I have been pondering, not ponderously you understand, but pondering none-the-less. 2010 represents both an opportunity and a danger. The former possibility is obvious. The new regime is slipping every more deeply into sinkholes of confusion and indignant outrage that anyone could question the purity of their motives and the wisdom of their paths. The electorate, we are happy to note, is catching on, more and more. These happy occurrences suggest that 2010 could resemble 1994 and, indeed, many a conservative pundit is predicting just that.
Still, 2010 is not 1994. Our political opponents are more sophisticated than they were 16 years ago. Clinton gets a good deal of credit for his political savvy, a fair bit of it justified, but some people extend that acumen to Clinton’s party as a whole in 1994. That, I think, is not justified. Clinton mastered the “aw shucks, I’m as big a goofball as you” message that has been attractive to Americans in one form or another since Andrew Jackson through Huey Long and beyond. The Democrats as a whole, didn’t truly understand the value of Clinton’s approach in 1994 and they paid the price. They are, after all, basically a party of pseudo-intellectual, elitist a-holes. It was very difficult for them to pretend to humility in 1994.
Today? It’s a different world, with different players. David Axelrod is damned bit more ruthless than Dick Morris and you can take it from there. The Dems learned from 1994 too and they’re going to be prepared for this battle. They have a playbook that works, and it’s centered on developing and selling a simple, appealing message that resounds with the mushy middle of the electorate. How to counter that? Because, if we don’t – if we don’t reproduce 1994 in 2010 – we’re going to be in the deep sh*t for a long time to come.
If we’re not only going to win in 2010, but if we’re going to kick their collective rear, we need to do exactly the same: keep the message simple and appealing. And, I will submit, that message should be the moral equivalent of Bill Buckley’s famous mission statement: standing athwart history and yelling “stop!” Americans, instinctively, distrust big government and we’re getting more big government shoved down our throats than we could have ever imagined possible. So the message that Republican candidates should carry forth next year should not involve anything that those candidates plan to do for their constituents – we’ve been done enough and we’re damned sore – the message should be what they will not do. For example:
- We will not vote for anything that increases your debt or the debt of future generations one penny more.
- We will not agree to any unfunded mandates.
- We will not allow government to get in between anyone and their God, nor will be allow anyone’s worship of their God to endanger your liberty, safety and prosperity.
- We will not allow our troops to fight without the equipment they need.
- We will not dictate military strategy to military professionals – and if we can not give them the tools and troops they say they need to accomplish their assigned mission, we will not ask them to continue that mission.
- We will not interfere with a person’s right to lawfully bear arms.
- We will not negotiate with terrorists, states that support terrorists or states that engage in terrorism.
- We will not allow other nations to dictate our policies.
Simple. To the point. Let the Dems either disagree with these points, or – if they agree – show us how they have adhered to them. There is much more that can be added to the list, but that’s gotta be the message: STOP!
Print
Digg
StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
Facebook
Yahoo! Buzz
Twitter
Google Bookmarks
Google Buzz
LinkedIn
MSN Reporter
MySpace
Orkut
Ping.fm
Reddit
RSS
Slashdot
Technorati
Tumblr
Webnews.de
I 100% agree and plan on running my state campaign next year off of the very principles. A simple message is most often the most effective.
Good luck to you!
Veruckt read Mike Deaver’s book about Reagan and check out how they fashioned the President’s message. Simple, effective, no condescension. It works.
Stephanie, have you read Dinesh D’Souza’s 1997 bio on Reagan? Ok, I was more than a little late just reading it this past spring but I filched…uh, I mean borrowed it from my Dad’s bookshelf. How inspiring! I know that we won’t have another man like him but I’d settle for a runner up who can enunciate conservative principles. As you said, “simple, effective…”.
If you’re wondering I did return the book. I’ll have to check out Deaver’s book. Wonder if Dad has that one?
Well said. The ones that win stick to a solid message of three or four major concerns. That’s it. Trying to have a silver-bullet solution to every problem waters dilutes the effectiveness. Think John Kerry.
I know you may slam this, BUT I think that we distrust INEFFECTIVE government more than just simply big government. By definition I think the bigger the government then the more the bureaucracy and the more bureaucracy the more red tape to get things done and the more red tape the more it decreases it’s ability to serve the public. BUT, helping millions of people who don’t have health insurance would secure their support for the future. The real deal will be government offered health insurance, because it could effect all people regardless of socio-economic status. If it passes (whatever form) and can help (let’s just say) a million people, then it will be tough to win those swing votes over in 2010. If it languishes and creates massive frustration, then everyone will jump on the Republican bandwagon. It’s the only major ideal that Obama and the Democrats have stuck their necks out for.
George W Bush was effective because he stuck to his talking points no matter what. Barrack Obama did the same with the slogan of “change.” Reagan did the same thing. The real question is can you tap into what the voters REALLY care about?
