Posted on 06/18/2002 12:54:49 PM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
Election season is near, and as crisp autumn winds sweep across our blessed land, one thing is certain: the hot air on political talk shows will heat up even more. Even though aging 1960´s liberal brats and their successors control the major media — television remains the best forum for conservatives to present their case and win the hearts and minds of the American electorate. Sadly, it´s always an uphill battle when the other side controls the sources of propaganda.
Americans who have watched talk shows the last few elections have probably come away with at least one observation: conservatives and liberals argue differently. One has only to watch a James Carville and Bill Bennett debate to see the difference.
Unfortunately, the average viewer probably also concludes that liberals score more points, at least emotional ones. Although Bill Bennett emerges with considerably more dignity than James “The Mouth” Carville, Mr. Carville seems able to cloud the real issues and stir up a lot of emotions that bolster his cause with viewers. Liberals have perfected techniques that work in today´s environment and give them the perception of winning hearts and minds — and perception nowadays counts for everything.
Liberals usually win the emotional side of debates, which for most TV viewers is the only side that counts, while conservatives win the less exciting logical side. As long as liberals can keep the argument on an emotional level and avoid discussing the facts, they can win public sympathy. Liberals present themselves as “caring” altruists who have dedicated their lives to protecting the poor and downtrodden. They label anyone who disagrees with their social programs as “uncaring.” And how can anyone labeled as uncaring have any credibility with a television audience?
We see the “caring spin” applied to everything liberals advocate, with an emphasis on saving or protecting a group or cause that can tug at our emotions. Liberal members of Congress adopt titles for their bills that imply they truly care, even though the bills may contain bureaucratic fluff, much of it unrelated to saving or protecting anything except bureaucratic jobs, political pork, and government control over our lives.
When conservatives question whether our tax money is being spent to do the most good, they are labeled as uncaring. “You don‘t care enough about the children of America,” liberals say over and over, and viewers watching the talk show soon wonder whether there might be something to that charge, for a lie repeated often enough soon sounds like the truth. After all, didn´t the conservative guest just criticize the “Save our Children from Going Hungry” bill just because it was too costly? Maybe they really are Scrooges who hate children.
Labeling is one way liberals get an edge in a debate, but it is hardly a new technique. In the 1964 election, Democrats successfully used labels and buzzwords to smear Barry Goldwater. One of his campaign slogans was, “In your heart you know he´s right.” The other side tacked on, “Yes, extreme right,” and Barry was labeled for the remainder of the election as extreme right-wing, even though he was simply a highly respected conservative U. S. Senator. Nowadays they label pro-life activists as “right-wing Christian fundamentalists,” the National Rifle Association as “extremist,” and gun owners as “rednecks.” They´ve even tried to re-label themselves as “progressives,” the label “liberal” now being discredited in most Americans´ eyes.
Barry Goldwater also warned Americans that Social Security would someday be in trouble. The other side had access to the same demographics he had back then and knew he spoke the truth, but they also knew that if Americans lost faith in the Social Security system created by FDR, they might question the rest of the liberal philosophy. Liberals fought back by changing the subject and re-labeling the respected senator. “How could Social Security ever be in trouble?” they wailed. “It´s supported by the U. S. Government. Maybe Goldwater plans to destroy Social Security.” They changed the subject from whether Social Security would be in trouble, to whether it would be in trouble if Goldwater were elected — and in the process labeled him an enemy of Social Security and the elderly. Goldwater had to divert much of his campaign budget to television ads to assure voters that he supported Social Security.
The techniques haven´t changed since then. Liberals have already labeled George W. Bush an enemy of Social Security, even though he´s advanced the only viable plan to save it.
Labeling is especially effective when it is applied early on, because people are influenced by such first impressions. Liberals labeled George W. Bush a “lightweight” and John Ashcroft as “too religious” before they even took office, and the labels have haunted them ever since.
Liberal journalists perpetuated the labels “amiable dunce” and “intellectual lightweight” affixed to Ronald Reagan. As Hoover Institution fellow Arnold Beichman noted in the Washington Times, “[T]he media made him out to be a half-wit surrounded by a bunch of geniuses.” With the publication of hundreds of Reagan´s papers, the truth has finally emerged (with no help from those liberal journalists) that he was anything but an intellectual lightweight. Now they´re trying to regain some credibility by acting surprised by the revelation. “Who would have thought he was that intelligent?“ they ask on talk shows. If they didn´t know it all along, they‘re the intellectual lightweights.
With labeling as a foundation, liberals go on to select from a number of other proven techniques. Hopefully, the voters in the coming election can cut through the propaganda and select the best leaders for our trying times. Let´s get out there and help them do it.
You are clarifying your post #13 by adding the category 'far left'. Fair enough. But since Nader did get a few % of the vote and that is more than, say the 'far left' candidiate got in '96 ot '92, and the total turnout did not rise by the corresponding %age (at least I believe that is correct) you are saying that total turnout would have been even lower by a similar %age, more or less, had Nader/Greens not been on the ballot. About that I'm skeptical.
For the record, I did vote for Bush. I'd like to be able to do it again.
