This video doesn’t resonate with me too much. It’s a little too conclusory in each of its assertions for my tastes, although I agree with the overall premise. I think I also disagree with his use of “liberal” to describe the Left, which is startlingly illiberal. What do you think?
It has everything: the response to Leftists’ adoration for affirmative action, the insidious control pop culture has on us, and the way to challenge pop culture.
I spend ridiculous amounts of my time trying to convince my children that, while “Give me that!” and “May I have that, please”, mean the same thing, their chances of success are much greater with the second phrase. I repeat ad nauseum that it’s not what you say, it’s how you say it. People respond not only to a statement’s core message, but to the packaging around that message.
Advertisers have always understand that packaging is as important as, if not more important than, the underlying message. Will a specific car, beer, or aftershave really turn an insecure, badly dressed young man into a sex God? Of course not. But if you’re a car manufacturer, and you have the choice of buying advertising hours that say to the young man “This car drives well” or spending those same dollars to say “You will be a suave chick magnet if you drive this car,” which ad would you choose? Advertisers know that sex sells. Or if sex is usable, “sell the sizzle, not the steak.”
Politics is also a two-tiered structure. There’s the product, or ideology, and there’s the sales pitch to sell that ideology to the greatest number of people in hopes of garnering their votes. Democrats have fully mastered the sales pitch. Republicans haven’t. Democrats say “Look at this picture of dead children or pathetic (and perhaps dead too) minorities.” Republicans say “Look! We have a chart.” Honestly! The last time charts made a difference was in the 1992 election, when Ross Perot whipped out his little pieces of cardboard — and back then, all those charts did was to tip the election in a Democrat’s favor.
There’s certainly a lot of data to drive Republican charts. Indeed, back in 2011, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC), put together a clever little video comparing Perot’s federal debt and spending charts to the numbers Perot would use if he were making the same pitch today:
I liked the video. You probably did too. The problem, though, is that you and I are high information voters who respond to facts and analysis. Though it pains me to say this, we are not the norm. The vast majority of people are probably never going to be high information voters in any society, but there’s also no doubt that a Leftist-controlled education system has rendered Americans almost incapable of either appreciating or understanding hard data.
As the 2012 election proved, facts on the ground (joblessness, flabby economy, disastrous foreign policies) are just too deep for most voters. Properly manipulated, they find it more emotionally satisfying to stick it to a mean rich man who puts dogs on car roofs and wants all women to carry their rapist’s fetus.
In this non-intellectual universe, it’s almost irrelevant what a political party’s message is. What matters is whether the party can position itself as the good guy party, regardless of its ideology, while simultaneously positioning the opposing party as the bad guy party. The Democrats do this masterfully.
As an example, think about the administration’s recent decision to put women on the front lines: Conservatives responded to this announcement with talk of military missions, battle readiness, logistical problems, changing standards, etc. — all of which are sensible and appropriate responses to an administrative fiat that will, more probably than not, have a negative effect upon military missions, battle readiness, logistics, and standards.
Democrats bypassed all that “tech talk” and, instead, went in for the kill: Republicans hate women. Never mind the unspoken part of that sentence, which is that “Republicans hate women, because they won’t allow women to go into situations where they are extremely likely to be killed and raped.” If you speak the unspoken, you get a very clear idea of Cloud Cuckoo Land that Leftist’s inhabit. But never mind about the reality behind the ideology — the Left sells sex and sizzle.
No doubt because I am the quintessential word person (although I have no knack for clever quips and pitches), I’ve been harping on this issue for years. When it comes to the Democrats and Progressives, there’s a message to their madness: We, the Democrats/Progressives are good; they, the Republicans/conservatives, are bad. Everything flows from that.
Fortunately, given that my voice has no resonance in world outside of my blog, better thinkers than I am are making the same point. David Horowitz, who understands Leftist thinking from the inside out, urges Republicans to stop the anguished, self-involved, navel gazing and to begin the hard work of communicating to voters in language they understand. He argues, correctly, that the Left is fighting an epic battle, complete with villains and heroes, and we’re still whipping out our gosh-darned charts.
