Tactics For Victory

Truth Based Logic ^ | July 1, 2017 | William Flax

[Ohioan]

The functional quest of any political movement--whether or not ideologically driven--is to maximize appeal while minimizing negative reactions. By the nature of Conservatism, the natural inclination to preserve cultural, spiritual & material achievements, our adherents should have a great advantage over those who seek to disrupt heritage--against those who war on tradition & reality. Yet, all too often, we let emotion undermine advantage. This is an effort to avoid doing so.

[Ohioan]

The July Feature at my Conservative Resource Center, illustrates tactical advantages from taking a more positive approach, while standing tough on such problems as hostile immigration & Federal bureaucratic meddling in the physician/patient relationship.

[Ohioan]

Here is a thread based upon my latest effort to suggest tactics that can lead to victory on two critical problems. Would appreciate comments, favorable or unfavorable.

[Ohioan]

You strike me as one who would lean towards long term strategies. Your fascination with accurate historic details certainly argues in that direction. You might find this approach of interest.

[Ohioan]

Check out the approach in the article, here, to the immigration debate. It is an attempt to cut to the real issue.

[DiogenesLamp]

You strike me as one who would lean towards long term strategies. Your fascination with accurate historic details certainly argues in that direction. You might find this approach of interest.

I very much look forward to reading it.

Also there is an error in your link. For those wishing to read the article, here is a working link.

http://truthbasedlogic.com/july.htm

[Ohioan]

Thank you for the correction. Am having trouble with a new computer & Windows 10! But thanks for the kindness.

[Ohioan]

There was indeed a problem. Here again is the correct link: Tactics For Victory.

[DiogenesLamp]

Okay, I have read the article. The tactics listed are directed at a particular sort of opponent and it is the sort of opponent we don't have.

It is offering intellectual arguments to combat an emotional foe. The biggest problem with liberals is that they aren't motivated by reality based concepts, but instead are motivated by emotional feelings.

Reasoning with them, especially using "green eyeshade lingo" as Rush used to say, is not going to be successful. You have to argue with them using emotional tactics, in the manner that Trump does it.

They will respect an @$$whupping in a game of "the dozens", but if you try to express complex concepts, their eyes will glaze over and they will simply ignore anything you say, or even attempt to shout you down.

This book taught me a lot about the nature of human interaction.

A lot of stuff happens in human exchanges that don't register on an intellectual basis, and that is because they are primal. Trump appears to understand these human interactions on an instinctual basis.

[Ohioan]

Appreciate your comments, but the arguments in favor of preserving the ethnic heritage of the Founders need not be on a particular level (intellectually). They can be on a level no more complex than some of the children's books that once taught American kids about American folk heroes in terms that resonated with kids.

On the other hand, the Founders were themselves on such a high level, that the Kid Level approach can be a part of a far wider spectrum of arguments. The important thing is to create appealing images that make the points. Words, after all, are only symbols, not actual impressions. One size--or one description--need not fit all.

[DiogenesLamp]

Appreciate your comments, but the arguments in favor of preserving the ethnic heritage of the Founders need not be on a particular level (intellectually). They can be on a level no more complex than some of the children's books that once taught American kids about American folk heroes in terms that resonated with kids.

The Liberal method of arguing is to make television shows and movies that present their ideas as though they were a normal part of life. Liberals show people events and carefully constructed outcomes so as to make their ideas seem reasonable. They go straight for the primitive brain approach of "monkey see, monkey do."

Creating Drama that advances your arguments appeal directly to the emotional centers of our brains, and this is how they motivate people to agree with them. They did it in literature long before they did it in movies, but when the art form of movies and television came out, they quickly adapted to using it to spread their political messages.

I could give you countless examples of liberal doctrine messages disguised as entertainment in movies and television programs.

This is the most effective way to argue with Liberals or conservatives. Paint a picture for people that they can see, and that can capture their attention long enough for them to grasp the point, and if it resonates, they will accept the message attached to it. Also, keep doing it. Repetition eventually convinces.

On the other hand, the Founders were themselves on such a high level, that the Kid Level approach can be a part of a far wider spectrum of arguments.

The founders were brilliant. You can see it in their writings and their actions.

The important thing is to create appealing images that make the points. Words, after all, are only symbols, not actual impressions. One size--or one description--need not fit all.

