We Need to Make the Argument
Mitt Romney ran a carefully calibrated presidential campaign, single-mindedly targeting swing voters with the message that Obama was a great guy who failed to deliver the goods, so why not vote Republican and hope for change.
In contrast, Barack Obama made a sweeping moral argument: America is moving forward toward a fairer society where everybody has a shot; in order to finish the journey we must reject Romney’s plan to return us to the greed and selfishness of the Bush years; in particular, we cannot afford the tax cutting and lax regulation that caused the recent financial crisis.
Oh, and in case you missed it: Osama bin Laden is dead.
The Left has a built-in persuasive advantage in any campaign: Any premises left unstated on the stump are fully baked into the popular milieu through the tireless mediation of teachers, comedians, pop singers, businessmen, journalists … you name it.
The typical response from the Right—particularly establishment Republicans—is to first bemoan the unfairness of our left-leaning cultural predisposition, and then ignore it, preemptively discarding the counterargument. It’s so very difficult, you see; we might alienate women and Hispanics; those ideas mainly appeal to old white men; and so on.
So having ceded the commanding heights of worldview and language to the Left, the candidate of the Right is left to tinker at the margins. Under these conditions it is surprising that Romney came as close to victory as he did.
Let’s start with a glittering example: Barack Obama endlessly repeated the line that Mitt Romney would return us to the failed policies that brought us to the brink of global financial ruin in 2008; as though a five-percentage point difference in the top marginal income tax rate marked the divide between prosperity and calamity.
Yet I never heard anybody in Republican campaign-land gainsay any of this.
Even under the time constraint of a televised debate, it would be simple to point out the flourishing of crony capitalism under the coercive umbrella of the Community Reinvestment Act, abetted by government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were led by assorted Democrat politicos-turned-executives who got fantastically rich pumping up the sub-prime mortgage market. All this with the grateful assistance of the usual suspects from the rent-seeking wing of the private sector.
For another example, it is seemingly everywhere noted in the run-up to the Fiscal Cliff that universal peace, prosperity, and balanced budgets prevailed under the Clinton-era income tax rates, so why all this Sturm und Drang from elected Republicans hell-bent on safeguarding the interests of the top one percent?
Again, nobody on our side bothers to point to the elephant in the room: Obama's runaway spending. Our brief moment of fiscal rectitude under President Clinton resulted from federal outlays falling to 18% of gross domestic product as against rising to 24% of GDP under the Obama program of budget-by-continuing-resolution. And if the Left insists on calling out Clinton's income tax increase, shouldn't the Right mention his substantial capital gains tax cut?
However, the most troubling omission from our side in recent months is the absence of a consistent moral argument made in favor of individual liberty. We need to promote an alternative worldview, not just a different tax code.
An economic system run by free people and free markets is morally superior in every respect to President Obama's government-directed version, which favors the well-heeled and politically connected. Ironically, Obamanomics creates the very social conditions the president inveighs against: A nation of haves and have nots, locked in unending conflict.
Far from creating the financial crisis, limited constitutional government, established to secure God-given natural rights, resulted in the fairest, most prosperous, and most ethnically diverse civilization in world history. This is the heritage we seek to preserve.
In order to win the argument, we first must make it.
- Comment (48)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (8)
Comments:
Sep '12
Re: We Need to Make the Argument
We can't make the argument to those who aren't listening, those who won't listen, those who lack the basic knowledge to understand the argument, and those who lack the good faith to treat with the argument fairly. How many are those? At least 60 million American voters.
Re: We Need to Make the Argument
We can't reach everyone, but we can begin to whittle away at the cultural presumptions in favor of leftist policy solutions.
We need to make the argument or we will certainly fail.
We need to confidently project our worldview and at least challenge leftist redefinition of the language. For example, why have our politicians supinely adopted the leftist definition of the word "fairness?" Why are we dividing up the citizenry on the basis of income level, just like our ostensible opponents? The list is endless.
Jul '10
Re: We Need to Make the Argument
Exactly George!
The Left has kidnapped the terms of the debate. We need to liberate them. There may be those who simply won't listen (I know a few) BUT there will actually be many who do.
I agree with Katiev's comments on faith. It is a fundamental part of an opposition position. BUT we don't have to make them JOIN our faith. Rather we have to make them understand the importance of faith overall.