Horowitz’s article, though long, is worth reading in its entirety. I’ll just leave you with a few of his conclusions:
A Winning Strategy for Republicans
1. Put the aggressors on the defensive.
2. Put their victims — women, minorities, the poor and working Americans -- in front of every argument and every policy in the same way they do.
3. Start the campaign now (because the Democrats already have).
The Weapons of Politics Are Hope and Fear
The weapons of political campaigns are images and sound bites designed to inspire the emotions of fear and hope. Obama won the presidency in 2008 on a campaign of hope; he won re-election in 2012 on a campaign of fear.
Hope works, but fear is a much stronger and more compelling emotion. In a political campaign, it is directed at one’s political opponent. Democrats exploit this emotion to the hilt; Republicans often seem too polite to even use it.
Please read the rest here.
Lee Habeeb and Mike Leven are also engaged in the work of using a prominent forum (National Review Online) to publish a series of articles aimed at shaping a coherent, and salable, political narrative for conservatives. This week’s installment is “The Moral Case for Conservativism.”
As with Horowitz, Habeeb and Leven urge a level of public discourse that avoids charts and data, and that frames an epic battle in the same way that Progressives claim politics as an epic battle — except that, in this version, we’re the good guys:
If there is a single reason why conservatives continue to lose the battle of ideas, it’s because we don’t make the moral case for freedom and free markets. Our political class instead makes the economic case for our philosophy. Our smart guys are so impressed with their own intelligence, they think we can win the debate using numbers and data, charts and graphs, and political tactics and strategy.
It’s the Left’s secret advantage. They create the feeling that they care more about the average American because they make the moral case for their philosophy.
One of the advantages this confers on the Left is this: They get to play large ball, while we play a dour brand of small ball.
As with Horowitz’s article, I urge you to read the whole thing.
Those of us who spend our time following politics understand that we are engaged in a battle for America’s heart and soul. On one side is an ideology that dreams of subordinating the individual to an all-powerful state. History proves that this has never turned out well. On the other side is an ideology that dreams of allowing each individual maximum freedom in a state that exerts minimum coercion but that, instead, provides a stable infrastructure and a level playing field. Our own history demonstrates how successful this approach is.
Put another way, life is imitating Star Wars, with an epic battle taking place over America’s future. We’d better call our agents and make sure that they let the audience know that we’re the rebels, not the Empire. Once we’ve established that we’re the good guys, we — the ordinary people who aren’t paid political operatives — need to put on our thinking caps and figure out how we can contribute to winning this battle.
I’ve been having a very interesting email exchange with FP, a friend who sent me the Peter Schiff video that’s now making the rounds:
As you can see, Schiff makes logical points grounded in reality, and the protesters come back with mere protest tactics, rather than making any attempt whatsoever at argument. Strangely enough, despite the dreariness of watching idiocy in action, both FP and I found cause for cheer in the video.
My optimistic take is twofold. First, I have to believe that people like Schiff, and and like FP, and like those of us at the Bookworm Room, people who have knowledge, analytical abilities, and intelligence, will be the ones who eventually make intellectual contact with those who are not using tactics, but who are actually struggling to understand real issues. Everything we write, and read, and think is another arrow in our quiver. We are educating ourselves for real arguments, with people who actually want to listen.
Second, I’m optimistic about the fact that so much of this manifest idiocy emanates from those who have paid the most for their so-called educations. (Here’s a great photoshop summing up that particular type of insanity.) Perhaps these protests, which highlight higher education’s absurd costs and manifest failures, will break the stranglehold that the PC education establishment has over Americans. Parents of teens and tweens may figure out that they are not getting their money’s worth when they ship their children off to pricey schools. I think about this a lot, as Mr. Bookworm is invested in the Ivy Leagues, and thinks they’re worth $200,000. My son, bless his heart, promises me that he’s going to Annapolis!
