Blog Archives

High Tide by Andy Peth

11/25/2014

We’ve all heard the saying, “A high tide lifts all boats.”

Spoken to promote teamwork, these words place a group’s needs ahead of individual members—for as the team’s fortunes rise, so do those of each player. Problem is, frustrated team members can abandon these words, and often with good cause. Leaders let followers down. Followers undermine leaders. Co-workers backstab and gossip. Though a low tide sinks all boats, we sometimes choose to damage our cause anyway rather than let corrupt teammates win. “If our pain is the only way they’ll get what they deserve,” we lament, “so be it.”

And nowhere is this truer than in politics.

For instance, I really like senators Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee. They’re my kind of “boats.” Carrying my ideological cargo across the political ocean, they advance my hopes and concerns. Certain GOP senators fail to do this—at least, not my way. Several even criticize my “faves.”

But something has happened since Election Day, 2014. Though GOP gains were more Establishment than Tea Party, my faves are still rising to much greater influence in this “high tide” of 54 seats. Do they still battle GOP leadership? Sure, but the high tide benefits are immense. This reminds me of 2010, when it was the Tea Party raising the tide and the Establishment sharing the benefits. Like today, success for one brought success for all. High tide, baby. High tide.

Our tide—our numbers—rises when we unite and draw others. Therefore, I now pose a simple challenge to all members of the Conservative Coalition: Don’t lower the tide. Leaders, don’t deflate your base with divisive power moves. Grassroots, don’t splinter your coalition. Everyone, speak openly. Dissent freely. Just don’t lower the tide, for there are better ways to lift your boat.

Below are actions by some Conservatives that can lower the tide—or at least be perceived as doing so. These may sound harsh, and we’ll all want to defend our groups, but might I ask a favor? Wait a minute. Yes, I know your defenses have merit—so do mine. But whether valid or not, the items on this list still lower the tide, and their cumulative impact adds up. Looking them over, think of our Conservative Coalition. Look how we drive people away. Look how we fail to draw people in. Just look.

When some in GOP leadership:

Use secretive tactics to influence primaries in Mississippi and Colorado, this angers the grassroots and lowers the tide.
Fail to offer real influence for Tea Party and Libertarian leaders, this lowers the tide.
Needlessly change convention rules to centralize power, this lowers the tide.
Backs candidates (ie. Dole, McCain, Jeb Bush) who fail to inspire voters with clear separation from Democrats—or fail to govern as promised if they win--this lowers the tide.

When some in the Tea Party:

Undervote the GOP ticket in protest, this lowers the tide.
Back candidates with less chance for victory in hard races (ie. O’Donnell, Angle, Akin), this lowers the tide.
Insist that leaving the GOP is a viable strategy despite Democrat numbers, this lowers the tide.

When some Libertarians:

More aggressively recruit votes in Republican settings than Democrat ones, this lowers the tide.
Avoid sharing blame when Democrats win, this lowers the tide.
Insist Republicans must “earn their votes just like businesses earn customers,” this lowers the tide by forgetting differences between consumer and voter choices:

Society is unaffected when we don’t buy a product, but society is very affected when we don’t support the most numerically viable barrier to Democrat rule.
Consumer choices require no majority; voter choices do.

When some Fiscal Conservatives stay home in protest of Social Conservative candidates, or demand that Social Conservatives silence their views, this lowers the tide.

When some Social Conservatives ignore the political landscape by demanding like-minded candidates or nothing, this alienates fellow Conservatives and lowers the tide.

When ANY of us:

Demand sole allegiance to our priorities at the expense of others--
Fail to support the most numerically viable opponents to the Democrats—be they Tea Party, Establishment, whatever--
Expect total allegiance when our groups are in power, but threaten to leave when they’re not--

— We ALL lower the tide.

Raising the Tide

I once wrote about the movie, “Independence Day,” and how all humanity united when faced with extinction. (click here for the link) Today, faced with a growing Democratic Party that obliterates liberty, we Conservatives must raise our tide. But how is high tide achieved? Must some Conservative factions become doormats for others? Hardly.

For a common example, suppose GOP leadership is considered hostile to the Tea Party. Suppose we feel they are lowering the tide with power plays and weak candidates. What should we do?

Answer: Be honest, but committed.

Rather than blowing up or shrinking away, let’s plainly call out actions we feel dishearten the base and turn off the general electorate. Call them out, and keep calling them out. But should we threaten to leave? After all, without that threat, we’ll have no impact, right?

Wrong. Don’t obsess over leaders; think of their supporters. Remember, even with power moves, leaders don’t command without millions of supporters—good people working hard to advance liberty. If we threaten to leave, those supporters will remember our willingness to lower the tide.

