Ricochet Comment of the Day: Winning the Public Debate
In response to Peter's First Defeat Obama post, Ricochet member SMatthewStolte left an important comment:
I think this is the wrong way to think about these things. The goal should be to win the public debate. You’ll know you have won when Democrats are advocating smaller government solutions as a way of helping the little guy. Winning an election is at best a means to an end, and not a very reliable means at that.
This is not incompatible with Peter's point--first, you get your hands untied and wriggle off the tracks before the speeding train hits you--but next, you've got to solve the bigger problem. The bigger problem is a culture in which people think tying each other to the railway tracks is a great, common-sense idea.
I put it this way in the conclusion to Why Margaret Thatcher Matters--which I wrote in 2007--and I don't think I can formulate it any better now:
For a brief, perishable moment during the 1990s, it was possible to imagine that the great questions of history had been settled. But history did not, as Francis Fukuyama predicted, come to an end. Quite the contrary.
Socialism was buried prematurely. This fact has been little remarked, precisely because the world’s attention has in recent times been focused on the dramatic rise of Islamic extremism. Amid this anxiety it has been forgotten that the appeal of socialism as a political program is ultimately far wider, more seductive and more enduring than political Islam. To the vast majority of the secular world, Islam is alien and will always be alien. Islamic law is widely and correctly perceived as a recipe for immiseration. This is not so of socialism, a political movement that like fascism embodies the religious impulse in secular form, and is thus an ideology destined to rise again and again from the grave.
Wherever men are miserable – and that is almost everywhere – they will be vulnerable to those who promise Utopia, for if Hobbes expressed some portion of the truth, Rousseau expressed some portion of the truth as well. There is no inconsistency between the declaration that life in the state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short and the declaration that man is everywhere in chains. That this observation is bleak is no reason not to think it correct. If for no other reason, I doubt the promises of socialism will ever lose their capacity to inspire. ...
This conflict, even more than the divide between religion and secularism, will be the fault line of the coming century. How could it not be? It has been the fault line of political life since the French Revolution.
I cannot promise this ... but I do strongly suspect that Margaret Thatcher’s ideas and personality will assume an even greater significance with time. Recognizing what she achieved in Britain – and coolly appraising the cost of these victories, which was considerable – is as essential for our generation as for hers. Every society confronting these historical forces will inevitably arrive at the same place. It is the place Margaret Thatcher found herself upon her ascent to 10 Downing Street.
She perceived these forces, and for a time she mastered them: This is why she matters.
These forces are still at work; they must again be mastered again.
This is why she matters to you.
The fundamental challenge is not to unseat one president. That's the first and most important thing to do, but it will be no more than temporarily palliative unless we grasp that the opponent is not Obama but a complex, seductive, enthralling idea. Obama will not be the last we hear of this; he was hardly the first.
That idea cannot be defeated, as I believe George Savage put it in a comment thread, with "a good PR campaign." Nor can it be defeated in one election. For all Thatcher achieved, she succeeded only in slamming the breaks on the advance of socialism in Britain: She did not reverse it as thoroughly as I thought when I wrote that book.
We need to achieve something much harder to achieve than one good election campaign. We need citizens who are capable of understanding the arguments--not the slogans, not the improved propaganda, but the difficult, complex arguments.
Ultimately, this is about education and the news media. The only way to win this in the long run--in which, I hope, some of us will still be alive--is to have citizens who are for the most part able, by the age of 18, to read and think about complex historical and economic arguments--as once they were, in America--and who provide the demand for serious news coverage in the mainstream media--as once they did.
The debasement of education and the news media has taken place over at least two generations. It is unrealistic to expect it will easily be reversed in less time.
But SMatthewStolte is right: That is the way we must think of things.
- Comment (43)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Re: Ricochet Comment of the Day: Winning the Public Debate
You are right, Claire. Shifting public sentiment is the alpha and the omega. That is why we need a standard-bearer who understands the importance of that goal and who can articulate firmly and confidently the principles on which our government and our way of life were founded.
That candidate is not Mitt Romney. It might be Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin. It might be Rick Perry. In the absence of this sort of persuasion, even if we win, we lose.
Jul '10
Re: Ricochet Comment of the Day: Winning the Public Debate
To me, this piece is fascinatingly right on target.
Jan '11
Re: Ricochet Comment of the Day: Winning the Public Debate
One illustration of the principle: today's column by EJ Dionne.