FP is also optimistic, and I’ll quote him directly, ’cause I think he’s right:
I’m going to sound a bit Hegelian here (not in the dialectical sense…for once…more in the ‘catapulted through history evolutionary’ sense) but I’m coming, more and more, to see the conservative worldview as the inevitable end to liberal ideology — once the individual has had some sort of practical interaction with the world and/or really stretches the liberal ideology to it’s inevitable conclusion. You and I (and my wife and mother) and most of the best, most vocal proponents of modern conservative thought (Mike Adams, Thomas Sowell, and even Andrew Klavan and yes, in my opinion, the very articulate and clever Sunny Berman) are all ‘converts’ to the church of conservatism. We’ve all been exposed to liberal ideology from a very early age but heard the voice on the road to Damascus and decided to stop kicking against the pricks. There are two paths that I’ve seen that lead to the road:
1. Pragmatic need — i.e: having to pay bills, working hard, and realizing that others are not but want to take what you have. This is an incredibly effective catalyst but more difficult to explain in the purely metaphysical realm of college coffee shops and poetry slams (and the like). A lot of my hardworking blue collar friends have reached conservatism through this path (I can’t help but believe that most of the blue collar union workers that voted Reagan into office the first time came to their political beliefs, at least during that election, through this path).
2. The ‘intellectual’ path — following liberal ideas to their natural conclusions
As I examine some of the basic tenets of liberalism — at least those things that the more effective sophists blather on and on about in the local coffee shops — I keep seeing places where the ideology collapses in on itself. It either leads to Marxism (which history has shown — again and again and again — does not work. Anyone with more than the most glancing view of history accepts this as axiomatic truth. The argument FOR Marxism — which usually whines that we just haven’t done it RIGHT yet — reminds me of Paul Krugman’s ‘Keynsianism-works-we-just-haven’t-put-enough-money-into-it’ b.s. It’s ridiculous. No one’s done it right because THERE’S NO WAY TO DO IT RIGHT) or folds in on itself (like a black hole). Here’s what I mean by that:
The liberal meme that calls for people to ‘coexist’ is silly — people already coexist. If they didn’t then you wouldn’t have anything to put on a bumper sticker because no one exists. The liberal meme that calls for us to ‘tolerate’ sounds great — but then you have to ‘tolerate’ the rich as well because, well, we wouldn’t want to JUDGE, now would we?The liberal meme that calls for ‘peace’ sounds great — until you experience 9/11 and realize that ‘peace’ would mean accepting that sort of treatment from those who disagree with you. The liberal meme that calls for a utopian ‘one world’ sounds great — until you realize how the rest of the world lives and what that would mean for us — the top 1% OF THE WORLD (imagine the rest of the world decided to ‘occupy America’ to go after us — after all — we ARE the 1% as far as quality of life!)
In other words, right about now, a whole lot of liberals are getting mugged by reality.
It’s in this same vein that the flyer I published in the previous post is relevant. Zombie told me that it’s been floating around in the internet since April 2010, but that fact is that it has real resonance now. In America, the difference between “us” and “them” isn’t inherited wealth or a class system, it’s that some work and some don’t. Now that the fat of the land has vanished, it’s ants versus grasshoppers, or little red hens versus lazy animals. In this world, with ants and hens on the one side and grasshoppers and slugs on the other side, the ants and hens, merely by virtue of energy and initiative, will prevail.
As is appropriate after a disastrous election, there is a lot of soul searching going on on the conservative side, trying to figure out what went wrong so that we can do it right the next time. I see this in phone calls from relatives, lunches with friends, gatherings with Marin’s cryptoconservatives, and the hundreds of pages of articles and blog posts from conservatives: how can we fix this?
It seems appropriate, therefore, to remind you of Ronald Reagan’s words, spoken before Carter got elected and before four years of Carter-nomics, but still spoken at a time of comprehensive conservative defeats. I know some are arguing that it’s time to bury Reagan once and for all and let him rest in peace, but there is no doubt but that the principles he enunciates about the role of government in American life are as vital now as they were back in 1975, when he first spoke them. I’ve therefore reprinted his speech, below, with my comments.