I’m fully prepared to see this get a lot worse before it gets better. Conservatism, as we define it in the form of limited government, does not have a voice in our Republic anymore. As has been discussed, this is why Beck, Limbaugh, et. al. are the de facto voice of the Republican party. Or at least, have been identified as such because there is no Republican leadership. People might vote against Democrats out of a feeling of dissatisfaction, but there will be no real work accomplished unless people vote for Republicans. I wouldn’t rely on ObamaCare failing either; the timing is as such the true cost will be delayed for 2-4 years. There will be an initial improvement pushed by massive federal dollars and general euphoria.
As much as I agree with the message, the ‘’what we will not do approach is how conservatives are getting hammered right now. There is a powerful coalition of popular culture outlets broadcasting the Progressive message 24/7 virtually into our very brains. Americans have been officially programmed to reject this line of thought, two generations have been raised forehead-deep in the Progressive idea of Positive Rights. Look at BarryO’s response. I know people here dismiss him as a left-winger but the truth is that the idea that government run right, no matter how big, can get something done is the default American position. The Republican Party is full of people who believe this. The Democrats all believe it.
“Let the Dems either disagree with these points, or – if they agree – show us how they have adhered to them.” This will not work, the Dems are in the position of power with a media eager to support them. They have no need to address your points at all, they fully understand the best way to win a fight is not to engage in one but to simply set up their now all-too-familiar straw men as they slip away unscathed.
You need to express your thoughts in the positive, you have to engage. Maybe these come off as too cerebral, you know they could use work to be good sound bites but I think the better strategy is to adhere to the axiom, the best defense is a good offense.
“I will cut the role of the federal government in American lives.”
“Our inalienable rights will be protected, including the right to own a gun.”
“Civilian authority over the military is a cornerstone of our Republic but we will respect the authority of our commanders on the battlefield.”
“We will protect American autonomy.”
“We will provide for social safety for all, through proven free market methods and managed locally instead of federal dictum.”
Stuff like that.
The Republican victory in 1994 wouldn’t have happened without Newt Gingrich. He’s the one who energized the party, took control of it and led the way with the Contract With America.
Thus far, we have no Newt Gingrich for 2010. No one seems to be willing to step up to the plate at the moment, and those who have tried in the recent past (like Sarah Palin or Joe Wilson) are immediately slapped down by the Deomcrats and the media.
It looks to me like the Republicans will pick up some seats, but nowhere near the number they picked up in ’94. I hope I’m wrong, though.
I nominate Thaddeus McCotter … or Andrew Breitbart. Them boys as Teflon as Ronald Reagan.
Both excellent choices, Eric. Unfortunately, Breitbart isn’t a Washington insider, and McCotter isn’t on most people’s radar at the moment.
I keep expecting Mitt Romney to step forward and take up the mantle, but he’s currently MIA, far as I can tell.
I’m researching for my next piece of work which will be for Reagan and as such am reading a lot of his old speeches for inspriation. I came across this line from his 1964 speech that reallly is every argument and disagreement the left and right have boiled down into a short paragraph:
“This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.”
That sort of straight simplicity is what made him great. Now we call that being a “cowboy” and insist our leaders be more “pragmatic” ie, take weeks and dozens of advisers to make simple decisions.
Veruckt, thank you for quoting my very favorite Reagan line. That line absolutely gives me chills!
Three things:
1. Good luck, Veruckt!
2. I agree with most of what is written here, but I’m convinced there is a greater problem that hangs over this that simply cannot be overcome; there are not, nor will there ever be, enough good, smart, unselfish, patriotic people willing and able to hold office in the Federal Congress to ever fix this mess. The past two election cycles were ridiculously liberal, a rebuke of Bush’s wars and the economy. Will the penduluum swing in 2010? Yes. More conservatives will be elected. But we’ll still have a Congress of mostly brain-dead zombies who wouldn’t know the 10th Amendment if it bit them in the *ss. We cannot expect the pigs to clean their own trough. It hasn’t happened in 200+ years, and it won’t happen in 2010. Are there some good apples in the basket? Sure. Will there be a few more in 2010? Sure. But neither party ever gets enough talented statesmen or women to do any high quality legislation. The Dems have complete control now but they still don’t have any talent. Look who the Republicans ran for President last year?! There simply are not that many talented people in either party to have any expectation of the Federal government being run effectively or efficiently.
The only real solution I see is for “we the people” and “we the states” and “we the counties” and “we the cities” to take back what is rightfully ours. Local, local, local. It is how the system was designed and it’s the only way the system can truly be effective. Do I care if the city of San Francisco wants to ban smoking, including on golf courses? No. It’s their city, they pay the taxes to run and manage it they can do what they want. But I guarantee that when I play golf in Threedonia I’m going to light up a stogie. The second hand smoke doesn’t reach all the way to Nancy Pelosi’s mansion.