Lastly, we have to be tough. We cannot hope to win this fight if we stay cool and above the fray. We need to be down in the trenches fighting for those regular people votes. Those mostly have been rather glossed over by republicans, on the theory that they have no where else to go. Yet this last election showed that they DO have somewhere else to go - HOME. Don't vote for either one. Look at the fight the republicans have with the Tea Party. One would think they would have been welcomed in. But they are seen as interlopers - not "one of us". And that just may be - the current republicans may need to be turned out, while keeping their structure.
Oct '10
Re: We Need to Make the Argument
Joseph Stanko
Romney was on 3 nationally-televised debates and spent millions on TV ads. That is clearly a means to deliver a message directly to the American people.
For better or for worse, Presidential election campaigns are one of our best opportunities to get our message across unfiltered. We need to make the most of it. · 17 hours ago
I'm not talking about the final weeks of a presidential campaign. I'm talking about daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, perpetually. I'm talking about having an honest network, I'm talking about taking the show on the road into the dens of hell where the conservative message is unknown or, worse, demagogued. I'm talking this http://bit.ly/SIfxyT and this http://bit.ly/Xwo6Tb.
Oct '10
Re: We Need to Make the Argument
George Savage
Elected Republicans are on television every night. Karl Rove raised and spent over $300 million in the past few month pushing his targeted swing-voter-friendly message.
Republicans with access to a microphone need to begin every statement with a prefatory clause connecting to the Founding or otherwise establishing a moral foundation for the point to follow. This needs to start now.
Yes, they're on television, but on whose networks? The Lefts'! Whatever good they might say, the Lefts' network hosts spin it and misrepresent it and lie about it.
We need to take our message directly to the American people, NOT through the media filter. We need to do much more retail, personal politics with Americans. Get a major network and make it down-the-middle. Get a major newspaper and make it down-the-middle. And hit the road with town hall-type community discussions.
Jul '10
Re: We Need to Make the Argument
katievs
Palaeologus
George Savage
Palaeologus: I disagree George. It is not about making "the argument."
Mitt won "the argument." The economy sucks and Obama hasn't fixed it.
Effectively, Obama ran unopposed, which is what Obama does best. · 10 hours ago
Putting it mildly, that is not my recollection of the campaign.
Also, the whole "make the other guy evil" business would have been a counterproductive tactic (and make no mistake, it is a tactic) this cycle.
You don't make the other guy evil, you show the destructiveness of the other side's policies.
This is what Reagan did. He opposed the Democrats on the level of principle and ideology. · 4 hours ago
I don't see how the two bolded statements are necessarily related, let alone restatements of identical concepts.
It might be an interesting debate (or not) as to whether Mitt engaged in the latter, but I have a hard time imagining anyone who followed the campaign coming to the conclusion that he didn't attempt the former.
Nov '10
Re: We Need to Make the Argument
Obama ran on a moral argument? News to me. What I heard was:
- Romney is a poopy-head
- So is Ryan, by the way
- The Rich ... millionaires and billionaires ... don't pay their fair share
- Just to be clear ... tax the rich
- ... but don't misunderstand me: I'm the one for lowering taxes; Romney only pretends to be
- We're agnostic on Israel's capital and we need to get God out of the public sphere ... uh, wait a minute. This just in ... I'm Israel's best friend. I've always said Jerusalem was its Capital, and God will be glad to know that I'm on his side
- I've got goodies for your particular special interest group. Here, have a free cell phone
- I love the middle class. Romney doesn't. All of his proposals are funded on the backs of the middle class
- Romney hates you.
- It's just math. No, don't look at the numbers. Believe me. It's just math. Speaking of math, I could only help my kids on their math homework up to grade 9
- Lose your political virginity: vote for me.
- Did I mention ... Romney is a poopy-head?
Edited on November 17, 2012 at 5:30amJul '12
Re: We Need to Make the Argument
Amen Amen! I often find myself wanting to scream at the tv when the conservative and/or Repub pundits refuse to engage and challenge the premises of the opposition. So what if they offend a woman or a minority? They aren't going to listen anyway if they are put off by a little bit of truth-telling. When are they going to start treating the American people like adults? We hear about the infantilization of America--well you get what you expect most of the time! Or do they just think that people are too stupid to get it? Well, some probably are but others are just ignorant (there is a difference!) A little education and explanation might be all that is needed to change some minds.