Then, even if we remove the leaders, a portion of their followers will abandon us for threatening to leave—meaning we’ve lowered the tide. And if we fail to remove the leaders, our supporters will grow more hopeless and bitter because we set removal as the goal—so again we’ve lowered the tide.

Suppose, however, we keep voicing dissent, but promise to stay and raise the tide. As time passes, our high tide commitment will win support. Also, if leadership takes our votes for granted and dismisses us, their lack of high tide commitment will be revealed. For PR sake alone, they might opt to listen.

The math is simple: Raise the tide = Increase impact. Lower the tide = Damage impact.

I don’t offer this as some tool to manipulate our way up political ladders. I don’t care about political ladders. I’m only saying that honest words and commitment raise the tide—and not just when dealing with leadership. No matter what group frustrates us, our high tide strategy works the same.

Each of us has the power to raise the tide—or lower it. It’s our choice. Positions, power, connections—these mean nothing next to humility and wisdom. It’s always easier to destroy than create, but with honest words and loyal commitment, we can create a high tide of liberty.

That high tide lifts some boats we don’t like, but it also lifts our faves…and our coalition…

...and our spirits.

0 Comments

On David Webb and Disarming Liberal Minds by Andy Peth

11/20/2014

0 Comments

“Why are Liberals so good at debate?” I’m often asked. “We enter discussions having facts, but Libs just twist us around. How do they do that?”

My answer is simple: They win because they’re wrong.

Huh? If this seems confusing, let me describe how the Liberal mindset develops. Throughout life, we make decisions in two ways: Either measuring data with our minds, or overriding data with our emotions. If we measure data, our minds develop skill in doing so. But if we ignore data and do what we want, our minds develop another skill—that of defending emotional choices with dizzying tactics.

Suppose you’re buying a car. The data says you can afford $25,000, but your emotions want the $50,000, mid-life-crisis-mobile. So you buy the sweet ride. No longer measuring data, your mind shifts to “internal lawyer,” defending your emotional choices: “I’m due for a raise anyway…I’ll adjust my entertainment spending…I look 62% more attractive in this car.” Once a glorious accountant, your mind transforms into a sleazy defense attorney—the kind who guzzles martinis, numbing the guilt of defending halfwits who see sports cars as miracle cures for receding hairlines.

This brings up our leftwing counterparts. While Conservatives generally seek to control themselves, Liberals generally seek to control others, thus sparking their own mental disconnect: “I don’t want to be controlled because it’s wrong to control me, but I don’t like their choices so I’ll control them.” Embracing this anti-golden rule, Liberal minds enter sleazy lawyer mode, defending the idea of herding people like cattle. The deeper Liberals commit, the more skilled they become, and in time they can defend anything.

Do you see why Conservatives leave debates feeling overwhelmed? We're used to measuring data, not wading through endless rationalizations.

And Now, David Webb

For a great example in defeating this Liberal mindset, witness Conservative talk show host David Webb on the 11/18 episode of Fox’s “America’s Newsroom.” Confronting a tactic called deflection—re-directing or avoiding questions—Webb thrived where most Conservatives fail.

Let me set the stage:

At issue was President Obama’s attempt to distance himself from MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, in which Obama wrote Gruber off as “some advisor who never worked on our staff.” Why did Obama say this? Because statements by Gruber had surfaced, celebrating the use of outright deception in selling Obamacare to “stupid” Americans. Yikes. Fleeing “Gruber-gate,” Obama acted like he barely knew a man he paid $392,000 to consult on Obamacare…and who visited the White House 20 times…and who bragged of personal meetings with Obama…and whom Obama himself, in 2006, cited as someone he had “stolen ideas from liberally.”

Okay, so Obama lied. Nothing new there.

But read Webb’s exchange on “America’s Newsroom.” Host Martha MacCallum first plays several damning videos of Gruber and Obama (including a fun one with Webb trailing Gruber, seeking comments), then addresses Liberal talk show host Santita Jackson:

(Warning: Jackson’s dodging is skillful, but tedious. It’s lousy reading, but please read it all to prepare for leftist tactics)

MacCallum: “Santita, given all of the press this has received, and the fact that he was in the White House 20 times, and talks quite specifically about an Oval Office meeting with the president, I mean, can you believe that that was what the president had to say about this at that point?”

