Skip to comments.The Need to Explain (Sowell on Republicans)
Posted on 11/14/2012 1:22:44 PM PST by jazusamo
click here to read article
Reagan was an actor.
His face was known, with some fondness, and he had trained to play a part. Being an actor means being able to pull your audience into the story, no matter what the script.
Most politicians are not actors. They don’t have that skill set.
In other words, it was the acting, not just ideas, that won.
GOP: a stick in the mud.
That’s true. I do think the electorate has been dumbed down even since Reagan’s day, however, so this means that more explanation is required and it’s not possible to simply refer to things, even basic things, such as the First Amendment or states’ rights, and assume that people have any idea what you’re talking about.
But most of all, they need a real conservative. Reagan was, Romney wasn’t, and that’s why he really couldn’t get the message out. No passion, no thought; conservatism can’t be reduced to simply thinking about the way it is easiest for you personally to make a buck, which was how Romney made it sound.
Please...someone in power, listen to this man!
One of the complaints most of us make about Republican candidates is, “They just don’t get it!” on topics such as the minimum wage, illegal immigration, energy, gun rights, and “global warming.”
As Dr. Sowell points out, there is plenty of good material, accessible to a general reader, available for study. (Even if the reader limited himself to Dr. Sowell’s oeuvre, he’d get an outstanding education!)
Republican candidates are not going to succeed if they don’t believe in Constitutional and free-market principles, and if they’re not able to explain why things turn out better for the citizens when these principles are followed.
Yup. Pappy Bush (CINO) lost re-election. Dole (CINO) lost. McCain (CINO) lost. Romney (CINO) lost.
Anyone incapable of learning from the examples proffered, above, is too damned stupid to be farting and wheezing in front of genuine conservatives, re: How To Win Elections.
Period. End of sentence. End of paragraph.
Your remark about Repub candidates believing in Constitutional and free-market principles is dead on the mark.
The MSM will never tell the truth about Democrats, or Republicans.
Reagan wasn't afraid to go straight the people with his message. That he actually believed what he was saying made the message that much more powerful.
Elephants may never forget, but they don't seem to learn much either.
Gerald Ford - RINO
Ronald Reagan - Conservative
George H. W. Bush - RINO who rode Reagan's coat-tails to one term
Bob Dole - RINO
George W. Bush - Well-camouflaged RINO who lucked out
John McCain - RINO
Mitt Romney - RINO
He is copying me now. I call them losers. HA-HA
Exactly my take too. I have posted this many times.
Romney was very uninspiring and was so play-dough that O could mold him into the image of a monster. Exactly what O did.
If you really believe in Constitutional liberty, you don’t hedge or condition or apologize or compromise. You don’t have to backtrack or mumble about “context” or “nuance.”
At this point in history, an honest candidate at the national level would have to be channeling Mark Steyn and saying, “We’re screwed, folks,” because the spending/debt bubble is going to go Kaboom ... maybe not tomorrow, but not in the long run (when we’re all dead) either.
At the county level, an honest candidate would have to take on the school board and talk about cutting county/district budget items like a person going through his own budget after a layoff. Does any of them do this? Nope. Job One is making sure every government employee keeps her job, forever.
That’s so much bullshit.
That’s too simplistic. I suggest you read up on Reagan’s bio, espeically his early days working for GE.
To an extent, I agree with the talk of ‘uninspiring’. When I compare Romney’s talk with Obama’s though, the guy was very inspiring.
I very much agree with the comments about Reagan explaining his positions better. And we all know the reason for this. Romney was hawking new positions.
There were a number of times I found myself wanting Romney to say something that was an obvious powerful comeback to Obama, and it didn’t happen. That’s how you lose.
If you let the other guy have the point, when you’ve got plenty of great things you could say, you’re not going to do as well in the election as you could have.
And if you don’t capitalize on your adversary’s negatives, you’re just faking a run at the presidency to a varying degree.
Why couldn’t Tomas Sowell be president?
I listened to Levin a lot this past year and his explanations of policies and the Constitution are simple to follow. However, on Monday he stated that the only mandate a President has and is required by law to follow is the U.S. Constitution.
