Posted on 08/29/2010 9:24:21 PM PDT by Lorianne
Wow, wow, double-wow. So comprehensive and well said. They really, really DO believe all that. I know, I’ve had to contend with it almost daily from liberal acquaintances, even a dear family member and her spouse, as well as from my boyfriend (who’s fast becoming more boy than friend).
Like you, I constantly try to clarify with them the history and true, basic tenets that are the original foundation of the republican party
But I often get so discouraged because “they” (too many millions of them) are deeply misguided, brainwashed and DON’T want to be “confused” by the real facts. These are scary times indeed. What to do.
It’s why I come here to FR - for enlightenment, comfort and renewal to keep fighting the good fight. I thank God for leading me to FR and everyone here.
Why are these moral issues called “wedge issues”? A wedge issue is a smaller issue that almost everyone can agree on, used to increase support for the larger issue that people are divided on.
There is an equal if not larger number who do not vote on economic issues but on moral ones: the non-wealthy evangelicals who vote their conscience and nothing else. The people who tried to elect Schundler in New Jersey but couldn’t match the country-club folks in dollars, because they have given their money away and tithe. Try 60 percent of the GOP. We don’t need to alienate them, and yes, it is the Left that is trying to do so.
If ever we needed a big tent it is now, but not the big tent that the RINOs would like. A tent that includes all our own people. With that, we can’t lose.
Something else to note about “wedge” issues. Abortion, racial preferences, the driving of faith out of the public square and gay marriage—the 4 most contentious “wedge”issues— all share one thing in common:
Democrats have advanced them by doing end runs around the democratic process. All have been decided entirely or in large part by judges. That makes them constitutional issues. People could lose on any of them in congress or in the state legislatures and not become inflamed by the result. There is always the next election. But when judges issue diktats which cannot be overriden by a vote...all hell breaks loose. Democrats have no one to blame but themselves for these “wedge” issues being so incendiary.
A “wedge issue” is one that splits a political base. It’s exploited by the opposition.
For example, blacks oppose gay marriage more than other democrats. If a politician were able to target blacks highlighting the Dem support for it, that would be using a “wedge issue.”
In politics, a wedge issue is something you use against your opponent and try to keep them from using against you.
You don’t have to compromise your values. Just don’t insist that everyone meet them! We are all together on the main issues of freedom. Let’s fight in the open political forum about our rights as Americans to live in a country free of government intrusion.
The rest will settle out. Abortion is a hearts and minds issue.
The first time I ever heard the term was years ago, and it applied to partial-birth abortion. The issue was used to divide the Left on the larger issue of abortion itself. The reasoning was that if you could appall people enough at PBA, they would sense, if only dimly, that all abortion was slaughter.
Gay marriage could possibly be used to divide the straight middle who do not care that much about gay marriage from the militant gays and their supporters, who do want it. A smaller issue used to divide a larger one, the larger one being support for the gay agenda in general.
It’s a sharp issue that separates the thinkers from the straitjacketed lefties.
Your last paragraph makes no sense at all. How could something like partial-birth abortion be used to divide pro-lifers? It’s the part of the issue they would be most vehement about supporting! Wedges are only sharp at one end.
I see the language getting dumbed down all the time. Back in the sixties, Bill Kunstler exhorted his followers, “Right on!” Meaning they should continue the fight right onward without stopping. Now it is used to mean the equivalent of the British “spot on”: “you are exactly right!”
Let’s remember what a wedge issue actually is. Then maybe we have a chance of using it effectively.
What's a wedge issue for one side isn't for the other.
To dream up an example here, you'd need to think of a wedge for pro-lifers to support abortion, for some it might "in the case of rape or incest" since for some that sounds reasonable usage. I think what was used in the early abortion battle of Roe v. Wade was the red herring of back alley, clothes hanger abortions - even today the left says "making abortion rare and SAFE".
So wedges are somewhat of an art form. You have to also be careful about what's called cross-pressure. For example if you talk about limits on abortion, like rape and incest, as a wedge against pro-lifers, you risk sounding wrong on the issue to pro-aborts. Ideally you control who gets what message - that's why direct mail and good lists are so valuable. But in today's media, it's hard to maintain message control, what is communicated to one target audience can get picked up and broadcast to everyone, and backfire on you.
Let’s remember what a wedge issue actually is. Then maybe we have a chance of using it effectively.
And avoid its use against us - which is the subject of this thread.
In politics, a wedge issue is something you use against your opponent and try to keep them from using against you.