Dionne makes a tired argument: that the "responsible" and mature GOP leaders must address this debt crisis by ignoring the "obstreperous right."
If you take stupidity for granted, you get more of it. Thus, Dionne's column ...
Feb '11
Re: Ricochet Comment of the Day: Winning the Public Debate
We should discuss: Why is the political philosophy (if you can dignify it with that term) which is known as "progressivism" so appealing to so many people?
Dec '10
Re: Ricochet Comment of the Day: Winning the Public Debate
To add:
How do we know that the debate is going our way? and we need to keep the pressure on to win:
When the Dems other than the President start using words like bipartisanship ... balanced approach ... compromise etc etc etc. These words signal that Dems know they are losing the debate.
If someone had the time they could probably do a statistically valid sample of google seaches on any topic and note a correlation between increased democrat use of these signals (bipartisanship, compromise) and them losing a debate (i.e. a law passed that favors the conservative outcome).
May '10
Re: Ricochet Comment of the Day: Winning the Public Debate
We desperately need someone of Margaret Thatcher's intellect, bearing and poise to make conservative arguments respectable again to the mainstream. Because these are the qualities that are required to effectively cow the media.
Sarah Palin does not do it.
Michele Bachmann comes closer but her social conservative convictions overshadow her voice on fiscal arguments -- for every sound bite from her on the debt is a story about her husband trying to "cure" homosexuality.
Christie is fun but more a bombastic warrior than a persuader.
Paul Ryan seems to come closest. He's cool-headed, gaffe-free, seemingly earnest and principled and not easily lampooned by the media. If there is someone else that can carry the Thatcher mantle I'd love to see it.
Re: Ricochet Comment of the Day: Winning the Public Debate
Trace Urdan: We desperately need someone of Margaret Thatcher's intellect, bearing and poise to make conservative arguments respectable again to the mainstream. Because these are the qualities that are required to effectively cow the media.
Sarah Palin does not do it.
Michele Bachmann comes closer but her social conservative convictions overshadow her voice on fiscal arguments -- for every sound bite from her on the debt is a story about her husband trying to "cure" homosexuality.
Christie is fun but more a bombastic warrior than a persuader.
Paul Ryan seems to come closest. He's cool-headed, gaffe-free, seemingly earnest and principled and not easily lampooned by the media. If there is someone else that can carry the Thatcher mantle I'd love to see it. · Jul 21 at 6:25am
I agree. But, like Governor Daniels, he has not risen to the occasion.
May '10
Re: Ricochet Comment of the Day: Winning the Public Debate
My hope is that Perry is the man to do it. He is getting into the race, and his instincts seem good to me.
I am tired of "winning and then losing" as you put it.
Paul A. Rahe
Trace Urdan: We desperately need someone of Margaret Thatcher's intellect, bearing and poise to make conservative arguments respectable again to the mainstream. Because these are the qualities that are required to effectively cow the media.
Sarah Palin does not do it.
Michele Bachmann comes closer but her social conservative convictions overshadow her voice on fiscal arguments -- for every sound bite from her on the debt is a story about her husband trying to "cure" homosexuality.
Christie is fun but more a bombastic warrior than a persuader.
Paul Ryan seems to come closest. He's cool-headed, gaffe-free, seemingly earnest and principled and not easily lampooned by the media. If there is someone else that can carry the Thatcher mantle I'd love to see it. · Jul 21 at 6:25am
I agree. But, like Governor Daniels, he has not risen to the occasion. · Jul 21 at 6:30am
Jul '11
Re: Ricochet Comment of the Day: Winning the Public Debate
"Ultimately, this is about education and the news media..."
On the podcast that Ricochet broadcasted on 30June featuring Ben Shapiro, Ben raised and interesting point that is missed in many of these discussions. Until we can distill our arguments into emotive soundbites and get them out to the public we will continually lose the argument, ideologically. The speed of discourse driven by 24hr news cycle has shortened our attention spans. Moreover, As the old proverb goes a lie is halfway round the world before the truth can get his boots on. This leaves us winning the argument long after the public's attention span has gone on to the next issue and the previous issue has been flushed down the memory hole. If we can start winning over more converts from the advertising industry or movie-making industry we could make some headway into shaping the public conversation. Where are the Sons of Liberty when you need them?