Jackson: “Let me say, David, let me forever be on your side. I don’t want you chasing me down—how frightening! Let me tell you, is the law perfect? No. Should it be fixed? Absolutely. You know, I’m one of the Americans who could not be insured 10 years ago, and, because of pre-existing health conditions, that, could have ended my life, and so, the Gallup poll this week just said that 70% of Americans who have been able to buy insurance through these health exchanges are satisfied with them. So I don’t want to end the law; I want to mend the law. I can understand the questions that many people have—I have them myself—they need to be answered. But I don’t want this law to be thrown out; I want us to focus on it. A lot of the personalities…this has been very entertaining, but what is not entertaining are the lives that are at risk—“

(Webb interrupts this lengthy misdirection, resulting in an unintelligible interaction between Jackson and himself. Then MacCallum jumps in to restate her original question)

MacCallum: “I ask you to answer my question if you would. Do you believe that the president was not aware of Jonathan Gruber?”

Jackson: “You know, Jonathan Gruber has been denied by both Republicans and Democrats. Do you know, this started in 1989, with the Heri--(Webb starts to interject)—well, excuse me David, but let me finish my thought. I mean, the fact is, the Heritage Foundation came up with ACA, or some variation of it—"

(Webb interjects that Jackson is deflecting, the two talk over each other, then MacCallum brings it back)

MacCallum: “Santita, finish your sentence.”

Jackson: “My point is, I feel that both parties have been in on this. Hillary Clinton tried to push it up the Hill, Romney kind of got it across the line, then President Obama was able to get it a little bit further down the road. All I want is, I want some answers, but I really want all Americans to have access to great healthcare.”

(More talking over each other ensues, so MacCallum takes over, eventually allowing Webb to put Jackson away)

MacCallum: “Santita, everbody agrees that all Americans should have access to good healthcare. The question is whether or not it should be done through the private industry, through competition, through open across the border purchasing of healthcare plans. I mean, you know, the question here is whether or not the people were deceived in this country when they were presented this plan, is it not, David?”

Webb (my emphasis added): “Yeah, and Martha, by the way, Santita does a brilliant job of deflecting and never answering your question. The fact is Obama in 2006 references Gruber. The fact is we have a White House visitor’s log, and not everybody gets to have a meeting in the Oval Office. So, she deflects from the issue to bring others into it. That’s a great tactic, maybe for TV, but the American people are dealing with reality. And there are many things that need to be fixed in both health insurance and healthcare delivery systems, but Obamacare was a hoax that was foisted on the American people with a lie; with a number of lies, and Jonathan Gruber and President Obama and Nancy Pelosi, and all the Democrats who supported this did not fix problems.”

At this point, Jackson is thoroughly disarmed. She flails about, discussing Gruber’s work on Romneycare, but this falls flat because Romneycare was designed as a test program in one state, not imposed nationwide (Romney, in fact, opposed nationalizing it). Furthermore, Romney’s plan was developed with an 85% Democrat legislature and heartily received by sweeping majorities in Massachusetts, while Obama developed his plan completely against his rival party and public sentiment. So Romney told the truth and governed with the people, while Obama used deception and governed against the people. Gee, slight difference.

Here’s the point: By using this tortured reference, Jackson shows how badly Webb has beaten her. She’s crushed. From there, Webb’s hardest task is choosing which endzone celebration to use before spiking the ball (I myself enjoy “The Lambeau Leap”).

Conclusion: Easy Strategy

Let’s apply Webb’s brilliance: Before returning Jackson to the subject, he first explains her tactic. This reveals Jackson. Understand, Webb knows how liberal minds work, but he also knows most people don’t. That’s why he starts by exposing tactics. Does Jackson’s deflection intimidate him? On the contrary, he uses it to disarm her! Wonderful!

I know it’s frustrating to debate committed liberals, since their minds create webs of confusion to justify illogic. It’s exhausting. But before untangling their chaos, reveal their tactics:

When they misdirect and dodge, say they are misdirecting and dodging.
When they spout examples of “Conservatives doing the same things,” tell them you’d be happy to discuss those examples--AFTER discussing the issue at hand (they hate this).
When they laugh to diminish your point (Joe Biden, anyone?), ask why they think laughing at a point makes it less valid.

This is easy strategy. Disarm them first, and then debate on equal footing. Like David Webb, you’ll stop struggling to keep up, and start spiking the ball.

You really can do it. Just use your mind.

0 Comments

Minimum Wage: Why it’s a “War on the Poor” by Daniel Lawrence

11/15/2014

0 Comments

Recently, an opinion piece arguing for an increase in the minimum wage was run by CNN, which was authored by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), Rep. George Miller (D-CA), and Secretary of Labor Tom Perez. It can be read here. Adding to this discussion is the fact that this past Tuesday, four states voted to raise their minimum wage rates, with some indexing it to the cost of living.