Coming home last night I hear a soundbite from Paul Ryan stating his belief why Obama does not have a mandate. Basically he said that since the people also returned the same House members to Congress, they people state they want gridlock.
Now here is a guy who states he listens to Levin, yet when given the chance to simply repeat what Levin said about the Constitution, HE CAN'T DO IT!! He either cannot or will not do it. And all these other politicians that give lip service to Rush, Levin, et al., never, never repeat what they say on their radio programs.
Why is that?
Too old, unfortunately.
Oh, they may once in a great while but for the most part they have other things to do if conscientious and if they're not they could care less.
” One of the biggest differences between Reagan and these latter-day losers was that Reagan paid great attention to explaining his policies and values. He was called “the great communicator,” but much more than a gift for words was involved. The issues that defined Reagan’s vision were things he had thought about, written about and debated for years before he reached the White House.”
Romney didn’t fight for his positions at all. He did not articulate what free markets are. He did not explain the Obama 16 trillion. He did not explain anything in detail. He sucked like a wimpy amateur. Obama painted him as a rich white Wall Street guy, who didn’t care about anybody. Romney brought a cap pistol to a gunfight. He was also a RINO with a bad paper trail. He lost.
” If you let the other guy have the point, when youve got plenty of great things you could say, youre not going to do as well in the election as you could have.
And if you dont capitalize on your adversarys negatives, youre just faking a run at the presidency to a varying degree.”
B I N G O
I’ve been saying this since I was 12. I think that the we need to wait for the establishment to just grow old and die so people who aren’t hopelessly obtuse and out of touch can take the reins.
That was a good thing.
Unfortunately, Obama is also an actor, and that's a bad thing. Yes, there are differences--Obama needs his script in front of him on a teleprompter. And, IMHO, he's a force for left-wing evil rather than conservative good. But, he is an actor. He pretends amused knowledge and friendly compassion, when in fact he's a selfish, personally cold, close-minded, rather lazy individual.
Because The Republican Party Hair Club for Men rarely gets off its high horse to spend time *reading our Constitution* and *studying its history.*
Instead, they consult “legal decisions” because they are intellectually lazy and don’t want to be bothered with the fact, that the U.S. Government does not own our Constitution.
It is ours - it belongs to the States and to the people who are American citizens. We created it. We can amend it.
We can amend it to utterly erase the turgid and wasteful tyranny that usurpers -— *who want to relegate our Constitution to some museum of ancient legends* -— wish to now quickly and forcefully end what limitations upon their power, our Constitution still holds over them.
The careless political egos (basically The Democrat Party for Lower Taxes Sub-Division formerly known as The Republican Party) ignore that -— they can barely tolerate the fact, that it is our Constitution, built and founded upon *history* that *includes* law and legal events and precedence, but it is not exclusively limited to an understanding of only law, legal events and precedence.
Many of our Constitution’s foundations, consist of building blocks constructed in response to events in history and modeled upon the lessons learned by such events.
So basically, as you read up on law *and* history, you *get* the essentials of both construction and maintenance required to preserve the principles by which government must be, and is, limited; such principles as “original intent” and “enumeration of powers” and “human responsible agency.”
The very same principles that you would be waving in the face of tyranny, in order to compel tyranny to step back; the very same principles that you use to restrain government and government agents, from their abusing the powers which *we* authorize thru our duly elected representatives sitting in legislative bodies, duly elected thru the democratic-republican process because *we are a republic,* and thereby we set forth the list of what government and government agents can do.
So much with which, we all must be equipped to protect and defend our people, our States, our Constitution, our liberty.
As it is with the operation of many types of complex systems that are made to run constantly and reliably, we have to always be training ourselves and others, in all the maintenance tasks.
Ronald Reagan had a long time to think about all this, and he was almost always communicating some piece of it: maintenance, maintenance, maintenance.
The very thing that bigshots cannot stand to address.
I don’t disagree with that. What I have a hard time believing is that Obama would appeal to anyone in large numbers after his four year record.
