Both the pro-life movement & traditional marriage proponents have been very effective, passing DOMA in the 90s and outlawing partial-birth abortion. Also working on public opinion which shows more people support traditional marriages and younger people being pro-life.
If a Republican disregards life and supports homosexual marriage, how are we to trust him on other issues that matter? Giving benefits to homosexual couples and funding Planned Parenthood isn't fiscal conservatism.
“Witness John McCain, who made a campaign spectacle out of bailing out the banks. How’s JD Hayworth doing in challenging him? He lost, right? How’d that happen? The same way it always happens: Hayworth let the campaign’s terms include those wedge issues, and then got tattoed by the guy with the bigger warchest and the ability to threaten people politically.”
I’m thinking about the issues raised here but the above statement is incorrect.
JD was outspent 10 to 1, made some tactical errors, did not have GOP in AZ behind him from the outset, had Sara Palin support Juan, had media outlets against him. When his infamous “Free Government Money InfoCommercial” came out, he never recovered. These factors do not translate or abstract into a more valid general assessment of election dynamics. JMHO (as a JD supporter here in AZ)
How so? Most I saw are pro-life and say they are Christians.
November is a battle not the war. They’ve been preparing for 60 years. For all you old hippies out there remember Don Juan (Time cover & all that — the old Yaqui Indian eating mushrooms and dispensing wisdom to the washed): a warrior has only his will and his patience.
Agree
Not all of them but there are Econocons so glued to their stock tickers, that is all they see. If only the economic system were changed to their liking, if only we had this or that new law or this or that law repealed or this or that law enforced, unicorns would be dancing in the streets passing out lollipops. They see nothing beyond their little material world and they are extremely intolerant of those who know that culture and morality, not law, determines the success of a society.
You don’t have to support abortion or gay marriage.
Focus on fiscal issues doesn’t mean you don’t have those other values. It’s not either/or.
As usual, Karl is right on the money.
You cannot effect any change on social issues if you don’t WIN.
So we become like Obama, without raising the taxes so high or restricting our liberties quite as much? Obamalite?
Maybe I will have to read further...I started on the “Last” page, and worked my way up...had to stop, thought it was like DU.
I doubt he gives a damn about the Tea Party. Seems to me he's trying to drive a wedge in a movement where none exists. Tea Party folks are already socially conservative.
Same old divide-and-conquer BS. And you're falling for it, Lorianne.
This is right on the money. Every one of our conservative candidates could win with five canned issues and answers, no matter what the questions asked are. All questions to a conservative candidate from the media are asked simply to trip up the candidate and try to pin various extremest labels on them.
Here’s the five answers:
1. I’ll vote to reduce taxes and reduce spending.
2. I’ll vote to reduce regulation, including green house gas regulations.
3. I’ll vote for a strong military and for strong protection of our borders.
4. I’ll vote for strong methods for protecting our country from terrorist and other enemies.
5. I’ll vote to repeal ObamaCare and then vote to replace it with honest reform.
Say, and really believe, these four things and nothing more and you will be elected. The rest and come after you are elected.
Agree - 100%
Every social issue that is brought into the conversation loses some fraction of the people in the movement. You may say good riddance, but you’d be diluting the impact of the movement - and the more issues you add, the more irrelevant the movement becomes.
NO!
I will NOT compromise my values to make nice with the Democrat butt-kissing RINO GOP. Time for the GOP to choose where they want to be instead.
And he is now active in the Tea Party as are other Obama voters.
Why make enemies?
I don’t agree.
I can do “lesser of evil” calculations as well as anyone.
But I’m looking for the whole package. If you don’t get “natural law” you probably don’t get the constitution either. If your morality is rooted in the culture rather than the transcendant you don’t have anyway of knowing when the culture has gone off the rails.
So, no, I’m not going to ignore the moral order. Separate from the moral order liberty can’t sustain itself. If a McCain is all we’ve got to go up against a raving communist, then fine, but the fact that after all of the backstabbing McCain has done, Arizonans reward him with high office, is itself evidence of a much deeper problem.
If you keep losing at the political level its because you’ve already lost at the deeper moral level. Your response has to be on both levels. You’ll never turn it around, though, if you can’t speak to the deeper moral law. Its not just about winning, if winning means electing people like McCain. You have to persuade and win with people who truly represent your views.
Is reelecting McCain a victory? For who, besides McCain?
No. You don’t have to abandon your values in order to focus first and foremost on fiscal issues,
It’s not either/or.
For someone who detests “religious” issues, Karl Denninger is sure preachy. Sorry, Karl, I want to know where a candidate stands on the issues of abortion and marriage. If they aren’t willing to take a principled stand, I’m not willing to lend my support or vote for them.
The author is correct.
No, Denniger is full of feces because the Tea Party Republican candidates are also social conservatives. This is a red herring. Name one candidate backed by the Tea Party who is pro-abortion or supports homo marriage. There ain't any.
Don't fall for this divide-and-conquer BS. The Left has already tried to isolate the evangelicals from the Tea Party movement here and here.
Giving up our social core values is got us here in the first place.
Pray for America
so true....that approach is NOT compromising principles.
It is merely getting enough votes to get members in congress who will get this country out of the liberal deluge.
We can’t come off like self righteous, pompous, holier than thou idiots and expect respect....or votes.
Here! Here! Exactly what the founders said too. Without virtue, without a moral electorate, a republic will not endure. Some econcons and some libertarians always throw up a straw man here. Any mention of this is pushing religion, getting in people’s faces, peeking into their bedrooms. It is not. All we are saying is there are higher values than the buck and contractual obligations and if those values disapear, kiss goodbye to everything. The rich will overpower the weak, the corrupt dominate the virtuous and everything will fall apart.
It’s not either or.
It not that you don’t get natural law or don’t want moral order ... it’s that you want to strategically put more weight on fiscal issues ... in order to win.
Fiscal issues are a big winner at this point with many Democrats worried about tax and spend ... why not capitalize on that? You don’t have to toss your values in the trash to capitalize on a winning issue.
“You cannot effect any change on social issues if you don’t WIN.”
You said it Lorraine!
It’s not either or.
You don’t have to give up any values.
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.