Total turn out was up substantially in Democratic districts in 2000. That is why the polls were off. If the turn out had been at 92 or 96 levels Bush would have had a nice victory. The pollsters (except Zogby) were using the turn out numbers from 92 and 96. It was a lot greater than that. The democrats got 3 million more votes than they had ever in history achieved. That is a lot.
In fact the lastest mantra from the Gore camp posted several times here on FR is that Gore got more votes in 2000 than any President ever elected except, Ronald Reagan in 1984. It is true. Gore got more votes than any president ever elected except Ronald Reagan in 1984.
Gore does not mention the converse is also true. Bush got more votes than anyone ever elected president except Ronald Reagan in 1984. Gore does not mention that, but it is the truth.
Nader got more votes than any green candiate has perviouslly. But Nader did not do as well in 2000 as Anderson did in the 1980 reace. Anderson got almost 6.6 percent of the vote. Nader got 2.7. The media was pretty sure that Anderson would hurt Reagan and re-elect Carter. Anderson got 6.6 percent, but it did not hurt Reagan at all. Anderson did not defeat Reagan any more than Nader defeated Gore or Strom Thurmond defeated Harry Truman.
It was a large turnout in 2000. Much of it do to the get out the vote efforts by the unions a good job by Bush. But bush still got 4 million less votes than Reagan in 1984. The unions were under a new generation of management in 2000. They intended to do what it took to elect Gore and take back the congress. They almost won, but almost only counts in horse shoes, handgrenades, and atomic bombs.
The turnout in 1980 was 86.5 million Reagan got just over 50 percent. Anderson got a bit over 6.6 percent with 5 million plus votes. He did not keep Reagan from gaining the 50 percent mark.
The turn out in 1984 was 92.7 million. Reagan got 57 million of the 93.7 1984 was essentaily a 2 party race.
The turnout in 1988 was 91.5 million.This was essentially a two party race.
1992 was a 3 way race and the turn out was 104.4 mllion. Perot got 19 million and Clinton got 44 million. Bush got 39 million. Perot in 1992 was the exception that proved the rule. In 1992 people were fearful of the economy. The media made them so. Perot ranted aobut it but offered no concrete plans. Clinton did. They were bad plans but he did offer a plan. Bush did nothing, beause nothing needed don. But wining elections has nothing to do with what needs done. It has to do with perceptions. Reality has very little to do with it.
1996 was far less of a three way race but Perot got 8.6 percent of the vote and the turn out was 96.2. Perot did not defeat Bob Dole. Bob Dole defeated Bob Dole. Just like George Bush defeated George Bush.
But in 2000 the turnout was 105.4 which was 9 million more than 1996 and a bit over a million more than the Bush, Perot, Clinton Race. Gore got 3 million more votes than any democrat in history. Yet the top 3rd party candidate got only 2.7 percent far less than Andersons 6.6 or Perots 19.9, and 8.6.
The largest democat vote getter in history is Al Gore. He got just over 50 million votes. Clintons top was the previous record holder at 46.9, Carter did 40.8 in his win. George mcGovern got only 29 million. 29 million was about the base number of Democrats. McGovern did not get any middle votes. Richard Nixon got them all. It is likely the democrat base is about 35 million today. The Repubican base is about 35 million. The base has grown from what Bush got in 1992. In 92 all bush got was the base. The rest of he votes are the center that floates back and forth.
Anderson, Nader, Thrumond are fringe candidates that got votes from the left or the right. They are the 3 percent or less. Perot's votes mostly came out of the middle. He got the fringe but it was mostly the middle in 1992 that went with him. About 13 of his 19 million came out of the center. Bush a very little of the middle in 1992. Perot got nearly half of it. Clinton got the rest and that was enough to give him the 44 milion votes it took to win.
Reagan is the all time champ. He got 54 million votes in 1984. None else has gotten 54 million votes. Reagan got his base and nearly all the center. Mondale got mostly just his base. Gore got 3 million more votes than any Democrat has ever gotten. Yet he lost.
In 2000, there were 2 inner city precincts in Cleveland Ohio in which 100 percent of the registered democratic voters, voted.
The Democrats got out their vote in record numbers in 2000. They will not get them out in 2002 or 2004. Nader in 2004 will make Pat Buchanan look like a big vote getter. Bush should win big but the turnout will be down three or four million from 2000. It will come out of the Democrats hide. The midterms will find more center with Bush and less Demorat base coming to the polls. Splinter parties do next to nothing in non presidential years. They don't have candidates and they don't vote.
That is the truth. I once did a posting listing the corporate heads and rich people that were democrats.
That is why the Democrats have to have soft money. Their big doners are all super rich. And their are only a few of them. The republicans have lots of small givers.
When they limit the amout of money each doner can give, it hurts Democrats a lot more than it does Republicans.
Only 100%? I thought there were some in Pittsburgh where over 100% of the voting-age population voted. No fraud there, of course, though.
