Not because I'm afraid of talking to strangers, but I imagine that I just wouldn't know what to say. It sounds like have prepared yourself, so that would help a lot.
In my mind, I could find hundreds of things to tell people against Kerry, but the hard part for me would be finding good things to say about President Bush. There are only two that I can think of.
His conduct of the war on terror (a very important positive which trumps a lot of negatives), and
The tax cuts he pushed through
I'm interested in how you handle it when someone asks about the massive budget deficit, the new entitlement programs, his support for the UN, and his leaving our borders open, etc.
If you have the time, you should find a copy of Richard Miniter's new book Shadow War. It documents what the administration has been doing "secretly" in the WoT.
Among all of the people with whom I have spoken so far, of those who intend to vote, I would say about sixty percent were already planning to vote for Bush (I am doing a lot of walking in the northern part of Lancaster County, which is generally very conservative, although not as much as the southeastern part of the county).
I try not to waste too much time talking to 'members of the choir', but have had a few good conversations that center on our mutual disappointments with the Bush administration (his liberal spending on entitlement programs -- and his creation of brand new ones, such as his prescription drug plan, his continued unconstitutional support of the Department of Education -- and his creation of the brand new, mediocrity-enhancing, bureaucracy-inflating No Child Left Behind Act, his refusal to address the deadly illegal alien problem, his weak support of the Second Amendment, his refusal to openly recognize the UN (and other global organizations) for the liberty cancers that they are, his increase in support of Planned Parenthood ...). But I only talk about such things with people who, like me, first express the opinion that they believe that the war on terror trumps all of those issues, and who will be voting Republican no matter what, as a result.
(I also offer them my personal hope that, should Bush be re-elected, his dangerous tendency to lean more left than any self-respecting Constitutionalist would might abate during a second term, since his lame duck status would presumably lessen his pandering to his media/legislative/judicial critics.)
Oddly enough, very few (maybe two percent) of those who were not planning to vote at all, or who were planning to vote for Kerry, even bring up the disappointments I mentioned above. More often than not, instead of expressing concerns of the type I feel, they will express disappointment in the same subject, but along completely diametrical lines.
An example: This past Saturday I was talking with a young couple who expressed concern about the fact that Bush isn't doing enough to provide healthcare for all Americans. I started my response by asking, 'Why do you believe that to be the responsibility of the federal government?' That simple question opened up about a forty-five minute conversation in which I was able to explain to them the loss of individual freedom and personal responsibility that invariably accompanies the federal government trespassing into unconstitutional power territory – not to mention the lesser fact that the government never accomplishes anything less expensively, or more efficiently, than private enterprise would. When I left their home, I wasn't entirely sure how they would be voting (although I had a pleasant suspicion), but I believe that a seed had been planted regarding the government's usurpation of Constitutional powers that were intended to remain with the people. They were very respectful, and extremely interested in what appeared to be a 'new' incite (for them) into the corruption of the political process.
This is the kind of thing that discourages me the most. So many of those with whom I talk (especially those who had intended – and some still do – to vote for Kerry/Edwards) believe that the government should be doing more for them (especially in the areas of healthcare, education, and regulation). They do not realize that all three aspects of a society are eroded -- sometimes beyond actual effectiveness -- by any kind of federal government intervention. And that, secondarily, individual liberties ... and the ability to keep the fruits of our own labors ... suffer massively as well.
To those who few are sitting on the fence for very logical, well-informed reasons, I simply agree with them about the dangers to our republic of the above-mentioned weaknesses in Bush's leadership, yet I tell them that I believe all of those issues can eventually be set back on the right track – but not if we show weakness or equivocation in the face of terrorism. There has never been a more deadly, or all-encompassing threat to our liberties, and our very existence. The voters’ opinion regarding which leader would best face the terrorist threat must supercede all other considerations. I sometimes have difficulty opening eyes to the conservative point of view on many issues, but so far have never had an argument on this one.
I also agree with you that Miniter's book would be a great resource to cite -- probably better than all of the ones I have been bringing with me. I ordered it from amazon.com last week, after hearing him interviewed on EIB, but it has not yet arrived. I do, however, bring up (without written corroboration yet, I'm afraid :) the small handful of the excellent 'secret' WoT accomplishments of which I am already aware, from having heard those couple of Miniter interviews.
(No response necessary, John. And thanks for the excellent comments, as always. Just wanted to assure you that I, too, have the same Bush reservations and am trying to prepare for others' voicing of them.)
~ joanie
P.S. I just proofread this before posting. Decided to leave the initial 'just a short response' comment in, for the sake of comic relief. :)