Since our last meeting we have been through a disastrous election. [We know the feeling.] It is easy for us to be discouraged, as pundits hail that election as a repudiation of our philosophy and even as a mandate of some kind or other. [Pundits haven’t changed.] But the significance of the election was not registered by those who voted, but by those who stayed home. If there was anything like a mandate it will be found among almost two-thirds of the citizens who refused to participate.
Bitter as it is to accept the results of the November election, we should have reason for some optimism. For many years now we have preached “the gospel,” in opposition to the philosophy of so-called liberalism which was, in truth, a call to collectivism. [Interestingly, Obama won by pretending moderate liberalism and then instantly practicing a radical socialist agenda.]
Now, it is possible we have been persuasive to a greater degree than we had ever realized. Few, if any, Democratic party candidates in the last election ran as liberals. Listening to them I had the eerie feeling we were hearing reruns of Goldwater speeches. I even thought I heard a few of my own. [My liberal husband assured me that Obama was running to the middle.]
Bureaucracy was assailed and fiscal responsibility hailed. [Obama promised to get government spending under control.] Even George McGovern donned sackcloth and ashes and did penance for the good people of South Dakota.
But let’s not be so naive as to think we are witnessing a mass conversion to the principles of conservatism. Once sworn into office, the victors reverted to type. In their view, apparently, the ends justified the means. [Could Reagan call it or what?]
The “Young Turks” had campaigned against “evil politicians.” They turned against committee chairmen of their own party, displaying a taste and talent as cutthroat power politicians quite in contrast to their campaign rhetoric and idealism. Still, we must not forget that they molded their campaigning to fit what even they recognized was the mood of the majority. [And this is absolutely true. As much as anything else, Obama won because, after 8 years of relentless demonization, the majority of Americans truly were willing to settle for nothing more than “change” no matter how meaningless or even dangerous.]
And we must see to it that the people are reminded of this as they now pursue their ideological goals—and pursue them they will.
I know you are aware of the national polls which show that a greater (and increasing) number of Americans—Republicans, Democrats and independents—classify themselves as “conservatives” than ever before. [We wish. Although it’s hard to tell because, on the issues, people are conservative, but the demonization of Republicans has resulted in their proclaiming themselves to be liberals or Democrats.] And a poll of rank-and-file union members reveals dissatisfaction with the amount of power their own leaders have assumed, and a resentment of their use of that power for partisan politics. Would it shock you to know that in that poll 68 percent of rank-and-file union members of this country came out endorsing right-to-work legislation? [Does anyone know what the results would be now?]
These polls give cause for some optimism, but at the same time reveal a confusion that exists and the need for a continued effort to “spread the word.”
In another recent survey, of 35,000 college and university students polled, three-fourths blame American business and industry for all of our economic and social ills. The same three-fourths think the answer is more (and virtually complete) regimentation and government control of all phases of business—including the imposition of wage and price controls. Yet, 80 percent in the same poll want less government interference in their own lives! [These words could have been spoken yesterday morning and been just as accurate.]
In 1972 the people of this country had a clear-cut choice, based on the issues—to a greater extent than any election in half a century. In overwhelming numbers they ignored party labels, not so much to vote for a man or even a policy as to repudiate a philosophy. In doing so they repudiated that final step into the welfare state—that call for the confiscation and redistribution of their earnings on a scale far greater than what we now have. They repudiated the abandonment of national honor and a weakening of this nation’s ability to protect itself. [This time, befuddled, bedazzled, ignorant and lied to, the people did not make that same choice.]
A study has been made that is so revealing that I’m not surprised it has been ignored by a certain number of political commentators and columnists. The political science department of Georgetown University researched the mandate of the 1972 election and recently presented its findings at a seminar.
Taking several major issues which, incidentally, are still the issues of the day, they polled rank-and-file members of the Democratic party on their approach to these problems. Then they polled the delegates to the two major national conventions—the leaders of the parties.