Here’s the real issue kids: the Federal government is a mess because years of over-reach and judicial activism have resulted in a Congress assuming jurisdiction over subjects and geographic boundaries it has no real jurisdiction over. Stop analyzing polling data, and census data, and statements by pundits in hopes that the Great Pumpkin will come along and deliver a Conservative Congress in 2010 or ’12. Even if it happens it will mostly be made up of whores beholden to special interests. It is the nature of the beast. Focus on your state and local legislators. Make your Governor promise that he or she will not enforce Federal laws that violate the 9th and 10th Amendments. Rich is absolutely right that “stop” is the message, but we’ve got to get the stop sign in the right hands.
Here’s another analogy;
You will a 100 acre ranch to your 10 children. Each child has 10 acres. You were a good rancher and kept control of your ranch’s borders and your neighbors knew it. After your death some of your neighbors decide to test your children and they start moving their fences onto your former property. A foot here, a foot there… You’re watching this from the grave… Would you hope that your neighbors suddenly get religion and voluntarily give your children what is rightfully theirs, or would you hope your children grow a pair, defend what is theirs and shove some fence posts up some neighbors’ derrieres? It is folly to expect that we will ever have a Congress that does not try to over-reach. Maybe, every once in awhile the stars will align and it can happen, but it would be extremely rare, unlikely and short-lived. It is reasonable to expect State, county and municipal interests to stick up for their rights and fight for what is rightfully theirs. We need to fight, but we need to fight the right fight.
3. Barry O. is exactly right; the only thing that really gets folks riled up is inefficiency. I grew up in Chicago in an area with a lot of corrupt politicians. I also lived less than two miles from where Al Capone ran his empire (he was long gone by then) and there was still a fair amount of underworld stuff going on. My parents and grandparents lived through all that. Here’s what I learned from them; as long as there is a system, and it has rules, and everyone follows the rules most people don’t get too bent out of shape about what the system is. If you worked to deliver votes in my neighborhood for the Ward boss that Ward boss was given a certain amount of patronage jobs to hand out, and he handed them out to the guys who worked the hardest for the party. Corrupt? Yes, but it was a system and everyone could play. Work hard for your Ward boss or precinct captain and you got a job. A city job where you could sleep holding a shovel and collect a paycheck. But everyone made sure everything worked. The trash was picked up. The snow was shoveled. Kids didn’t get abducted. The system worked.
I was 16 years old, had just gotten my driver’s license and got stopped by a cop for running a stop sign. He had me get into the back of his squad car. Even at the age of 16 I instantly recognized what was going on. He gave me a short lecture and explained that I’d have to appear in court, take a day off work (it was Summer), my insurance would go up… I said, “Boy, I sure don’t want to miss work. Isn’t there some way I can pay the fine without appearing in court?” He kept lecturing, and within the lecture he mentioned “$20″ and “just leave it on the seat.” I pulled a double sawbuck out of my wallet, set it on the seat, I noticed his eyes in the rear-view mirror following my actions. He talked a little more, told me he’d let me off with just a warning and said I could leave. Now, for all a judge and jury knows I was a mixed up kid who misunderstood what he was saying and the $20 must have accidentally fallen out of my pocket while I was sitting there. Did I really hear him tell me to give him a $20? I never handed it to him. How could I be sure?
See. It was a system. The cop got a little extra income. His wife didn’t see it in his paycheck. I didn’t have to take time off of work and my insurance rates didn’t go up. Everyone was happy. Now, if I drove off and went to a newspaper, or he wrote me up for attempting to bribe an officer we’d have chaos. Nobody likes chaos.
The best governments/rulers are those who adhere to a simple, easily understandable system and govern all by that same system. When you have randomness and chaos, or, as Barry O. wrote, “ineffective leadership” then the system breaks down and people take up pitchforks.
The “STOP” message couldn’t be more clear. When the “mushy middle” begins to see larger chunks of their working life disappear into the ever gaping maw of the Internal Revenue Service, they won’t be so mushy, anymore. While I appreciate Skip’s suggestion for a more “cerebral” approach, those phrases still sounds like something any current politician would say. The “stop sign” is an icon that’s immediately recognizable; it’s not something dreamed up by a marketing team. Further, Newt’s “Contract With America” had eight points, just like trzupr’s (did I spell that right?). As a bonus, trzupr’s points are short and quick. Might be nice to add something about free speech, too.
And, Rufus, you’re absolutely right that we need to reform our local governments, too. That’s where the grassroots begin. Tell me, though, that you don’t smoke a “stogie”! Show some class; smoke a Double Robusto, or, something of that nature. Yeah, they’re expensive; but, hey, you’re Rufus. You can afford to buy that stuff. Besides, it will complete the look of your new outfit from Loudmouth Golf. Oops. I’m sorry. Did your wife just hear that