And here it seems you are putting forth the exact methodology I mentioned above. Yes, speak to them in impressions, not words. Words require intellectual processing, but everyone's brains are wired to process images and events.

The best method of convincing people of the rightness of your arguments is the stage.

[Ohioan]

You are preaching to the choir. Words, at their best can never be more than mere substitute symbols for the dynamic images that basically reflect our actual thoughts on the subject of human interaction with each other and all other things. Consider my Chapter (in the Conservative Debate Handbook) on the Persuasive Use Of Images.

Our advantage is that the images from real life clearly argue for us. Our disadvantage is that the Left has gained virtually total control of the entertainment image business. This flows, in part, from the dumbing down of the verbal arts, including literature and the arts that flow from the liberal arts, as more and more of the brighter youth have been drawn off to lucrative fields that did not exist in an earlier more balanced era.

[Ohioan]

"The best method of convincing people of the rightness of your arguments is the stage."

Actually, I believe that there are a variety of ways to "cut to the chase'--as it were; some of which I know work, from personal experience. The whole frenetic effort by the left to force PC rules of engagement, reflects the fact that they have no rational or believable argument for many of their basic hypotheses. Take, for example, the suppression of the former vigorous nature/nurture debate--that is, over the respective roles of nature (genes) & nurture (individual experiences) in any individual's performance.

I have thrown the gauntlet down to the Left on this for 60 years. See a fairly recent example: Footnote On Absurd Egalitarian Compulsion. They have no answer on the subject but to shriek insult--not convincing once more Conservatives realize what has really been going on.

[Ohioan]

bump

[DiogenesLamp]

Our advantage is that the images from real life clearly argue for us.

Which is why the "stage" is so insidious. They can create false or extremely improbable scenarios to push their message. They aren't bound by reality in their portrayal of events meant to impress their message on others.

Our disadvantage is that the Left has gained virtually total control of the entertainment image business.

And the "News" which most people think is not some form of entertainment, but is instead an accurate and objective transference of "facts." In my opinion, this control of the "news" is the most deadly aspect of liberalism, because it allows them to deliberately misinform the public about information that would help the public make better decisions in elections.

The work the culture with their regular entertainment, and they work the electorate with their misinformation or censorship of news.

This flows, in part, from the dumbing down of the verbal arts, including literature and the arts that flow from the liberal arts, as more and more of the brighter youth have been drawn off to lucrative fields that did not exist in an earlier more balanced era.

I think the reason the previous eras were better balanced was because people had to work harder as a general rule, and because television hadn't yet become the couch potato phenomena that it came to be. People spent more time not watching it than they did today, and so therefore they were more informed by their own real world experiences than by what Liberal playwrights and actors tried to steer them towards.

We need conservative producers of media content. Unfortunately the world of lying and "make believe" is far more suited to liberals than it is to realistic thinkers such as conservatives.

Pretending comes more natural for them than it does for us.

[DiogenesLamp]

I have thrown the gauntlet down to the Left on this for 60 years. See a fairly recent example: Footnote On Absurd Egalitarian Compulsion. They have no answer on the subject but to shriek insult--not convincing once more Conservatives realize what has really been going on.

I will read it, and then I can discuss it with you. Not today probably, because I have work I ought to be doing. I'm currently taking a break for lunch, but after that I have to get back to what I was doing.

[Ohioan]

Pretending comes more natural for them than it does for us.

There whole perspective is based on a need--a compulsion--to deny reality. That is except for the demagogues & scoundrels, who exploit the "useful idiots," as a power play.

[Ohioan]

Not as ambitious as you. I will pack it in, for the weekend, shortly.

Till later!

[Ohioan]

I did not catch the typo in #16 (there for their).

Sorry! As a Conservative, I really do know the difference. At least I do not use the new asexual pronouns. I understand that "their" refers to both men & women, the two parts of any adult community.

[Ohioan]

Bump

[Ohioan]

I would respectfully add that the points made in the article, with respect to civilian health care, are particularly relevant, with respect to the critical negotiations going on in the Senate, this week.

No! I do not expect outright repeal to be possible at this moment, but the absurdity of the present Federal role, needs to become a part of the ongoing discussion, or the situation will continue to deteriorate, even faster.