Posted on 09/15/2010 6:36:54 AM PDT by Kaslin
A few years ago, I asked a political operative what he did for a living -- as the answer is often less obvious than you imagine.
"We isolate an issue," he explained. "Then we isolate the enemy and we try and destroy them."
If given a chance, politicos will almost always opt to personalize a debate. Case in point: the White House's nonstop efforts to convince voters that John Boehner is really some kind of Sith Lord. (As if we needed to be convinced.)
Sometimes, though, it can backfire. And if Republicans begin incorporating the festering obsession with President Barack Obama's birthplace, loyalties, origins or religion into their official argument, they will have blown it.
Take the tortured contention of noted conservative author Dinesh D'Souza. In a recent Forbes cover story, "How Obama Thinks," he blames the president's "odd" blame-America-first, redistributionist behavior on his Kenyan father's long lost anti-colonial philosophy.
Conservatives have an opening to make an uncluttered argument -- using the empirical data of a terrible economy -- that less spending, less regulation and less government is the way to create more prosperity. Dragging Third World colonialism into it -- and I can say this with near certitude -- is a bad idea on a number of levels.
To begin with, no decent TV-watching American has the faintest clue what you're talking about. And worse, the spurious claims about rampant right-wing racism will now gain fresh traction. That is, I'm afraid to say, the byproduct of bringing Kenyan politics into a perfectly constructive debate about how terrible this administration has been.
This fact is obvious to (SET ITAL) all (END ITAL) Republicans, right?
"What if (Obama) is so outside our comprehension that only if you understand Kenyan anti-colonial behavior can you begin to piece together (his actions)?" Newt Gingrich, highly impressed by D'Souza's essay, explained to National Review Online. "That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior."
Is Obama really outside your sphere of comprehension? To say you need a predictor to decode Obama's next move is to say that the president is offering us something more than the hard-left agenda the Democratic Party had promised -- rather unambiguously -- when it came to power.
Obama's policies are no more exotic than those of the nearest progressive academic, the angry, union-shilling, purple-shirted sign waver or New York Times editorial board member. There is no whodunit when it comes to "fair trade" or "social justice." There is nothing novel about embracing illiberal "friends" abroad. Nothing unique about redistributive economics or regulatory dictatorships.
It's all standard. And until recently, much of it politically unpalatable.
What about the fellow travelers who voted lock step with the president? Obama didn't write policy that nationalizes health care or bails out states.
Has there been an outbreak of Kenyan anti-colonialist sentiment I'm unaware of?
To psychoanalyze the man's ideological origins and concoct theories is to attach much more credit to these policies than they deserve.
Maybe there is a more obvious answer. Obama's political behavior might be alien to common sense and good government, but it's not alien to the United States.
In other words, pick your battles.
Missing the barf alert, aren’t we?
As for the anticolonial stuff, well, our founding fathers were anticolonial.
Pure Alinsky.
Obama got into office because he was "the other". A lot of guilty whites liked him because he was exotic -- it proved that they were not racist: that's why they voted for him. He was a change.
Now, we see him for what he is. The problem we see is that he is "the other". He's not American in his outlook. He wants to change the things that we like about our country.
I believe in emphasizing how very different Obama really is.
This is stupid.
You should attack on multiple fronts at once.
Don’t agree with the anti-0bama narrative? Well there are 10 more to choose from that may fit you better. Or at least there should be...
Democrats understand this. They always attack from a number of angles to fit different constituencies. They always have a backup plan, and a contingency for that, too. They work on multiple levels at once.
Republicans, on the other hand, have a vertical plan that consists of one line of attack that they hammer on no matter how little fruit it bears. Having only one line of attack and one battle plan makes it very easy for Demcrats to blunt. Which is probably why they are so much more electorally successful than they are ideologically popular.
Most Americans care most about their jobs or businesses or professions, their banks accounts and investments...their homes and cars.. their church.....their family and friends....and the price of gas....milk...eggs...bread....
And aren’t that all interested in politics other than general impressions....
