“Let’s have a new first party; a Republican Party raising a banner of bold colors, no pale pastels. A banner instantly recognizable as standing for values which will not be compromised.”
Think about it. Each election season, Democrats spend lots of time blurring lines—speaking of balanced budgets, religious freedoms, and of course, jobs, jobs, jobs (none of which they produce). Mouthing these terms like salesmen mouthing, “Year End Savings,” they embrace pale pastels…
…except when calling Republicans bigoted, sexist homophobes who want the earth to burn. And while it burns, we build lavish spaceships for escaping to a secret world called “Planet Rushy-Trumpy.”
(I’m told Rushy-Trumpy is solely populated by male Trump voters and incredibly lifelike female pleasure-bots, who only say “Master,” “Yes”—usually not in that order—and “NRA”)
But I digress.
Point is, Democrats want blurred lines. They like “evolving” moralities, “living” Constitutions, “open” borders, and “fluid” genders. Even in 1975, Reagan knew pale pastels put the game on Democrat turf.
On that turf, voters can only follow whoever gives them more. More what, you ask? More anything. Like more stuff paid for by other taxpayers. But that’s stealing, you say? No it isn’t, because we use majority votes! That’s mob rule and looting, you say? No it isn’t, because on this turf, we use evolving, living, open, and fluid definitions! Stealing is “Government-guided generosity.” Mobs are “Steering committees encouraging your generosity.” Looting is “Celebrating your generosity—door to door!”
And these torches we’re carrying? “Natural lighting.”
When Republicans fail to draw clear lines, Democrats entice voters with “reasonable” demands:
“More, more, more! Force businesses to pay my kid $15/hour without cutting staff or raising prices!
“Force taxpayers to spend far more in subsidies on green energy than the same amount of energy from fossil fuels—then tell me we’re creating ‘green jobs!’ This makes me happy inside!”
“Force Conservatives to pay twice to keep their kids out of schools opposing Conservatism! Conservatives can afford it—they have all the money! Hollywood and Google told me so! That’s why Conservatives can afford pleasure-bots!!!”
“I like me! I don’t like them! Give me their stuff, and tell me I deserve it! Give me power over them, and call it justice! I…WANT…MORE!!!”
You like tyranny? Then sell pale pastels. But if tyranny isn’t for you, try drawing a clear line.
And which line should we draw? Well, first let’s see what lines to avoid.
1. Don’t use a person.
Many Conservatives today draw the line, “Are you for or against Trump?” Hmmmm… I’m for Trump, and I’ve called out many Never Trumpers. But drawing our line with a person causes problems.
a) First, it isn’t what President Trump wants. Though uber-confident, our President has repeatedly said it’s about us, not him.
Unlike Obama, Trump wants loyalty, not worship. There are no Greek columns with Trump; no schoolkids singing his glory, no posters proclaiming him as our “hope.” Obama wanted America fundamentally transformed in his image. Trump just wants America to, well, win.
b) When we draw lines demanding people support “Our Guy,” they resent us. Sure, we’ll rally our group. But others tire of us, as we grade everyone by whether they’re for him or against him. This can make us sound like cultists. It makes us sound weak. Frankly, we sound gullible.
c) People can fall. Hey, no one’s perfect, and everyone makes mistakes opponents can cite.
2. Don’t use an issue.
This is called “Single Issue Voting,” and I’ve heard it in so many ways:
“I draw the line with guns. Any limits with my freedoms, and I’m out!”
“I draw the line with abortion.”
“I draw the line with immigration and the Wall.”
“I draw the line with repealing Obamacare.”
Now understand, I mention these issues because they’re critical for me. But when I make one issue the dividing line, I virtually guarantee my defeat. Why? Because I’m employing a strategy that only works if no one else does it.
Let’s say we line up twenty issues. Then every Conservative picks a top one (or two or three), saying, “Here’s where I draw the line!” If we each demand our issues take precedence, no candidate can unite us. Doomed from the start, we’re overrun by Democrats recruiting with one thing—getting more.
Like I said, Single Issue Voting only works if no one else does it. That’s bad strategy.
3. Don’t use a big list.
Some Republicans want another Contract with America. “Tell people what we’re for, not just what we’re against!”
Well, yes…and no.
The Contract was awesome, and we certainly want clear priorities. I’m all for that. But don’t lead with it. Why? Because in today’s political climate, lengthy lists won’t break through.
Think about it. Our audience—the voters—doesn’t trust or hear us enough to focus on lists. Worse yet, they’re encased in far-left dogma from the Big 3 Influencers of Public Opinion: Media, Academia, and Entertainment. So, nothing will puncture that barrier except a single, clear message.
If we lead with a list, all they’ll hear is noise—too many demands from a group they’re convinced are bigoted sexists burning the earth and fleeing to Planet Rushy-Trumpy.
So those are three lines to avoid, but what should our line achieve? What are the goals?
Simple. The line we draw must:
1. Expose the Democrats’ greatest fault—something they can’t stop doing.
2. Promote our greatest strength—something Conservatives love.
3. Achieve these things in clear terms voters use and like. In other words, don’t lead with terms like liberty, freedom, opportunity, or family values, since voters rarely think in these terms.
This is why I advocate drawing the line, Choice versus Control.
Democrats can’t stop controlling. If we don’t like something, we don’t do it. If they don’t like something, they ban it.
If we drive slow, we use the right lane, allowing others to pass at their pace. If Democrats drive slow, they often use the left lane (I’m serious—read the bumper stickers). Or when possible, they group together, forming human blockades across all lanes. I envision them opening their windows and locking arms in solidarity. Or, they’ll thrust their fists in the air, shouting, “Build this Wall! Build this Wall!”
I hate driving behind these Democrats. But again, I digress.
Even relativism is a control device, designed to remove standards to which we can be held. “Evolving” moralities, “living” Constitutions, “open” borders, “fluid” genders—these all give control to the mob.
Thus, branding Democrats with Control is a winner. No one likes a micromanaging boss, right? So, we draw a clear line showing voters that Democrat politicians are the boss they despise. That’s easy.
As for Choice, this is a word everyone loves and uses—and it’s something Republicans love to give. Sure, some of us are unsure with social issues, but my next article will show we love Choice on those, too.
For now, just know Choice is our product. It is liberty and freedom in a more personal package. People want it. We can sell it. And as I’ve mentioned before, the opening messages are easy:
“We’re for Choice, they’re for Control.”
“We want to control our own lives, not yours.”
“We support every choice that doesn’t take away someone else’s choice. They impose choices they like on people they don’t.”
Voters respond much better to these opening lines than pushing our person, issue, or list. And in a setting of pale pastels where people demand, “More, more, more!”, Choice versus Control reminds them of these realities: Using government to steal is still stealing, using government to control is still controlling, and a mob of voters…
…is still a mob.
Speaking of Choice, we have one before us: Either draw a clear line with Choice versus Control, or compete entirely on the Democrats’ home turf.
Reagan knew which way to go. Do we?