Apr '11
Re: Ricochet Comment of the Day: Winning the Public Debate
Paul A. Rahe: You are right, Claire. Shifting public sentiment is the alpha and the omega. That is why we need a standard-bearer who understands the importance of that goal and who can articulate firmly and confidently the principles on which our government and our way of life were founded.
That candidate is not Mitt Romney. It might be Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin. It might be Rick Perry. In the absence of this sort of persuasion, even if we win, we lose. · Jul 21 at 5:31am
Well said Claire and nicely reinforced Paul. We are fighting a war against a cultural shift that can be quite enticing as Claire shared, not at all as abhorrent as real war can be with it's obvious casualties, but captivating as a siren song. We need leaders like yourselves who can expose the enemy's position and fit us with ideological weapons to truly wage this war against an insidious enemy who waves a banner of "fairness" and "equality" that stirs the heart but empties one soul because it ultimately robs us of our greatest God given hope, liberty.
Nov '10
Re: Ricochet Comment of the Day: Winning the Public Debate
I don't believe that it is possible to win the debate. Socialism continues to appeal in some degree or another to at least 50% of the population. After all, 50% of the population pay no income taxes and are perfectly happy to have it that why. They like to be carried. The free ride is comfortable and given today's self esteem culture they are seldom challenged on it. The fact that their lives could be so much better does not matter to them or is not worth the effort. A flat screen, xbox and a six-pack is bliss.
The 80/20 rule is totally at work in the USA as in all the world. The top 20% of income earners effectively already pay 80% of all the taxes and there are many, the current excuse for a president included, would like to see that "fair share" be even higher.
There ain't no debate to be won in many folks minds. No, it's human nature that has to change and that takes divine intervention.
Oct '10
Re: Ricochet Comment of the Day: Winning the Public Debate
Yesterday, our problem was captured in a single, inconsequential bit of testimony. Taking the deposition of a 34 year old, unemployed, single mother of four - a very nice lady, mind you, I asked a simple enough question. My inquiry was for the limited purpose of establishing that the father of one child was behind on his financial obligations in late 2009. I asked if she could confirm child support arrearages noted on a judgment against him. She volunteered that the judgment must be correct. Following up, I asked "do you keep track of child support payments from" the father. "No," she answered, "that's not my job. That's what the department of social services does." This perfectly pleasant and fairly representative member of a significant community believes a responsibility of government is to keep track of her child support receipts. How hard might she be to convince that hateful fiscal conservatives are out to starve her family?
Apr '11
Re: Ricochet Comment of the Day: Winning the Public Debate
"There ain't no debate to be won in many folks minds. No, it's human nature that has to change and that takes divine intervention."
I agree with all you stated Robert but I believe we have divine intervention that is affecting our very natures daily. Without it I believe we would be as the herd of swine the New Testament speaks of when Jesus cast the legion of demons into the swine and they hurled themselves headlong into the sea.
David, by God's grace needed only a sling,one smooth stone and the training God's providence afforded him as he worked daily tending the sheep.
Oct '10
Re: Ricochet Comment of the Day: Winning the Public Debate
Exactly right, Claire - it's a long game.
Which means the sooner we get started, the sooner the culture gets moved. It doesn't mean waiting for the next messiah - Thatcher and Reagan were as much expressions of the culture as creators of it. So each of us has our job to do - stick to our principles, and help others to stick to theirs. Getting sucked into beltway tricksiness like the McConnell plan, or indulging fantasies about squishing more now in order to squish less later (yes I'm looking at you Mr Robinson) is to accept the status quo, not to challenge it.
(AngloCon: "arrearages"? Really? American legal practice sure has some barbarous usages...)
Sep '10
Re: Ricochet Comment of the Day: Winning the Public Debate
I disagree. The median voter is not interested in "the public debate". The median voter is interested in results.
Our agenda produces results. Reform entitlements, overhaul the budgeting process, reform taxes, slash regulations, and utilize our energy resources. If we can get our guy (maybe even if its Romney) to sign this agenda into law within the first two years of his term, we'll be set for another decade of prosperity.
Obama is losing the debate because the economy stinks, unemployment is high, and the deficit is massive. He never really convinced anyone that statism was the way to go. He just played the political game, got elected, and then jammed statism down our throats on a massive scale. If the "stimulus bill" had gotten us to GDP growth above 7%, and unemployment under 7%, he'd have effectively "won the public debate".
