Five people in a kitchen — by guest blogger Danny Lemieux

Five People in a Kitchen

By Danny Lemieux

Part I: We need focus!

We were just five concerned Americans meeting in a middle class Chicagoland suburb on a cold spring day. Our point for this meeting was not to gripe. It was to see if we could identify constructive solutions to the Democrat Left’s hold on our nation and all that for which it stands . . . a hold that we are convinced will destroy us.

We addressed two big challenges: (1) how do we counter the very effective (thug, smear, demagogue…fill in the blank, here) tactics of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, a book conceived in the 20th Century’s fascist era, consecrated in the radical ‘70s, and aptly dedicated to “Lucifer” by its author one year before his death in 1972 (whereupon, we can only surmise that the author was promptly and personally thanked for his dedication). Among all other “how to” guides available to 20th Century fascists, this was the tome chosen as the working bible of the American radical Left.  As we’ve seen, it works.  And (2), given its effectiveness, how do we prepare ourselves for the next election?

Why the next election? Because, quite frankly, given the Alinsky-driven fraud, manipulation, fear tactics, illegal funding and demagoguery evident in the last election, we five agreed that this next election may well be our last truly free election for a very, very long time. Moreover, the next time around, ACORN will enjoy a multi-billion dollar war chest, expropriated from me, thee and other productive taxpayers by the parasitic classes in our society. The opposition will also enjoy the full force of government power to leak dirt, real or imagined, disclose divorce files and other legal documents, and intimidate and harass the opposition. Despite the title of Alinsky’s book, there really are no rules, only tactics and objectives. Think of the persons that trashed pregnant teen Bristol Palin; torched Sarah Palin’s church with kids inside; wished failed kidneys upon Rush Limbaugh; slashed campaign bus tires in Milwaukee; did opposition research on a citizen-plumber; or unsealed the Court-sealed divorce papers of Obama’s Senate opponent, Jack Ryan. Something truly wicked this way comes.

As I noted, we were only five – three men and two women: two business consultants, one nurse, a graphics designer and a furniture maker – a perfect number for intense, serious discussion. For my fellow Bookworm groupies, our dear Deana was there. If labels are necessary, I’d characterize my illustrious guests as libertarian and conservative…Tea Party types. Some of us, in our younger days, had been Liberal and Democrat before we finally grew up…including (mea culpa!) me, moi and myself. My hope is that this was only one of millions of such meetings that have been and will take place all around our country leading up to 2010.

The first step we took was to define the problem…to frame the issues.

We took stock of our situation. We all agreed that America is an exceptional country that has been a terrific force for good to its own citizens and round the world. We all agreed that this era is ending and we really don’t like this. But for now, we still aren’t quite sure how to resist and reverse the surging tide. Our collective forecast was grim: we agreed that our country is likely to go bankrupt the way of Argentina or stagnate the way of Japan. We agreed that we are likely to soon find ourselves in a war . . . a major war. Why? Because as people who study the lessons of history, we are doomed to watch others repeat them and that one very salient lesson of history is that weakness invites attack. It’s the way of the world . . . the real world, not the abstract perceptions of American Liberal middle-and-upper- class utopia. There’s already blood in the water.

Then we defined the objectives.

We have a little less than 18 months to prepare for the next election.

Gauging from the last election, we probably don’t need to change that many minds. Obama’s margin of victory was about 10 million votes out of 69 million cast in his name. If we exclude those that voted Democrat because they were mad at GW or scared witless about the economy’s meltdown (let no crisis go to waste!), then we probably only need to sway about two-to-three million extra votes in key strategic areas. Although the Democrat Left has been very clever to schedule their massive tax and spend programs so that most of the pain will not be felt until after the 2010 elections, I doubt that they will be successful. As usual, they bank on a static world whereas everything is very much in flux. The pain is coming much faster than anticipated. Markets are forward looking and will react accordingly to the oncoming tsunami of debt and taxation. Our nation’s credit rating is already in question. Jobs will continue to be lost and (big) international mistakes will continue to be made. So, I think that we can safely expect disgruntlement to be at minimum at a low boil by 2010.

Plus, consider market segmentation.

We (all of us) only have limited resources to expend, so we need to expend them efficiently. We could go after the broad segment of the population that voted for Obama, or we could focus on the most likely converts. Let’s consider who voted for Obama:

In one group we have the true believers – the hard core leftists, the, MSNBC and Huffington Post crowd. They wallow in an alternate universe of bile, violence, hatred and perceptions and values that can never be reconciled with objective reality. They are, at their core, utopians who rage against the failings of a reality-based universe when in reality they rage against themselves and the unrequited wounds of troubled upbringings. As per the parable of the sower, this is rocky soil that can bear no fruit.

The second group is the group that simply fell in love with Obama, our Rorschach President. They love his voice, they love his demeanor and they love his looks and they hear only what they wanted to hear as they project their wants and needs upon him. This, folks, is Oprah-world. It’s a waste of time. These are the frivolous people whose waters will never run deep. These are the people that take their cues from daytime TV, Letterman, Olbermann and SNL and company. Don’t get me wrong, IQ has nothing to do with this: I know quite a few otherwise intelligent people that fall into this category, the MSM “intellectual” class being a case in point. We can’t waste our time and effort on these people…these are dead leaves blowing endless circles in the winds of hype.

The third group is the only one that matters.

