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.
Unless the ENTIRE criminal history of the Clinton-Clinton-Reno-Gore crime family is completely exposed before the American public -- yes.
As long as the fiction that "the Nixon Administration was a criminal enterprise, with serious crimes, but Clinton was just a good-natured womanizer who lied ONLY about sex" fiction is allowed to remain the mantra of the dominant media, we WILL lose the culture war.
In this area, I wish to God somebody would donate Bush a CLUE!!!!!!!!!!
Make personal attacks part of a political platform. Put the adults in charge. Labeling is for those who have nothing else to work with.
The right wing, the adults of society. The mature.
Make the progressives into "regressive" - back into their childhood type image.
Once liberals are portrayed as children, the country will notice it right away and agree.
Who really believes that it makes a difference? Now that the nation has reached the point where 50% of the people pay 96% of the taxes it is time to recognize the meaning of the words of Teddy Roosevelt on the Fall of the Republic. Study his words carefully and see if his observation brings any of your own observations to mind.
"The Roman Republic fell, not because of the ambition of Caesar or Augustus, but because it had already long ceased to be in any real sense a republic at all. When the sturdy Roman plebeian, who lived by his own labor, who voted without reward according to his own convictions, and who with his fellows formed in war the terrible Roman legion, had been changed into an idle creature who craved nothing in life save the gratification of a thirst for vapid excitement, who was fed by the state, and who directly or indirectly sold his vote to the highest bidder, then the end of the Republic was at hand, and nothing could save it. The laws were the same as they had been, but the people behind the laws had changed, and so the laws counted for nothing."
And just who will the liberals convince in this propaganda war causing them to vote for liberals? Could it be liberals? Not likly liberals are already liberal. They vote liberal. That is why they are called liberals. What abut the conservatives? Will the right rush to vote for Hillary or Gore the next time? That is not too probable is it? How many of you are just waiting for Hillary to say the magic words that will open your eyes to see her propagandized truth?
Then who is the target in the propaganda war. The object of all political wars is the people that somtimes vote for the left and at other times vote for the right. The object of all propaganda wars is the middle. That is who the left always goes after. He who wins the middle wins. That is not rocket science but it escapes most conservatives.
The center never goes for the stuff that motivates the left. If the center bought the same pitch that persuades the left, they would be leftists... wouldn't they? The center never goes for the logic that motivates the right. If they were persuaded by the arguments that persuades the right, they would be conservatives... wouldn't they? The center has its own middle of the road agenda that appeals to it. The party that bends enough to garner center support wins. That always has been the case. It will always be the case.
Neither the left or right has enough support to win. They have about 1/3 each. To win a political party must get over half the center.
What Democrat candidates always try to do is appeal to the center. If they get the center they win. Why did Bill Clinton run as a NEW DEMOCRAT. Is it becuase true blue Democrats don't like Old Demorats? Hardly. Democrats love old leftist Democrats. It is the center that does not like OLD Democrats. So Bill and Hillary offered the center a NEW IMPROVED MORE MODERATE Democrat.
Why is Bush running to the center? It is because the center does not like the right. They certainly don't like the old right. They never have. They never will. They don't like the old left either. They never have they never will.
I can hear someone screaming, Clinton wasn't a NEW DEMOCRAT, he was an old Democrat. UH HUH. Try telling that to the center. And listen closely to yourself. YOu may have just discovered teh secret to ruling America.
Our a two party system is so established in law it cannot be changed. The two parties agreed on that little item. Tthere are only two ways to change the nation. The left can do things to appeal to the center, then further the agenda of the left when it gets control of the house senate and presidency. The Right can do things to appeal to the center, then further its agenda when it gets control of the house senate and presidency.
One advantate for the left is leftists totally support a Democrat when he does the New Democrat bit to apeal to the center.
The right tries to destroy a New Repubican if he tries a similar tactic to gain control. They right just loves losing to Democrats. Either that or they are clueless. Some are so principled that they demand defeat rather than do what it takes to win. They are among the best supporters the left has.
The success so often enjoyed by the left and the frequent failure of the right is not based on media or smarter politicians on the left. It is the rights constant demand that no right wing policitan ever be permitted to go after the center.
The right always thinks that if the center just heard them out, the center would become conservative. Here is the clue. They have heard what the right pitches, and they have consistantly rejected it for 70 years.