In this article, the authors assert that "No one who works full-time -- in this, one of the wealthiest nations on Earth -- should have to raise a family in poverty... hard work should be rewarded with fair pay of at least $10.10 per hour.

Every day for low-wage workers is filled with struggle and anxiety. We have heard from and visited with people making heartbreaking decisions about which bill to pay, which meal to skip, which growing child will get a pair of shoes this season and whether to buy a gallon of milk or a gallon of gas. For many of us, an unexpected car repair is an inconvenience; for a minimum-wage worker, it is a catastrophe."

From this, it's clear that the case for raising the minimum wage is primarily an emotional one. But may I pose a question: on what are wages based? Why is it that a software developer is paid anywhere from $40-125,000 per year on average, depending on level of experience and a fast food worker is typically paid on average $7.73/hr?

The answer lies in contribution. What is the value of this product? What is the worker contributing? Software developers are in high demand, and their job requires specialized training, making them a valuable contribution to a company-after all, not everyone is a developer. However, being a fast food worker takes extremely minimal skill, and because there is a high number of people who can do that job, wages are consequently lower.

To put this in an analogy, let us consider the following: in many how-to articles on asking for a raise, employees are always advised to never justify it on the grounds of "my expenses/cost of living have increased." Rather, base it on the contribution you are making to your employer. Show him or her that you deserve that raise because you worked to better yourself in your job, making yourself a more valuable asset.

The second fallacy in this opinion piece is the disregard for economic evidence against the minimum wage, both theoretical and empirical.

Theoretically, labor is a commodity in the market, like any other good or service. According to the economic law of demand, as the cost of a good or service rises, demand subsequently drops, and as the cost decreases, demand increases. For instance, if gas were to drop to $1.50/gallon now, one would likely see gas stations swamped with business.

The labor market works the same way. If the cost of labor is low, demand for that commodity increases. Likewise, the inverse is also true. If the cost of labor is increased, demand for labor subsequently drops, which equates to higher unemployment rates. This is particularly noticed among lower-skilled workers, who are usually the intended beneficiaries of minimum wage increases.

On the empirical evidence front, many minimum wage advocates cite the 1992 Card-Krueger study which seemed to show that raising the minimum wage in their case study state, New Jersey, did not hinder employment growth. However, there are two things that render this study suspect:

1-Alan Krueger later went on to serve as an economic advisor to a president who supports raising the minimum wage. Would this not render his objectivity somewhat suspect in conducting what is supposed to be an impartial study?

2-Study authors David Neumark and William Wascher, who have done multiple studies on the minimum wage, found in a re-examination of Card and Krueger's work by examining payroll data vs. data collected by phone surveys, that unemployment actually increased in the state of New Jersey as a result of the minimum wage increase. These same authors, among others, have consistently found that increases in the minimum wage have negative economic effects, by effectively barring the very people it was designed to help from being employed.

In conclusion, some may assume I have heartless apathy for the plight of the poor and unskilled. Let me assure you I do not. In fact, it is because I care about the poor and the unskilled worker that I oppose raising the minimum wage. I want to reduce the barriers to gaining employment for these workers, and thereby promote a higher availability of jobs.

Getting a job is hard enough these days; why should the government make it more difficult?

0 Comments

Rorschach Republicans by Felicia Cravens

11/15/2014

1 Comment

This article was originally published by Free Radical Network on October 26th.
It's a timeless message that is especially pertinent now that Republicans have enjoyed a sweeping victory in the midterm elections.

If you come across the word ‘liberty’ and instantly equate that with ‘Ron Paul Nutter’, you might be a Rorschach Republican.

If you see a picture of Chris Christie featured in an article and immediately spew reasons he should not be president without reading the article, you might be a Rorschach Republican.

If you encounter a Jon Stewart video and comment about how awful he is without reading the introductory paragraph of the poster, you might be a Rorschach Republican.

If you see the words ‘immigration reform’ and ALWAYS translate that to ‘amnesty’, you might be a Rorschach Republican.

If you saw the title of THIS article and said ‘I’m a conservative (or libertarian), not a Republican; this doesn’t apply to me’ and ignored it, you might be a Rorschach Republican.

Does any of that sound familiar? If so, no wonder. I’ve seen each one of those situations occur recently. And to tell you the truth, it’s embarrassing.

It’s the left that is rigidly, dogmatically lockstep about their politics. It’s the liberals who are all about silencing other views. It’s progressives who are experts at demonizing people and ideas that they don’t approve of. And it’s the Democrats who campaign on slogans rather than facts.