They found the delegates to the Republican convention almost identical in their responses to those of the rank-and-file Republicans. Yet, the delegates to the Democratic convention were miles apart from the thinking of their own party members. [Again, once one crosses out the true believers — the nutroots — I suspect this would still be true. Contrary to their party leaders, blacks and hispanics do not support abortion or gay marriage. Contrary to their party leaders, American Jews, no matter how naive or stupid, actually do support Israel. They have a blind allegiance to the Democratic party, even as they do not support many of its key policies or ideological directions.]
The mandate of 1972 still exists. The people of America have been confused and disturbed by events since that election, but they hold an unchanged philosophy.
Our task is to make them see that what we represent is identical to their own hopes and dreams of what America can and should be. If there are questions as to whether the principles of conservatism hold up in practice, we have the answers to them. Where conservative principles have been tried, they have worked. Gov. Meldrim Thomson is making them work in New Hampshire; so is Arch Moore in West Virginia and Mills Godwin in Virginia. Jack Williams made them work in Arizona and I’m sure Jim Edwards will in South Carolina. [And again, this is still true. The disaster zones in American are the places in which Democratic policies have held unending sway, and this is true whether you’re looking at D.C., Chicago, L.A., New Orleans, or any other historically Democratic political zone.]
If you will permit me, I can recount my own experience in California.
When I went to Sacramento eight years ago, I had the belief that government was no deep, dark mystery, that it could be operated efficiently by using the same common sense practiced in our everyday life, in our homes, in business and private affairs.
The “lab test” of my theory – California—was pretty messed up after eight years of a road show version of the Great Society. [As a victim of California public education, I can agree with him completely about what he found when he became governor.] Our first and only briefing came from the outgoing director of finance, who said: “We’re spending $1 million more a day than we’re taking in. I have a golf date. Good luck!” That was the most cheerful news we were to hear for quite some time.
California state government was increasing by about 5,000 new employees a year. We were the welfare capital of the world with 16 percent of the nation’s caseload. Soon, California’s caseload was increasing by 40,000 a month. [Boy, talk about history repeating itself, only a scale larger than Reagan could ever have imagined.]
We turned to the people themselves for help. Two hundred and fifty experts in the various fields volunteered to serve on task forces at no cost to the taxpayers. They went into every department of state government and came back with 1,800 recommendations on how modern business practices could be used to make government more efficient. We adopted 1,600 of them.
We instituted a policy of “cut, squeeze and trim” and froze the hiring of employees as replacements for retiring employees or others leaving state service. [Bet that would still work, even thought it would be painful to begin with.]
After a few years of struggling with the professional welfarists [again, some things never change, and I love that phrase], we again turned to the people. First, we obtained another task force and, when the legislature refused to help implement its recommendations, we presented the recommendations to the electorate.
It still took some doing. The legislature insisted our reforms would not work; that the needy would starve in the streets; that the workload would be dumped on the counties; that property taxes would go up and that we’d run up a deficit the first year of $750 million. [Hmm. Haven’t I been hearing something like that — exactly like that — unceasingly from the “progressives,” only with larger predicted numbers or more dire pronouncements?]
That was four years ago. Today, the needy have had an average increase of 43 percent in welfare grants in California, but the taxpayers have saved $2 billion by the caseload not increasing that 40,000 a month. Instead, there are some 400,000 fewer on welfare today than then.
Forty of the state’s 58 counties have reduced property taxes for two years in a row (some for three). That $750-million deficit turned into an $850-million surplus which we returned to the people in a one-time tax rebate. That wasn’t easy. One state senator described that rebate as “an unnecessary expenditure of public funds.” [Ah. California’s golden days, when people made money and government understood that it was not responsible for rejiggering and controlling society.]
For more than two decades governments—federal, state, local—have been increasing in size two-and-a-half times faster than the population increase. In the last 10 years they have increased the cost in payroll seven times as fast as the increase in numbers. [Sadly, since Reagan’s time, both in the fed and local governments, this has been true, and it’s been true under both Republican and Democratic leadership. It’s worse under the latter, but exists under the former. As I noted in an earlier post, our expectations continue to increase, with strides in medicine, longevity, technology, etc., but we’re also simply greedy.]