He didn’t want to run for office or even take an appointed position.
Thanks for another great column by Dr Sowell
Thank you for the ping. There is a lot of wisdom in what Dr. Sowell says, and in the comments on this thread as well.
” What I have a hard time believing is that Obama would appeal to anyone in large numbers after his four year record.”
I know, but the people had to actively SEARCH for the truth, and they were too lazy to do so.
You didn’t get the truth from
Obama is the President of CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC AND MSNBC News Divisions. He soon will take over the sports divisions too.
Reagan was much more than an actor, his degree was in economics, he was very successful in college politics, and he was a many times life saving hero (even a gun using hero) and a real man, before he ever entered acting, Reagan entered acting the very same year that he started his pre-WWII military career that came to be 8 years of active and active reserves.
Romney is mush, and a Mitten, and always has been.
Good to see ya!
Simple Paul Ryan is what I call a technocrat with slight conservative leanings. Above all Ryan is immersed in machinations of government policy. He has never internalized any underlying principles of limited government. He gives lip service to such, but his votes are mostly for bigger government.
Ryan will always in the end favor the State over the individual.
Does anyone believe that Reagan would have voted for: ethanol subsidies, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part-D and TARP? No! Paul Ryan did.
No true Conservative and believer in limited government would have cast such votes. End of story.
Nice to see you too. [big grin]
Journalism and socialism are joined at the hip. Journalism is about bad news, and ingratitude is the font of an unlimited supply of bad news. producers can be viewed either as the source of all goods or -the reason why we dont have infinite supply of goods. It is only necessary for the socialist to promote the ungrateful vision in order to generate an unbounded supply of great copy for the journalist.
All of them, instead of explaining what it is and why it's good for the country and beneficial for the people of every race, gender and income level, spent time and effort to repudiate conservatism one way or another by stating that they are not "evil conservatives" but rather "kinder and gentler," "compassionate conservatives" or "care about all the people, all 100%, not just 47% (or is it 53%?)" etc. etc.
In other words, they never run on explaining and articulating the proven conservative ideas, but instead go into defensive mode by distancing themselves from Reaganism and small(er) government ideas (while at the same time claiming to be Reagan heirs and/or associating their record with his legacy)
Instead of articulating conservative solutions and any sense of vision, Romney's campaign spent $1B trying to redefine Romney from a stiff socially awkward uber-rich banker and political/ideological flip-flopper from Massachusetts (à la John F. Kerry, with an (R) after his name) and has failed to connect with Republicans, let alone "regular" people. You don't normally win on ABx ("Anybody But" ...) except by a fluke (GWB in 2000 and 2004).
Romney stated he was going to make a campaign a "referendum" on Obama presidency. Original, eh? Ya think, with un/under-employment, deficits, debt, fiscal policy and foreign policy worthy of Jimmy Carter? But "referendum" goes for both candidates, and the sitting President has distinct advantages in running a campaign. You can't beat "something" with "nothing."
People vote for the candidates they can relate to, not the party or the VP (e.g., see the Senatorial fiascoes in "safe" Republican states IN, MO, ND, and close presidential race in NC while easily taking over entire state legislature and governor's office). And Paul Ryan (whose budget and Medicare "plan" were the main cause of Republican budget and debt ceiling standoff fiasco) was a weak choice and of no help whatsoever, nationally or in WI. Yet GOP overall now has 30(60%) governors and about three quarters of legislatures nationwide, so it's not the conservative brand that's in trouble.
People like to vote for and could change their vote in favor of the "exciting" candidate they can trust - without it they either don't go to the polls or vote for the "default" candidate. Mistaking and confusing the size of crowds at the "concert" rallies for the groundswell at the polls will cost you every time, especially with more early and vote-by-mail voting in most states. Here is a chart of what real "Excitement Factor" looks like: Colorado Algorithm Predicts a Romney Triumph - FR, post #25, 2012 August 26
Instead of helping some Senate candidates, a man who just wanted to be a President (because he already had everything else he wanted) without a vision and ideas, just sucked $1B into his own campaign and was either absent, a non-factor or had some negative coattails, just like McCain in 2008.