So you meant to say ". . . and you try to keep them from using other wedge issues against you."
I still fail to see how a big moral issue is a wedge issue. One of the examples given was abortion. What would the larger issue be? Women's "rights"? I don't think so.
Or with God in the public square? What would the larger issue be? God?
Racial preferences? What would the larger issue be here? Disobedience to the rulings of the Supreme Court?
The only one that makes any sense is gay marriage, which could be a wedge issue to stop the headlong rush to gays taking over everything they feel like taking over, the whole gay agenda.
The issues mentioned in the article are big moral issues. They are not wedges. They are not micro-targets. Maybe we can think of a way to use wedges on these issues.
The Left is indeed trying to use these large issues against us, to divide the libertarians from the social conservatives. In that much we agree.
Funny how some people define "winning." I can almost see a poster during the Hitler years in Germany, ...If you want to win, JOIN THE NAZI PARTY...
SOCIAL-CONSERVATIVES must be firm in rejecting this kind of crap.
Or with God in the public square? What would the larger issue be? God?
Freedom of religion, church and state, which religion taught in schools, should religion be taught, who teaches it, prayer in school, how should religion be taught, if you're for school prayer, what about the Muslim prayer, a Mormon president?... Find the united position, look for factions, appeal to a faction, foment division, internal debate, fan the flames, promote the fights. The old divide and conquer - whatever works as an issue to do this = wedge issue.
Become an expert in spotting them and using them to win and oilå, you have the makings of a hired gun.
I realize I’m mixing up “our base” and “their base” but I’m tired and typing quickly and I hope you get the point anyway. A wedge is an issue that works to divide an otherwise unified base. Yours or your opponents, different wedges.
Good point illustrating how to work to defuse a wedge attempted against you. Find what's common to all the possibly wedge-able factions and unite behind that banner.
Any candidate, who I believed, that answered with those answers you wrote, would win my vote.
I think this article is 100% correct. Even my "middle of the road" friends agree with the Tea Party concepts, even if they are somewhat mushy on the social issues. Don't get me wrong, the majority agree with the Republicans on abortion, and gay marriage. They are just not their driving issues. They will vote Republican, this time, but that could change in two years if social issues overtake the economy.
Or just simply unite when we have a candidate, which didn’t happen last time and we are forced to watch our culture and government be dismantled piece by piece.
I still think it is helpful to use “wedge” for a creatively designed small issue that rends the fabric of a bigger issue for the other side, and just keep the phrase “dividing the opposition” for big sledgehammer type attacks. But I am one of those people who hate to see the fine distinctions in the English language get smooshed, especially those that are so useful in politics.
Libertarians talk about freedom and they’re nuts. So freedom also needs to be intertwined if you will, with responsibility. Absolute “freedom” from all restraint does not or cannot exist. But freedom from disgustingly vast federal and state Jabba the Hut size mega-regulated and mandated and ruled and regulated fascist-type stranglehold is necessary.
Homosexual agenda pusher want the “freedom” to marry, for instance.
Along with economy, reduction in fedgov interference needs to be stressed - IMO at least 75% or more of what the fedgov does is unconstitutional and highly destructive - we are in a death grip with unconstitutional insanity. That has to be stressed in elections. Has to be. Freedom from the fascist monstrosity in DC.
Sounds good to me. One thing lately is that many new signups (and some older ones) are all of a sudden very energized, trying to demoralize conservatives with messages like "It's over, it's hopeless, we can't win, "gay" marriage is inevitable, 0thugga will have two terms, anyone who doubts his eligibility is a nutcase", etc.
There are plenty here who are purposely trying to undermine conservative strength, energy and purpose. That's different from people just having some different viewpoints. It's a "Tokyo Rose" kind of thing.
Fiscal issues that entirely leave aside all social issues, or to put it another way, a candidate who pushes fiscal conservatism while being a social liberal, will so de-energize a large number of voters that it almost insures a loss.
Plus, there really is no such thing as a real fiscal conservative/social liberal. All socially liberal positions require money to enforce, plus to clean up the mess they cause. Another way to describe social issues is "personal responsibility - not government responsibility".
If you’ve been wading through all this stuff, nuff said. :-)
If it were within my ability, I’d be delighted to send you a Benihana gift card - because what better way to cast off all your worries than by having shrimp flung at you?
That may be the most succinct and accurate description of the tea parties that I’ve ever seen. Sentences two through six should be posted and pinned.
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.