We have just turned over to a new administration in Sacramento a government virtually the same size it was eight years ago. With the state’s growth rate, this means that government absorbed a workload increase, in some departments as much as 66 percent.
We also turned over—for the first time in almost a quarter of a century—a balanced budget and a surplus of $500 million. In these eight years just passed, we returned to the people in rebates, tax reductions and bridge toll reductions $5.7 billion. All of this is contrary to the will of those who deplore conservatism and profess to be liberals, yet all of it is pleasing to its citizenry.
Make no mistake, the leadership of the Democratic party is still out of step with the majority of Americans. [As Obama demands more and more from taxpayers and, with a complicit Congress enacts ever more extreme policies, these words will become increasingly true, I think. And we can only be grateful that, unlike Venezuela and Zimbabwe, in two, four, six and even eight years, voters will still be able to have a say in the matter (although I wouldn’t be at all surprised if, aside from messing with the census, legalizing massive numbers of presumably Democratic voting immigrants, and clamping down on a free media, the Obamanites don’t also try to destroy presidental term limits).]
Speaker Carl Albert recently was quoted as saying that our problem is “60 percent recession, 30 percent inflation and 10 percent energy.” That makes as much sense as saying two and two make 22.
Without inflation there would be no recession. And unless we curb inflation we can see the end of our society and economic system. The painful fact is we can only halt inflation by undergoing a period of economic dislocation—a recession, if you will. [The actor got it. He totally got it. There is no way to get out of a recession without some short term pain. If you try to avoid the short term pain, as Obama is doing with his massive spending programs, all you end up with is unending pain.]
We can take steps to ease the suffering of some who will be hurt more than others, but if we turn from fighting inflation and adopt a program only to fight recession we are on the road to disaster. [Ditto — and completely prescient.]
In his first address to Congress, the president asked Congress to join him in an all-out effort to balance the budget. I think all of us wish that he had re-issued that speech instead of this year’s budget message.
What side can be taken in a debate over whether the deficit should be $52 billion or $70 billion or $80 billion preferred by the profligate Congress? [Point being that, once you commit to spending, arguing over amounts is almost irrelevant. It’s like the joke about the man who asks a woman, “Will you sleep with me for a million dollars?” When she says “yes,” he asks “Will you sleep with me for ten dollars?” She draws back in disgust. “What do you take me for? A whore?” His answer: “Ma’am, we’ve already established what you are. Now, we’re just haggling over the price.”]
Inflation has one cause and one cause only: government spending more than government takes in. And the cure to inflation is a balanced budget. We know, of course, that after 40 years of social tinkering and Keynesian experimentation that we can’t do this all at once, but it can be achieved. Balancing the budget is like protecting your virtue: you have to learn to say “no.” [The hell with “Yes, we can.” What we should be saying is “No, we must not.”]
This is no time to repeat the shopworn panaceas of the New Deal, the Fair Deal and the Great Society. [Isn’t it funny how those are exactly the panaceas we’re hearing this time, too?] John Kenneth Galbraith, who, in my opinion, is living proof that economics is an inexact science, has written a new book. It is called “Economics and the Public Purpose.” In it, he asserts that market arrangements in our economy have given us inadequate housing, terrible mass transit, poor health care and a host of other miseries. And then, for the first time to my knowledge, he advances socialism as the answer to our problems.
Shorn of all side issues and extraneous matter, the problem underlying all others is the worldwide contest for the hearts and minds of mankind. Do we find the answers to human misery in freedom as it is known, or do we sink into the deadly dullness of the Socialist ant heap? [If you’re an Obamanic, right now you’re screaming “Ant heap, ant heap!”]