I couldn’t even tell you what was in the “Contract for America” —even though in 1994, I was reading lots of news and was listening to talk radio fairly often.......
So I guarantee it wasn’t the “Contract” which brought in a Republican Congress in 1994....and what I remember most was how funny it was that the Democrats called it the “Contract ON America”.....at least they were listening and could conceive of a retort......
Mostly, it was because Clinton promised to cut middle class taxes, then didn’t that cost him 1994 Congress...and
it was Hillarycare, corruption and the Economy—which stalled in 1994 after Greenspan had lowered the Fed Funds rate, then raised it.....The middle class deserved tax cuts in the early 90s-—especially after all the cuts to the top brackets in the 1980s-—and then the raising them back up a little.....
In fact, both parties were furious at Greenspan in and coming out of the Savings and Loan crisis....
George HW Bush criticized Greenspan for not making big cuts to the Fed Funds rate after he raised taxes in 1990....
and Democrats blamed Greenspan for 1994—after good GDP growth in 1992 and 1993-——because by 1992, interest rates had been lowered...but he raised them after the Clinton tax increase.....
Bush lost in 1992 because he criticized Greenspan, ie a Jewish banker...and thus was accused of being an anglo-Wasp Jew-hater...
Which is what Obama is being called now for bashing Wall Street——
Exactly. ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK we can do it and the elite are very vulnerable.
According to liberals...NOTHING is “anti-American”...and even burning the flag is an act of love, according to them....
Plus, you’ve got the Civil Rights Act telling you it’s wrong to discriminate on the basis of “CREED”, which was meant to protect commie atheists.....and which began the Balkanization of America......
That's the one main disagreement I have with Dinesh's otherwise good article. He claims that Americans don't understand anticolonialism. Not true. We were the original anticolonialists and started the trend.
Good analysis.
Additionally, Dems are proactive, while for the most part the GOP is REactive.
The TPX is proactive, which accounts for its energy.
Might I add that although there are some good feelings today post-primary, our work has just begun, and it is not going to be an easy road to take back our country.
Are you kidding me?
How else do you expect people to argue against Obama and his failed policies unless we specifically point out the damage they cause and exactly why he would implement such disastrous measures on the country?
Without fail whenever I debate a liberal or independent on Obama the question “why would he do that” always comes up. I assume, out of some irrational fear of offending someone, I should sulk away, refusing to explain why Obama does what he does.
Sorry, that won’t work. For those who fear the truth coming out and being spoken out loud, its reality, deal with it or go back to living under a rock.
What? Did a mass email go out from Media Matters?
Many people have traced Obama's leftist, political, world view to his father and grandfather's post-colonial history in Kenya. It appears that the Democrats intend to expand their Bush policy of attacks and 100% negative media coverage, to every Republican who appears anywhere and says anything.
Are YOU kidding me? If you think this is your strongest case to argue against liberals then go ahead and holler about birth certificates. See how many glazed eyes you get in return. I think a better "pick your battle" message would be to empahsize their failed policies. Nobody is fearing the truth coming out or hiding under a rock. That's just being hyperbolic. The truth either will come out or it won't. And if it doesn't you still have to convince independents not to vote for the guy again.
You are watching MSNBC?
Picking out battles, going along to get along and being led by the nose by both parties has given us what rhombus?
Roe?
ObamaCare?
Unsubstaniable deficits?
Terrorism?
Progessive take over of our nation?
Can you tell me what good has come out of us “picking our battles”? Do you believe the Tea Party movement, the largest grassroots organization of Americans in this nations history has become the power it has by silently standing by and going along? No, it has not. We’ve stopped being silent, we are telling it like it is and are not afraid to speak our minds.
Those who are so worried we may offend someone are playing by the old rules not realizing Americans have thrown out the old play-book.
I don't recall any of the founders postulating that England was only wealthy and powerful due to its unjust domination of its colonies.
Our founders were, ideologically, much more anti-royalist (divine right of Kings and all that rot) and pro-Republic than anti-colonialism.
A political operative is what we are trying to get rid of we need statesmen.
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.