Apr '11
Re: Ricochet Comment of the Day: Winning the Public Debate
Exactly, AngloCon. Frankly, having paid enough child support to speak with limited authority on this subject she, as we all can be prone to do, traded her liberty for some vague assurance of security and protection. Without the government to run down her deadbeat ex-husband she would be left to her own defense.
It's like someone offering to help you with some packages that your struggling with "here let me help you with those" and as you transfer them from your arms to theirs they have slipped their hand into your pocket or your purse and viola!, how they have "lightened your load."
Dec '10
Re: Ricochet Comment of the Day: Winning the Public Debate
It seems that we learn by experience. The promise of socialism is wonderful, the problem is that it doesn't work.
I believe that the US is going to have to experience a few really nasty things before fiscal prudence becomes common wisdom.
Governments will raise taxes and get less revenue. I think this is happening in some states already.
The Fed loses control. They are very close already. This will mean that interest rates will rise dramatically, and the interest on the debt will swallow up any possibility of expansion of government programs. The return on deficit spending is still positive, this will change it.
There is no victory in this. It is a matter of watching every dollar and arguing about it. What is happening in Congress right now is the first stage of slowing the supertanker down, applying the first bit of pressure against the direction government has been going for a long long time. A victory, a capitulation by Obama only means another fight of a similar magnitude in 6 months to a year, with the stakes as high. Each victory will only grant time and a slight change in attitude.
Mar '11
Re: Ricochet Comment of the Day: Winning the Public Debate
I'll vote for Michelle Bachmann, or Gov Perry, or, gasp, Sarah Palin because I think they are the most fiscally Conservative candidates, and they are all very articulate in this debate. I care less about social issues or the distorted media narratives of them.
The problems with the Republican party are:
1. Mr Ryan is not rising to the occasion, to quote Prof Rahe
2. Mike Murphy
In the American system, as I understand it, the Presidential candidate is the only one that people listen to, so I don't think you can separate the debate from the Presidential election.
Writing this from the UK, I can say that Mrs Thatcher didn't win the debate here - the UK remains a fundamentally socialist country, though nowhere near as far to the left as Mr Obama - a bizarre situation.
The USA, of course, is fundamentally a "right-of-center" country, so it remains a mystery why we are losing the debate - well, not really - the much-discussed dismal education, entertainment, media explain it. And a fundamentally squishy Republican party - back to Mr Murphy, pandering to the swing voters, whoever they are.
Edited on July 21, 2011 at 4:20pmApr '11
Re: Ricochet Comment of the Day: Winning the Public Debate
genferei: Exactly right, Claire - it's a long game.
Which means the sooner we get started, the sooner the culture gets moved. It doesn't mean waiting for the next messiah - Thatcher and Reagan were as much expressions of the culture as creators of it. So each of us has our job to do - stick to our principles, and help others to stick to theirs. Getting sucked into beltway tricksiness like the McConnell plan, or indulging fantasies about squishing more now in order to squish less later (yes I'm looking at you Mr Robinson) is to accept the status quo, not to challenge it.
(AngloCon: "arrearages"? Really? American legal practice sure has some barbarous usages...) · Jul 21 at 7:00am
Also correct genferei.
I'm sure that I'm this will be an inadequate paraphrase but G.K. Chesterton, I believe, wrote a short response to an editorial about what is wrong with our culture? His response was I've been told " I AM" sincerly G.K.Chesterton.
Jan '11
Re: Ricochet Comment of the Day: Winning the Public Debate
I also disagree. "Winning the public debate" is a phrase that is redolent of the classroom and the think tank.
Winning elections is what matters. There is nothing wrong with America that 70 Republican US Senators, 300 Republican Congresspeople and Marco Rubio in the White House won't cure.
You may say that you can only achieve those results by winning the public debate, but you will have gotten it exactly backwards. You win the public debate by having power and by exercising it. FDR's landslides, huge Democrat majorities and the New Deal programs created the liberal consensus from 1933 to 1994, not the other way around.
And you win elections in a two-party system by defeating the other side, not by criticizing your side. Don't be concerned about the buttons on the uniform of the man next to you in the trench - aim at the sons of bitches who are advancing on you.
Imitate the successful strategy of the NRA. They oppose anyone who is anti-gun and we should oppose anyone who is a Democrat.
Here's the bonus: when Democrats have no power, RINOs will disappear. Why propitiate losers?