Running from pillar to post
Bookworm on Sep 18 2009 at 4:50 pm | Filed under: Open Threads
Apologies for the prolonged blog silence today, but I’ve been running from pillar to post since 7 a.m. Of course, when the pillar is a new, well-paying work assignment, and one of the posts is lunch with both Thomas Lifson, of American Thinker, and Robin of Berkeley, you really can’t complain too much. It is enormously refreshing to sit down in the same physical space as like minded people.
Thomas, Robin and I shared our mutual concern that Obama is, to say the least, a problematic president. The real problem, though, is coming up with constructive steps we, as conservatives, can take regarding Obama and the Democratic administration. It’s fun to whine and moan about the total mental breakdown emanating from the Left and about Obama’s unusual psychology (really fun, ’cause there’s lots of material), but that doesn’t do anything to protect us from long-term damage or to lay the foundation for a series of recoveries in 2010 and 2012 (the next elections). What’s your take on what we can do to keep America viable over the next 3.5 years?
Related posts:
Email This Post To A Friend
6 Responses to “Running from pillar to post”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
For starters…
1)When blogging/writing/talking about politics & political philosophy, try to have a marketing orientation. The main purpose of political dialogue is to *persuade*. There’s entirely too much stuff which may be good for reinforcing those who already share an opinion, but is totally useless or counterproductive in reaching those at the margin who may be candidates for opinion change.
2)Contribute to good candidates…be selective. I for one am very disinclied to make any more contributions to the Republican Party in general, or its various campaign funds, based in part on the absolutely abysmal quality of the direct mail I get from these organizations. I prefer to contribute directly to candidates who seem smart and have some chance of winning.
1. Don’t talk about big principles or try to be an intellectual about what we want. What we want is freedom and freedom almost always appeals to a person’s self-interest. We need to keep the messages short, sweet, and to the point: Do you work hard? Do you want to keep more of what you earn? Don’t you hate it when other people try to run your life down to the last detail? Do you want your children to have a good life too? Americans love freedom, but sometimes what that really means gets lost in the noise, and all the noise means people can’t just think. So ask the right questions of people.
2. What we need is not a Congress that will do the right thing. We desperately need a Congress that will repeal all the wrong things that have been done over the last 20 or 30 years, from McCain-Feingold to low-flow toilets and telling us what kind of lightbulbs we can use to (a dream is a wish your heart makes) getting rid of half the corpulent corrupt bureaucracies in Washington. We need a Repeal Congress.
3. David is right: don’t give money to the party; give money to candidates. When you send a candidate money, send him a letter to, stating what you want him to do, how you want him to act in Congress. Will he see it? Maybe not, but you never know. Enough good ideas may eventually get through, and if you’re giving to good people, they may already have the same ideas on their own.
Wow, lunch with Thomas and Robin. I don’t think I would remember what I ate.
I suppose the results of your discussion will appear in a future AT article. But the question of what we do to correct the damage that the accellerating Liberal train is doing to our country and culture is what keeps us all up at night.
Funding selective candidates instead of the general organizations which should have put the breaks on that train long ago is one place to start. But I’m sure most of us have already written to Mr. Steele and the Republican Committees of the various institutions.
And voicing comments on the latest trashing of a sacred ideal, organization, or ally here, or at the AT, or to the editor of a local paper is OK.
But we’re just preaching to the choir.
As internet managers state, we need content. We need information that will get the attention of people who do not read the AT, or the Watchers Council, etc.
The two kids who video taped the various ACORN offices have done more than anyone to get people’s attention. Now a number of state legislatures are trying to ban ACORN from operating in their states.
I have always thought that an enterprising journalism student could make a name for himself by exposing the Byzantine political operations here in southern NJ. Housing contractors, government contracts, suppression of some news stories and trumpeting of others. It would be a Pulitzer feast.
The same can be done on the National stage with the Libs. Create a team of investigative reporters with cameras and mikes and infiltrate the various liberal organizations. I am sure there is still a lot of “low hanging fruit” out there which could be plucked and exposed for the rot it is within six months. But there also should be longer term investigations, timed for the 2010 and 2012 elections. And the potential candidates.
There should be enough young conservative reporters, and retired investigators, to create a very interesting operation.
Just a thought.
Al
1) Use Alinsky tactics to expose the Democrat Left for what it is. The recent ACORN exposes were not only perfect street theater but exposed ACORN and its supporters for what they were. The two twenty-somethings that exposed ACORN probably destroyed its ability to affect next year’s election…that’s huge!
2) Engage all Democrat/Lefties that we know. My experience is that they are not deep thinkers and haven’t thought through the contradictions of their positions.
Pick a topic that is emotionally important to them and ask questions (the Socratic Dialogue) and layer on questions to expose their contradictions. They probably won’t agree with you now but will think about it later.
3) Always be pleasant and smile…never surrender our own fundamental humanity and respect for others. Listen to gentlemen-optimists like Hugh Hewitt and Michael Medved instead of crank rabble-rousers like Michael Savage.
One huge problem we have is that there are still tens of millions of people who get their news from the old media…especially true, of course, of those over 55 or so.
Those who are younger may not watch TV news programs or read newspapers, but they are still heavily influenced by the old media via the entertainment programs, which often carry an explicity political message and, even when they don’t, often carry a cultural/philosophical message which has political implications.
>>…especially true, of course, of those over 55 or so>>
Maybe. But if you have seen photos of the 9/12 gathering, check out hair color…_lots_ of gray in that crowd. And they _certainly_ didn’t get their info from the MSM, I think you’d agree.
In fact, I think that of the conservatively minded blogs I frequent, a fairly high percentage of those participating are over 55. Check out this blog…I think at least 50% of the regular commenters are in that category. It’s a bit tough to get a show of hands – but if we could, you’d see _my_ hand high in the air!
PS: Book…this is becoming one of my pet peeves…shouldn’t it be “_good_”-paying? an adjective modifying a gerundive? I know it could be an adverb modifying a verb, but I really think paying is a gerundive in this sense, not a verb. It’s been a long time since I took grammar, but I’ve heard this same thing on a TV ad, and it just grates on me…I really think it’s incorrect.
(See, David…that qualifies me as over 55 right there!)