Right? RIGHT?

But the incidents above make me question just what some people are doing on the rightward end of the spectrum.

Each week, we at Free Radical Network get together with friends from The Party of Choice and The Conservative Union at a Google Hangout we call The Refinery. Our main purpose for nearly a year has been to discuss and refine conservative messaging: what works, what doesn’t, what we should do more of, what we need to toss in the scrap heap. We take stories in the news and talk about HOW to talk about them. No, we aren’t experts or well-paid commentators; we’re just passionate conservatives who want to figure out how to WIN.

We’re not into ranting or regurgitating the news. There are plenty of places for that online. What makes us different is that we focus on solutions. We already know what the problems are, we already know how bad things have been. We don’t need an update on the Outrage of the Day. We get it. We want to go past those things, and talk very specifically about what we can DO about all those things.

In that vein, we often end up discussing issues that are uncomfortable, or political figures that have a less than ideal record. And the discussions in our chat are always thought-provoking and in-depth, as our audience comes to engage with ideas and challenge themselves with new ways of thinking about things.

And every week, in fact nearly every day, we snip a few minutes of video to share for those people who don’t have two hours to sit in front of a computer screen. Folks who don’t have time for the whole show can watch a short segment and still engage and comment on the ideas we’re discussing. We share those bits so that people who miss The Refinery can still be a part of the audience, can still debate the ideas, tactics, and strategies we bring up.

And I have to tell you, nothing is more disheartening than to share a meaningful discussion about, say, Chris Christie demolishing union talking points and how we can learn from that, only to find that there are folks who encounter the post we share who:

• Don’t bother to watch the video
• Comment based solely on the image of (or mention of) Christie
• Add nothing at all to the conversation we actually had

I used to call these people ‘knee-jerks’ but now I think it’s even more basic than that. What these people do is surf their feeds on social media, encounter an image or name that gets their dander up, and reflexively comment without bothering to explore the content itself. That’s not thinking; that’s emoting. And it’s particularly ineffective. What’s more, it makes these people prime targets for satire news sites, or fake news clickbait sites, boasting headlines like: “Obama To Force Congress To Let Him Run For An Illegal 3rd Term In 2016″. If you don’t pay attention to the content before you share it, you can easily be influenced to share false, misleading, or debunked information. And that damages the credibility of ALL of us.

If you want to emote your politics, have at it.

But stop pretending that you are a serious person thinking about and discussing issues.

Stop pretending that you are interested in winning rather than venting.

And stop expecting people to take you seriously.

There are elections to be won. There is a culture to influence. There is a country to save. While you’re indulging your emotions, we’re going to go work on those things.

And if you aren’t a Rorschach Republican, or you are but want to stop acting like one, join us live on Tuesday nights, or check out the snips we created on the Conservative Union channel. We promise you’ll be glad you did.

1 Comment

We're Becoming Them by Andy Peth

11/10/2014

1 Comment

Ever debate on Conservative blogs? I do.

Frequenting rightwing threads, I meet lots of smart, dedicated patriots. And bantering back and forth, I wind up reciting catch phrases in my sleep. “Most Conservative who can win!” I’ll mutter, tossing about.  “No more lesser of two evils!” Then, sitting straight up at 3am, I shout, “RINO…Wacko-bird…Neo-con…(mumbling)…KARL ROVE!”

That always earns me a trip to the couch.   So is it really worth it? Yes it is.

Lately, however, the point-counterpoint has acquired an ominous feel, especially in the wake of Election Day, 2014—or as I call it, “Obama’s Little Bighorn.” Incidentally, did you know that Custer, in his dying words, insisted his last stand wasn’t a repudiation of his policies, because two-thirds of North American Indians didn’t show up? True story. Anyway, this year, our “Tea Party versus Establishment” battles have sounded a bit too...ummm...non-Conservative.

Pardon the simplification--I know everyone has their own style or slant--but I’ll just sum up general responses to four scenarios:

1. If Establishment candidates won…

Establishment (Stabs) wrote: “This proves our candidates are more marketable!”
Tea Party (TP’s) wrote: “This proves we’re team players, since we held our noses and voted!”

2. …or if Tea Party candidates won.

TP’s: “This proves our candidates are more marketable!”
Stabs: “This proves we’re team players, since we held our noses and voted!”

3. If Establishment candidates lost…

Stabs: “Now we’re stuck with a Democrat because the Tea Party undermined us and stayed home!”
TP’s: “Now we’re stuck with a Democrat because squishy candidates embarrassed us and failed to win the public!”