Your general approach, that each party must try to head for the center and get a larger share of those voters in the middle makes sense and is pretty standard political theory. What about the idea of "solidifying the base", or "energize the base" or the "broken glass republicans"? I understand you to be saying this is less important, perhaps even a myth. It seems to me that if a candidate moves too far from his base they won't turn out, but you disagree, I guess. Is 'turning out the vote' as the dems did, just a matter of, in simplistic terms, of rounding people up and bringing them to the polls? Is the dynamic the same for turning out dem/liberals as for repub/conservatives?
So far as moving to the center.....the location of the center changes over time, would you not agree? How does the location of the center come about? Is it due to media, popular culture, events at the time? Can not a true leader help to move the center, to lead people in a direction that moves the center, or is it beyond the ability of a leader (by which I mean an extraordinary person, not just a leading candidate...Mrs. Thatcher, perhaps) to do so?
Thanks.
Of course it has. That is what the contest is all about. I did not argue that the center never changes, I argued the left and right fight over it. He who wins the center wins. Both parties have won the center and both parties have lost the center. It is always up for grabs. And both parties have grabbed it.
But your statemnet that Ike was more conservative than Nixon is funnny. At the 1952 Republican Convention Everett Dirkson the Ill. Senator nominated Robert A. Taft for the presidency. In that nomination speech Dirkson accused Ike of being a Republican in name only. IKE was indeed a RINO and Everett in stentorian tones called him one.
Just a year before, in 1951, Harry Truman had offered Ike his support for the Democratic Nomination for President. Both Harry and Roosevelt had believed Ike was a Democrat. I wonder what Ike ever said that gave them that idea? Ike was Harrys first choice for the 1952 Democratic nomination for president. Ike turned him down. That is the reason for the hate looks Harry gave Ike at the inauguration in 1953 and why Harry told the media about Ikes English girl friend.
Ike was about as conservative as Jim Jeffords and Nelson Rockefeller. But the Pubies needed the center and the Demorats had had it since 1932. There was no way Barry Goldwater's hero Robert A Taft could win. So the pubies went for a center pleasing RINO. And the RINO went for the center and got it.
Oh by the way, did you know that WILIAM F. BUCKEY in his August 1980 edtion of national review trashed Reagan for going too far to appeal to the center?
Eisenhower was a Keynesian. Nixon was refering to the Dirkson/Taft wing of the party who had come to believe in Keynesian economics after fighting them for decades. He was refering to the fact that almost all republicans had voted for his Keynesian policy. I do think Ike was bright enough to read the vote totals in the House and Senate and realize that former Keynesian opponents had voted for Keynesian policies. You are arguing that Ike could not figure out that most all the former Keynesian opponents had changed sides. They were now voting for Keynesian policy. I am sure Ike would have noticed and approved.
Ike was very bright.. So was Nixon. I will not discuss your level of illumination on reading voting totals.
Who was it selected Nixon as his running mate? Who greased the wheels for Nixon to run for president. Didn't Ike's son marry Nixon's daughter?
Who do you think NIXON went to for advice, Teddy Kennedy or IKE? Take your time.... I won't rush you for an answer.
Nixon and Ike discussed nearly every move Nixon made from 1952 until Ike's death in 1969. It was Ike that urged Nixon to work with the Democrats as Ike had done with LBJ and Sam Rayburn. It was Ike that urged Nixon to use party loyalty as Ike had seen FDR do in the 30s and 40s.
What you fail to understand is that Nixon's statement that "We are all Keynesians now" was not directed at the Democrats or the Rockefeller wing of the Republican party. It was NOT directed to that portion of the Republican party to which both IKE and NIXON belonged. It was said about the Taft/Dirkson/Goldwater wing of the party as lead by Dirkson's son-in-law Senator Howard Baker of Tennesee.
You apparently are arguing that Ike would not have understood that the Taft/Dirkson/Goldwater/Baker wing of the Republican party would someday come to support Ike's views on the economy.
IKE was the one that convinced NIXON their minds could be changed. It was Ike's belief that after the terrible 1964 defeat of the far right, that Dick could make a political comeback. Ike believed that Nixon could bring the Republican Party into the mainstream of political thought. Ike urged NIXON to move the Republican party from the minority party status to a status equal to the Democratic party it enjoys today. Nixon tried to move to the center just like Ike told him to do.
Ike was very concerned about a single party America. He was certain that if he had run as a Democrat in 1952 he would have won. He was convinced that if he did so Americans would have chosen Democrats in 9 and perhaps 10 straight presidential elections. Ike was especially concerned that one party not control the House and Senate for 40 straight years. Ike was concered, very concerned, about the corruption that would entail over 40 straight years of uninterrupted Democratic power. That is why IKE ran as a Republican. That is why he urged NIXON to fix it so 'WE WERE ALL KEYNESIANS NOW'. He knew that the Republicans would have to move to the center to attract the center and win some of the elections. "We are all Keynesians" now was an Ike Eisenhower plan that Nixon implemented.
I noticed that. Lately. But you go ahead and tell yourself whatever it is you want to hear and I will go elsewhere.
Actually, was it not his grandson who married Julie Nixon?
Anyhow, might you address my questions in #28? My interest in your point of view is genuine.
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.