Those who suggest that the latter is some kind of solution are, I think, open to challenge. Let’s have no more theorizing when actual comparison is possible. There is in the world a great nation, larger than ours in territory and populated with 250 million capable people. It is rich in resources and has had more than 50 uninterrupted years to practice socialism without opposition. [At this point, Reagan’s speech takes off in a way impossible to comprehend today. In the mid-1970s, the vast majority of American voters still recognized that life under Communism was dreadful and that it was a zero sum game economically. Ironically, now that Communism is gone and people have actually been able to speak out about just how dreadful it was, the perversion of our education and media system means that people today are less aware not more aware of just how dreadful Communism was. They think Reagan’s “evil empire” concept was just a parochial American fear, rather than the recognition of the true evil that Communism really was.]
We could match them, but it would take a little doing on our part. We’d have to cut our paychecks back by 75 percent; move 60 million workers back to the farm; abandon two-thirds of our steel-making capacity; destroy 40 million television sets; tear up 14 of every 15 miles of highway; junk 19 of every 20 automobiles; tear up two-thirds of our railroad track; knock down 70 percent of our houses; and rip out nine out of every 10 telephones. Then, all we have to do is find a capitalist country to sell us wheat on credit to keep us from starving!
Our people are in a time of discontent. Our vital energy supplies are threatened by possibly the most powerful cartel in human history. [History is repeating itself — and our Democratic leaders will not allow us to utilize our own abundant resources.] Our traditional allies in Western Europe are experiencing political and economic instability bordering on chaos. [Wow! Another blast from the past.]
We seem to be increasingly alone in a world grown more hostile, but we let our defenses shrink to pre-Pearl Harbor levels. [We haven’t yet let our defenses shrink, but Obama has the defense budget on the chopping block. And unlike Reagan’s time, when it was a Cold War, Islamist attacks worldwide make it clear that this is a hot war, albeit one carried out by non-governmental armies.] And we are conscious that in Moscow the crash build-up of arms continues. The SALT II agreement in Vladivostok, if not re-negotiated, guarantees the Soviets a clear missile superiority sufficient to make a “first strike” possible, with little fear of reprisal. Yet, too many congressmen demand further cuts in our own defenses, including delay if not cancellation of the B-1 bomber.
I realize that millions of Americans are sick of hearing about Indochina, and perhaps it is politically unwise to talk of our obligation to Cambodia and South Vietnam. But we pledged—in an agreement that brought our men home and freed our prisoners—to give our allies arms and ammunition to replace on a one-for-one basis what they expend in resisting the aggression of the Communists who are violating the cease-fire and are fully aided by their Soviet and Red Chinese allies. Congress has already reduced the appropriation to half of what they need and threatens to reduce it even more.
Can we live with ourselves if we, as a nation, betray our friends and ignore our pledged word? [We could. We did. And we elected the man and the party who want to do it all over again.] And, if we do, who would ever trust us again? [Most don’t.] To consider committing such an act so contrary to our deepest ideals is symptomatic of the erosion of standards and values. And this adds to our discontent.
We did not seek world leadership; it was thrust upon us. It has been our destiny almost from the first moment this land was settled. If we fail to keep our rendezvous with destiny or, as John Winthrop said in 1630, “Deal falsely with our God,” we shall be made “a story and byword throughout the world.”
Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.
I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party”—when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents. [Boy, they did that in 1974 too? And isn’t that exactly the fight that’s going on right now?]
It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating? [That’s a marvelous point. We don’t shape the message to the inchoate voter. We believe in the message and, if we build it, the voters will come.]
Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?
[And the following is the “stand up and cheer part.” In it, Reagan simply and clearly articulates conservative principles that worked then and should work now. These statements about the economy and national security are all we need to build a platform to which Americans will come, regardless of their particular place on the conservative spectrum.]
Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.
Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people’s earnings government can take without their consent.
Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.
And let it provide indexing—adjusting the brackets to the cost of living—so that an increase in salary merely to keep pace with inflation does not move the taxpayer into a surtax bracket. Failure to provide this means an increase in government’s share and would make the worker worse off than he was before he got the raise.
Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people.
Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.
Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.
Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.
And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of “peace at any price.”
We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.
A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.
I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.