4. …or if Tea Party candidates lost.

TP’s: “Now we’re stuck with a Democrat because the Establishment undermined us and stayed home!”
    Stabs: “Now we’re stuck with a Democrat because loose cannon candidates embarrassed us and failed to win the public!”

Both, simultaneously: Traitors!  You don’t support our candidates! We didn't leave you, you left us! WE NEVER DO THAT!!

Folks, have you noticed we don’t sound like...well...like us? Honestly, we don’t. As one who was raised in the Leftist community, I’ve seen these patterns before—and I see them still today. Over there. Among the enemy. Consider some underlying themes commonly employed by Liberals:

SPINNERS: “No matter what the weather or temperature, it proves Global Warming!”
CONTROL FREAKS: “If you make choices we don't like, we'll shout and protest you!”
VICTIMS: “The deck in life is always stacked against us!”
UNYIELDING LABELERS: “No matter how you criticize our president, you’re a racist!”

Do you see it? We’re becoming them. If each Conservative faction examines itself, we’ll see some hard truths:

We spin every win or loss as proof our group is right. We’re becoming them.
We either intimidate as control freaks or act as perpetual victims. We’re becoming them.
If anyone criticizes our preferred candidate or group, we lash out. We’re becoming them.
Everyone disagreeing with us is a Wacko-bird, RINO, Neo-con, or Dope-Smoking Hippie. We’re becoming them.

Look, I have my biases. Though a devout Republican, my views align most with the Tea Party and Christian Right. As such, I think candidates must stand firm and draw clear lines, lest voters see us as Democrat-lite. Yet, I find myself calling out my preferred groups just as much as others.  Why? Because it hurts to see any Conservative  group becoming like the Liberals who first indoctrinated me.

Truth is, we're all guilty.  I could critique each faction, but my concern here isn’t power plays, corruption, or poor strategy--it’s the venom of this leftist culture coursing through our veins. We’ve been poisoned, my friends, by my old side. Through media, academia, and entertainment, our Conservative message is disabled by Liberal values—values of bitterness, envy, brittle emotions, even control.  Petty and divisive like the Left, we offer people no reason to choose us instead.

This needs to stop.

I offer no great fix; just a clarion call. If you’ll permit me a scriptural reference, read James 4:1-3:

“What causes quarrels and fights among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you? You want something but don’t get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.”

Tell me, when other GOP factions offend us, do we reel off endless excuses for acting like the Left? Rather than trust higher standards (like God), do we relish lower vindication? When rival Republicans fall before us, do we grin with satisfaction, thinking nothing of the good people who supported them?

Call it what you want. Justify it till the end of times. Tell me how "they" started it. But acting like the enemy, we begin looking out of place. We’re too selfish.  Too liberal. Spinning, controlling, playing the victim, endless name-calling—these are practices of the Left, and we just seem awkward using them.

If you think I'm demanding silence, or saying we shouldn't point out mistakes and corruption, then your mind has been trained to find fault. I'm sorry, but it's true. I don't want anyone silenced, but honest criticism has more effect when presented by an open mind. And our minds can't be open unless our "fault" training is undone, meaning we must reject the blame-first programming of our liberal culture.

Only then can we address problems. Only then can we speak our rational minds, not our irrational hearts.

I fear it's too late, however. We love the attacks. Rejecting the challenge of diverse opinions beneath a big tent, we throw bombs from the comfort of separate tents. I fear our goals aren't constructive, but destructive. We're hurt. We're angry. We want to cause pain.

Ultimately, I fear neither our blogs nor our movement will ever again reflect the excitement of challenging ideas. I fear we've lost the courage to think as individuals. We're too jaded. We're a mob now--or a collection of mobs. Worst of all, when I look across the great divide at that heartless Democratic Party, I fear…

…we’re becoming them.

1 Comment

The Cost of “Scare ‘Em” Campaigns by Andy Peth

11/5/2014

0 Comments

“Scare ‘em.” That’s the chief campaign tactic for many Democrats. Bereft of ideas or track records, many simply fill in these blanks for stump speeches: “If you elect (blank) the Republican, he/she will do (blank) and (blank) to you.” So overplayed is this shtick, I’d swear some Democrats forget and say the word, “blank.” Hey, it’s understandable. I mean, campaigns are long, and tiring.

There’s a danger with “Scare ‘em.” Campaigning on fear and smear, you either have to be correct, or you’d better win. Why? Because what if you lose, and your opponent spends the next few years not doing what you warned? What then?

I’ll tell you what: That opponent will become very, very tough to unseat.

