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)
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.
Politically, maybe, and it makes a lot of sense. My wife, for instance, would never have an abortion voluntarily, but thinks there are too many babies in the world that are neglected and it needs to be an option. She is pro-choice that way, but again, it’s a personal issue to her.
I think Conservatives need to win at all costs, and although homos and Planned Parenthood AFTER you are elected, not before.
Be like Obie, go as a centrist and then turn into Goldwater, I say.
Yes, I think many here are missing the strategic aspect of the post and believe someone is advocating they have to give up their values. No one is advocating that.
How many times have folks voted in moderates who claimed to be fiscal conservatives, only to have them pull a 180 in office? 9 times out of 10 the desire to be moderate spills over to a wishywashy stance on taxes, earmarks and spending.
Maybe the difference is a man or woman who is not afraid to stand up for they believe is more likely to stand strong on fiscal matters. All know is that we keep trying it your way and we just keep moving left. I believe it’s part of the reason we are in the mess we’re in.
I read his article where he explained why he voted for Obama - his view was that either things would spiral down quickly (under Obama) or slowly (under McCain) and that the fast spiral might have a chance of waking people up or at the very least the crash over with quickly so rebuilding can come that much faster. Under McCain it would’ve been years and years of complacency and malaise.
This is why he voted for Obama, not because he supported him.
It’s not something I could’ve done (voted for Obongo) but his viewpoint does have some logic to it.
Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater - Denninger is a smart guy and not a libtard.
Recommending that Karl Denninger be taken with a grain of salt isn’t exactly incendiary. Why are you so eager to jettison the core of conservative voters just to gain former Obama voters? To win, lol? We have a coalition, one that must include both fiscal and social conservatives in order to have the numeric strength to win national elections.
If you think disgruntled fools who fell for Obama’s song and dance are the ticket to success, well, I can’t help you much. Let me guess, you’re from either the northeast or the west coast, and believe social conservatives to be out of the mainstream because you don’t know any.
The challenge is to speak on so-called “wedge” issues in a way that energizes the base, while not losing too many votes from the middle. It can be done, as many winning candidates have shown. We just have to pick our battles, and note the terrain in planning, before we join battle.
Examples: pro-life is winning, as long as the candidate does not make it his only issue. Pro-gun is winning, outside of some northern cities (that conservatives rarely win). The clearer our message, the harder the State Run Media have to work to twist it. But as we can see from Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, Ronald Reagan, and others, being clear and on-message makes us a big target.
And we should learn from the mistakes of our adversaries. Listening is important. People will tell you what their issues are. Admit mistakes quickly, then move on. Vet candidates early. The Dems are beginning to regret not vetting the current res—dent of the White House> Let them regret another two years, four months (or less).
Seems like a simple idea; I’m not sure why it is so controversial. No one is saying the Tea Party has to become a social lib movement.
I don’t get that impression about Denninger.
He seems active in his local Tea Party movement.
Even the posts show that many people agree with him so it’s not a wedge were none exists ... it does exist.
You don’t get it. You don’t have to be pro-abortion or pro-gay marriage to follow his advice. He’s not advocating for that.
Strawman.
No one is suggesting giving up social core 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.