These are the core value Democrats, the Reagan Democrats, the traditional value, blue-dog Democrats. They may have fundamental disagreements with Republicans (or what they think Republicans represent), the demonized “Christian Right” (oooo…let’s all look under our beds now!) and what they perceive us to be as “conservatives”, but their own values are, at heart, basically conservative. Most in this group are middle working class. Some are plumbers, others truckers (if I have learned anything from talk radio, it is that some of our most perceptive political thinkers are truckers). Many are black and Hispanic. Most work hard, enjoy normal family activities, worry about their kids and frankly don’t think too hard about politics until they have to. In sum, most lead healthy, balanced lives defined by by solid work ethics and values. They are fundamentally decent people. These, my friends, are America’s Hobbits…what one wizard referred to as an incredible repository of strength…once they are engaged. These are voters, under the constant onslaught of the MSM, who have not had the time or opportunity to hear or understand different points of view. These tend to be deeply patriotic Americans who have ample reason to distrust State power and have ample reason to be concerned about the future. They will awaken, of that I am sure.

This is our target market. And, remember…we only need to sway two or three million of them to share our perspectives on the world. We can do this.

Coming soon — How do we effectively change minds?

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Gringo

    The point that there is a target audience of on-the-fence folk ( call them what you will) is well taken. Those who are Kool-Aid drinkers already will not be easily changed: the only reason to engage in argument with the Kool-Aiders is to provide evidence for the fence sitters to make a decision.

    This also means that arguments need to be made in a civil manner. But they need to be made. Silence will not convince anyone.

    Your remark about the “demonized Christian right” reminded me of our friend Ozzie, who has not recently graced these pages. Somewhere along the line I decided that I feared the bible-thumpers much less than the politically correct. Criteria: who would leave me in peace more? Church people knock on my door, politely leaving when I inform them I am not interested, without informing me I am going to hell etc. I got along quite well with my Fundamentalist Christian grandmother, even with a fundamental disagreement we had about religion. Disagree with the politically correct, and there is a good possibility that the “racist…bigoted…troglodyte…” charge comes out.

  • Charles Martel

    Very nice set-up, Danny. I am looking forward to the continuation of this piece.

    I agree with you and Gringo that the people you’ve identified as the “third group” of decent, basically conservative people are the ones we’ll need to persuade.

    Part of that persuasion will be documenting the contempt in which the left holds large groups of people–Christians, housewives, straights, laborers. When Perez Hilton assaults a young woman for giving an answer he doesn’t like, and the rest of the left gleefully piles on, don’t think that people out there aren’t taking notice.

    By 2010 we need a place where people can go to look at recorded, documented, authenticated examples of the venomous–and rapacious–nature of the left. Maybe we should call it “From Their Own Mouths.” It could be a virally publicized alternative medium that dares to report what the Whore Media refuse to.

  • Danny Lemieux

    I appreciate your sentiments about “Christians”, Gringo. I used to be in a rather contentious position with Christians, especially the Campus Crusade for Christ. Fundamentally, (pun intended), I was a seeker. I challenged them with questions and they were always civil in their responses. When I ran out of answers, I became a committed Christian, although hardly a fundamentalist. That being said, I always liked being around Christians and always found them to be very respectful and “good” people to be around. Truthfully, I wanted to be more like them and less like the secular, materialistic Left. That’s why I find the vicious antipathy of the Left to Christians so insightful. What is it about religious Christians and Jews against which the Left truly rages….?

  • Danny Lemieux

    Sorry…that should have been…when I ran out of “questions”.

  • Charles Martel

    I think most leftists rage against Christians because they want no restrictions on their sexual appetites.

    I have never run into a hard leftist who does not believe that he (or she) has an unlimited right to as many orgasms with as many people as he (or she) chooses. The climax is, literally, the highlight of their existence, and any attempt to temper or sublimate it—even in the name of a greater good—is rejected out of hand.

    That’s why abortion and sodomy are held as higher goods among them—the former because it totally removes sex from any obligation to reproduce (and any responsibility for those unfortunate end results of intercourse) and the latter because it turns sex into a totally recreational, human rather than nature-directed, undertaking.

    Now they can agree in substance, if not in form, with love your neighbor and being kind and cahritable. But as soon as you discuss any ethic that involves their genitals, they’re on you like a tick.

  • Pingback: Manna from Heaven: Do You Need a Plumber? « Plumber Phoenix()

  • Ymarsakar

    I’m not uncomfortable around Christians. For one thing, I’m armed. If not with a weapon, then certainly with more knowledge than most of the sum total knowledge of any crowd I would be in.

    This gives you a sense of security, wholly independent of other people’s intentions or natures. In the good old days a stranger was to be suspected and then exiled or executed for violating your little village’s security. Why? Cause you can’t know what the stranger’s motivations are, where he comes from, or whether he will obey the same societal norms as you obey. This uncertainty creates fear and a sense of insecurity, and that, ladies and gentleman, creates hate, mobs, and lynch squads.

    But I’m not afraid a stranger will not obey my societal standards of law and order. If necessary I can drop those societal standards as fast, if not faster, than any out of control maniac. And certainly I will not be restricted by Leftist notions of “due process”.

    Most of the muddy middle, however, are not armed. Whether in arms or with a spine or with knowledge or with training. They feel uncertain. They doubt. They don’t want anyone interfering with their lives, so as a preemptive strike on the “enemy”, they get the government to raze the enemy villages for them.

    That’s human nature for ya.

  • Deana

    Danny –

    Bravo!! What a great piece! I loved it. And I can’t wait to read your next segment!

    I still feel very much like I felt on the day I attended the meeting at your house. However, I have started to believe that “events on the ground” are going to work in our favor. That does not mean that we can sit back and do nothing, hoping that everyone will see the light. (Which is why it is important to learn how to effectively change people’s minds!)

    There is just no way with all that Obama and Congress have done that people won’t start to notice and be somewhat more open to a conservative alternative.