Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Which Phrases Should the Right Retire?
In conversation with friends this weekend — the group included a couple of members of the Ricochet family — the conversation turned to the shortcomings of how Republicans communicate with the public. One of the participants offered what I thought was a very incisive critique of how the conservative message plays with a broader audience. His argument: a lot of conservative shorthand requires second-order explanations.
For instance, talking about “free markets” works only if the listener has a preexisting appreciation for why government intervention in the economy is generally to be abjured. By contrast, another interlocutor said that, were he running for office, he would position himself as “pro-innovation” rather than pro-free markets, leaving it to his opponents to explain why they were opposed to progress. The key, he argued, was reducing political positioning to the values level — something the left does very effectively through an emphasis on ideas like ‘fairness’ and ‘compassion’ (which, believe me on this, sells better than ‘higher taxes’ and ‘welfare’).
It’s an interesting thought exercise, and one worthy of this crowd. So how about you? What formulations would you suggest for a GOP candidate talking to an audience that doesn’t reflexively share his assumptions about good public policy?
Published in General
Yes. The long game.
Get rid of “balancing the budget.” That means only one thing, : tax hikes.
And “balanced budget amendment” means court ordered tax hikes.
I disagree. Historically, budgets have been balanced via economic growth and frozen (if not reduced) spending, not via tax hikes.
That point, however, is a fair one.
You know that and I know that. But when politicians talk about balancing the budget, they are usually explaining why they are too virtuous to cut taxes. Or why low taxes would be “irresponsible.”
Like!
But the two terms mean different things; the first certainly can’t exist without the latter. See:
1975 Trabant – The 50 Worst Cars of All Time – TIME
Agree we must not use the Marxist term “capitalism.”
Reagan did OK with “free enterprise” and “business.”
Yeah, but I think Bastiat would convince you you’d screw Americans.
To hell with that idea.
The government is always trying to “level the playing field” and the ones Who always get leveled are the producers/ the taxpayers. The indolent have nothing to raze.
“Level the playing field” = “fair share”
So let’s take it back! Let’s be the party of the fair shake, the level playing field. Let’s point out how all the various government interventions do nothing but entrench the rich and mire the poor. There’s a mighty flood out there. We can try to calm it down or channel it at the real enemies.
And here’s the problem (as laid out for us by Henry Hazlitt): “The art of economics,” he writes in his book, Economics in One Easy Lesson “consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any action or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.”
But as he goes on to say, this is difficult to do and even more difficult to explain. Bad economists often present their errors (shortsightedness) more effectively than good economists present their truths. By the time an economist has gotten through the “long, complicated, and dull chain of reasoning” necessary to explain the long-term consequences of a particular policy, the audience is bored or asleep. Therefore, many economists – and their very vocal cheering sections – have resorted to half-truths, and arguments against even considering the longer view are reduced to mere quips. “It’s only laissez faire,” “greed,” “capitalist apologetics,” “extremism,” (and worse terms these days when rhetoric has reached a fever pitch).
Complexity issues:
YES!!!!
As near as I can tell from the musings of the people I’m surrounded with, “Small Business” is the guy they work for that won’t give them great benefits.