Take Wisconsin’s Scott Walker. Since his 2010 election to Governor, Democrat fear-mongers have branded him an anti-education zealot (since he opposes collective bargaining for public teacher unions). It’s been brutal. Spending incredible sums of money, nationwide unions and leftist mega-donors treat “Defeat Scott Walker” as a new religion.

Don’t believe me? Try walking the streets of Madison during election season. It’s like walking through a cult training video, complete with foul-smelling halfwits shoving literature in your face. “Would you like to know the love and joy of killing Scott Walker? Oh no, I don’t mean ‘literally’ (twitch! twitch!), but I discover lasting peace through meditating on Scott Walker being much, much less alive. Perhaps you’d like to focus your cleansing rage through one of our crystals! (it’s an ice cube) Not today? Why not? Hey, look at me when I’m speaking to you! Walker hates teachers and children! You hate him, don’t you? Don’t you? AREN’T YOU AT PEACE???”

The more these wackos accuse Walker, the more Wisconsinites see schools functioning nicely, along with a balanced budget and rising job creation. After several quick elections (including a hilarious recall attempt), Walker’s agenda speeds merrily onward. He’s nearly invincible now. Why? The first accusations proved false, so people are less open to new ones. These days, every super-financed anti-Walker campaign only produces booming tourism numbers. It’s like fresh snow on Colorado ski slopes.

Speaking of my home state, Colorado, Democrats here will soon learn another painful lesson in “Scare ‘em” politics. Witness newly elected GOP Senator, Cory Gardner. The now-vanquished Mark Udall spent his entire campaign pushing “War on Women” rhetoric, insisting Gardner would take away birth control and deny abortion choice to rape victims. So relentless were these ads, Colorado’s top liberal newspaper called Udall’s campaign “obnoxious.” They even endorsed Gardner.

Now, the Democrats have created a monster. Neither forcing rape victims to carry their rapists’ children nor outlawing BC pills, Gardner will confirm daily the preposterous nature of Udall’s claims. Oh, he’ll do a good job, too. As the months pass, Gardner will become more and more bulletproof, and he partly has Udall to thank for it. By 2020, he’ll sail to re-election.

My plan is to feature a running tally on our website—a tally of days accrued without Gardner and the Republicans forcing rape victims to carry the offspring of their rapists. Seriously. I want Conservatives reminding voters every passing month, to further erase this sickening talking point from the Democrats’ arsenal. “Gee, still no legislation outlawing contraception! Gee, still no legislation forcing rape victims to carry their rapists’ children! But…but…Udall promised!” This time, the Dems will pay for their “Scare ‘em” lies—and they’ll pay with interest. In 2016, they’ll pay with Colorado’s other Senate seat.

The strategy goes both ways, of course. In 2008, Al Franken barely won his Senate seat with a highly dubious recount in Minnesota, but rather than focus only on his policy ideas during the campaign, Republicans made a big point of his vulgar comedy routines. Fast forward six years, and Franken has done nothing objectionable his whole time in office (except for his voting record). And so, despite atrocious performance, Franken sailed to a landslide re-election, partly because people remembered how wrong we were in warning of his behavior. This discredited our campaign.

But here’s the good news: The Left uses “Scare ‘em” far more than the Right, and this year’s entire newly minted class of Republicans will benefit greatly. I say we use this Democrat mistake—big time—reminding voters how these warnings have proven embarrassingly wrong.

Many Conservatives were upset at the "War on Women" motif, but if we handle this right, it will be the Democrats who are more upset in 2016.

0 Comments

What Should We Do if We Win?

11/2/2014

6 Comments

This Tuesday offers a good chance for Republicans to take the Senate. Expecting a late surge for Democrats, I predict a modest 51-52 seat majority, but anything from 49 to 55 is possible. And yet, should Harry Reid lose his scepter of power, just what should Republicans do?

I know two schools of thought:

One school says to play nice, reaching endlessly across the aisle as if we never won. The other says ram through all levels of the Conservative agenda as if we have some great mandate. So either we inspire no one with a whimper, or we drive away masses with a roar.

Might I offer a third option?

First, let’s keep in mind why Democrats are falling, ‘kay? It’s not because voters are madly in love with us Righties—though we are, without question, adorable. It’s because of “control.” Americans are sick of being told how to live, especially by leaders showing little interest in protecting the cattle they herd. Witness an open border with millions of illegals gobbling up jobs. Or how about a welcome mat for Ebola? There’s a pathetic slappy fight approach to ISIS, abandoned Americans in Benghazi, and insane limitations on the oil and coal development which could free us from needing OPEC. No, voters aren’t giving Republicans a mandate; they just hate Democrats enough for us to create one.