Selling himself as a "businessman who created 100,000 jobs" was a fraud to begin with - it wasn't Mitt's own money, though he sat on the BOD of Staples as representative of Bain. In short, the supermarket chain veteran Thomas Stemberg (who invented the concept of "generic label" food and groceries) and his former competitor Leo Kahn took the supermarket model and "roll-up" concept popular in 1980s in other industries and applied it to the office supplies market, funded with the money from Kahn and several PE firms, which included Bain.
It's one thing to run Olympics or private equity / money management / consulting firm, where you have hundreds or thousands of "people" doing things for you, it's another to compete with someone real and skillful (not an "empty chair") for people's votes - empty chairs don't talk back, to borrow from Bloodsport (1988) - "Very good but brick not hit back!"
Apparently, it seems that he isn't such a good manager or a good technocrat, either, as the horror stories of internal disarray and disorganization in his campaign now come to light: Insiders Explain How Mitt Romney's Campaign Completely Fell Apart On Election Day - FR / BI, by Grace Wyler, 2012 November 12
Romney doesn't need to "apologize for his success" in making money, but it doesn't make him a "businessman" or a "job creator" and as a politician he was nothing but a failure, from his run for Senate, to his one term as a liberal Governor of MA, to failing to win a nomination against widely despised by conservatives and badly outspent John McCain despite pouring $50M of his own money. No wonder he found such a firm support from GOP-e in the next cycle - he was the most liberal and Bush-like in the bunch.
That leads to stupid mistakes like "I like to fire people" and "47%" (many people who don't pay income taxes and/or receive some form of permanent or temporary government assistance - e.g., military, temporarily out of work, retired etc. - are not freeloaders) or accusing Obama of "picking losers" (Solyndra, Ener1, A123 etc.), as if government "picking winners"> would be OK - so Obama nailed him with GM and Chrysler who are now declared "winners" because they are in business, with little debt and profitable - courtesy of taxpayers, of course.
Free advice to GOP, which they won't hear, won't see and won't take - Stop picking losers!
I’m late to this thread, and when I saw redgolum’s post I wanted to respond.
Then I saw your post, and now I post Thank you. You hit the nail square on the head.
Another great article from Dr. Sowell. Thanks for the ping jaz.
Why, you’re very welcome.
Romney had a really basic problem. There was very little he believed in.
He probably believed in tax cuts for the rich (as he is rich) and cutting some regulations, but that was it and as I saw it he ran as play-dough saying anything he thought sounded good at the moment.
And he came off some-what weak except the first debate where O played passive. There was no vision, he was a robot.
“ I have been traveling the country on my campaign and what I see is the great American spirit thirsting to succeed but being held back by powers both government and private almost too great and complex to even understand. Americans don't want handouts from others. They want to succeed and feel proud of themselves for it and to be able to lift others up by being able to offer them good paying jobs with a future.
Obama doesn't offer them a future. He offers them the chains of government dependent slavery. That is death, a living death. Americans wont accept that on election day. That is not what being American is about.
Well I tell voters: elect me and I will break those chains that are holding them back,
I know what the government is doing wrong and what it can do to stop this. I have turned around companies and created XXxs of real jobs, not government make-work jobs and food stamps that he offers that just put this country in more debt. Please vote XX on election day and help turn this country around.
And God bless”
Uninspiring Loser(Mitt) :
Whispering to contributor while being secretly recorded:
“ Things are really bad out there. Half the countries voters are a bunch of lazy moochers who just want free handouts and they they want the government to take them from us to give to them. You need to deep in your pockets for $$$ so I can try to hold them off for a while”
Insulting the voters always works Mitt.
Romney was a loser. He shamed himself by running.
I have little concern for him shaming himself, and I’m sure you don’t either. It just galls me that he took a slot an actual Conservative could have taken.
I’m banking on it being Jeb Bush that will fill the Romney roll in 2016.
we really needed a mittens photo-op of him buyin a gallon of milk or a hamburger to show how he relates to the proles...