The only good news is the center has rejected what the left pictches for nearly 140 years.
One advantate for the left is leftists totally support a Democrat when he does the New Democrat bit to apeal to the center.
You ignore, for example, Nader and the Greens, without whom Bush looses in 2000.
Both parties need to keep their base. Bush is loosing his in some degree. I expect a significant number will sit out 04 if things continue as they have...with the exception everybody on the right would come out to vote against Hillary!
Yes, and that's been happening for so many years now, that there is little hope to save the country through rational means
Sounds good. Doesn't work.
You are totally wrong. The democrats have been from 33 to 36 percent of the voting public ever since 1948. The Repubicans have been from 32 to 35 percent of the public every year since 1948.
Independents have been from 30 to 38 percent every year since 1948.
There are several sources for the data. First the primaries where people have to declare party. Primaries draw about 2/3 as many voters as general elections. Less than 3 tenths of one percent of the voters ever change party registration. They split nation wide with a 2 to 3 percent edge for democrats. Only a tiny segment of registered voters every change parties.
Every exit poll conducted since 1980 has shown roughly 35 percent of the voters say they are Democrats, 33 percent say they are republicans, and 32 percent say they are independants. If the percenages stay the same from year to year and people do not change party registration, what part of that making you a liar don't you understand?
Both parties target advertising to reach that 10 or 12 percent in the middle that can most easily be persuaded. That is why NO national candidate ever runs a newspaper advertisement. The center voters they are after don't read newspapers. They watch enterainment on TV. Neither Gore nor Bush spend a penny on newspaper ads. Call up any national candidate's advertising director and ask him or her why they only target the middle with their million dollar ad campaigns? Ask why Karl Rowe cut the yard sign budget in the 2000 campaign when money for entertainment tv got short.
To believe you, you have to believe that you are right and every major party candidate for president in the last 50 years who wrote about his campaign is wrong. For they all agreed with me. Ike, Nixon, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, Reagan all in their memoirs agreed with what I say. In fact my primary sources for my opinion are those 5 presidents. When they talk about their campaigns in their books they say the same thing I am saying. All of them made the point I make in the books they wrote after leaving office.
Teddy White in his series of Books "The making of the President" made the same point in every book. He was quoting the campaign managers for the winners in races from 1948 to 1984.
Newt Gingrich in his C-PAC training sessions for Republicanm candidates always made the same point I do. CPAC training videos still make the same point.
The DNC candidate training videos make the same point.
Assoicated press in its training of news reports makes the same points in its classes on how to cover election returns.
There are decades of proof to back it up what I say. I have only quoted a few. There are many more.
I am reminded of all the Idiots that thought that Anderson was going to be a factor in the Reagan Carter race of 1980.
There is always a cost of going to the center. Candidates lose a tiny segment of the right and left. The center makes up 33 percent of the voters. The far left and far right make up about 3 percent each. Thus Bush only needs an additional 9 percent of the middle to make up for a 100 percent loss of the far right. But he never had 90 percent of the far right. He only had 10 percent. And he only needs one percent of the center to make up for the 10 percent of the right he might lose. It is so much easier to get a percent of the center than it is to get 10 of the far right. Democrats feel the same way about the far left ... for that matter.
The far left never votes for the Democrats. They vote Green, Nader et all or they don't vote. Mostly they attend their party cell meetings and plot the overthrow of the nation. The far right votes for Libertarians or Buchanan types. They don't vote for Repubicans. They just spend time pretending like they did.
The far left and far right are not part of any major parties calculus. NO effort by either party is ever made to get the 3 percent fringe. They cost way too much.
To the far left Gore is considered to be as bad as Bush. The far left is not going to vote for Gore. If they thought Gore was better than Bush they would vote for Gore. They vote for Nader becuase to them Bush and Gore are political twins.
To the far right Bush is every bit as bad as Gore. If ony Bush and Gore were running they would not vote. All you have to do is read Free Republic to know what I say is true. How many times do you have to say Bush is no better than Gore to understand that you do infact believe it.
The people who scream that if Bush doesn't change his ways he will lose their vote, never voted for Bush. They are not going to vote for Bush. It is no big deal to bush or me. Or any member of the Republican party.
The RNC knows it. Bush knows it. Gore knows it. The DNC knows it. I think we know who that leaves in the dark.
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.