The Democrat message is “We want our preferences to be your laws. And since we’re in control, we don’t even respect you enough to protect you.” This arrogance provides great opportunity for us to do the opposite. Blessed with a majority, I propose we counter the Democrats “Control” agenda by pushing a “Choice” agenda, in three waves:

1. First, bring a simple message: “We want your choices unleashed, and protected.”

a. Tired of losing choices and fulltime work with Obamacare? Try medical savings accounts (regardless of your deductible), buying across state lines, Tort Reform—unlike Obamacare’s assault upon our healthcare system, these choices will increase your power to access it.

b. Tired of government limiting your right to arm yourself? Forget that! Criminals don’t count their bullets, so why should you? The 2nd Amendment is back, baby.

c. Like public schools? Great! Like private schools? Great! Take a voucher and choose. Unlike Democrats, we don’t want schools forcing our values on your kids.

d. Need a job? Let’s replace welfare with “Back in Business” (click here to read it).

e. Want to work in a union? Great! Don’t want to? Great! Choose for yourself with private ballots. And let's make sure no politicians receive your union dues unless you approve.

f. Want to run a business without government micromanaging you? Great! We’ll streamline every piece of business legislation possible. Government should serve business, not the other way around, because business pays for government.

g. Drink whatever size soda you want. Criticize whoever you want—we won’t censor you with political correctness. Eat meat, drive fast cars, live…your…life! As an added bonus, we won’t even monitor you.

h. Finally, about those threats to your choices—open borders, Ebola, terrorism, energy dependence upon unstable regions--we will protect you from them. Not someday, not in decades, but now, because you—the American people—come first with us.

As the party of “Choice,” we Republicans want to control our own lives, not yours.

2. In the second wave, reframe the morality debate. As a born-again Christian, I want to live like Jesus. That’s my choice. But as a Christian citizen, I don’t want laws forcing non-Christians to live like Jesus (nor did Jesus, btw—there is no Christian Jihad). So what kind of morality laws can gain a lasting mandate? Try this: “We support every choice that doesn’t take away someone else’s choice.” Some examples:

a. Want to steal? Forget it—that choice removes someone else’s choice of how to use her money. Want to kill? No—that removes someone else’s choice of whether to live. Want to rape? Unlike the Left, we’ll punish you severely. Want to commit terrorist acts? We won’t try to understand you or exchange you for deserters, got it? We’ll hunt and destroy you as a threat to American liberty.

b. Want contraception? Pay for it yourself. Your personal choices shouldn’t be funded by people who either don’t use those things or don’t support them.

c. Want an abortion? I’m pro-life, so we might disagree over when another person is in play—when abortion removes a choice to live. But can we at least look at late-term abortions? My question: If you contend there is still no human life after 20 weeks, is this because you’ve looked at the evidence, or because you looked away for convenience?

Remember, Democrats are losing because they cram leftwing views down people’s throats with laws and Hollywood preaching. So don’t imitate them. Offering morality in the form of choices that don’t rob other people of their choices, we gain listeners—and our mandate grows. After all, grace can’t be sold with control; only with choice.

3. In the third wave, educate voters on economics—this can be done after earning trust with a “Choice” agenda. Show the damage caused by redistributing wealth and forcing minimum wages higher than market value. Explain how entitlements, skyrocketing debt and overprinting by the Fed devastate our future. Quit dodging the truth, but first earn the right to say it.

Without new teaching, these issues are currently unwinnable—but people will listen after we unleash and protect their choices. Win their hearts, and they’ll hear our ideas.

So there’s my plan for a new majority. By rejecting the Democrats, voters allow us to create a new mandate, so let’s create one! Have you ever seen a nice guy drive a girl home from a party where she dumped her crummy boyfriend? If the nice guy is smart, he won’t act like he has a “mandate”—he’ll see she just tossed a bum. But opportunity still knocks, my friends! Treat her well, honor her choices, and protect her from threats. Don’t be what she just left...be better.

If Republicans put forth a positive, “Choice” agenda these next two years, would Democrats have any chance in 2016? Would Americans rush back to the arms of their oppressors?

I think not.

6 Comments

High Tide by Andy Peth

On David Webb and Disarming Liberal Minds by Andy Peth

Minimum Wage: Why it’s a “War on the Poor” by Daniel Lawrence

Rorschach Republicans by Felicia Cravens

We're Becoming Them by Andy Peth

The Cost of “Scare ‘Em” Campaigns by Andy Peth

What Should We Do if We Win?

Author

Archives

Categories