Simplifying our message (vanity post)

[USALiberty]

OK, I'll lay off making vanity posts for a while after this. But I think this is a good idea.

I was asking myself, why is it that ANYBODY still supports the liberal/fascist/socialist/Marxist/ Stalinist/Democrat agenda? I think it's because it takes an able mind to really grasp the full scope of the conservative message of liberty. We need to KEEP IT SIMPLE if we want to expand the base.

I suggest we start using the term "1912er".

Basically, Conservatism 2010 comes down to this: the need to roll back the USA, legally and governmentally, to about 1912 — before the tyranny of Woodrow Wilson set us on the course toward socialism. (The only exception I would make would be women’s suffrage. BUT even there, it should be left up to the states — because ALL decisions about voting rights issues properly belong to the states.)

We should say that clearly. It's something anybody can wrap his/her head around. We want to roll mack the 98 years of liberal treachery -- ALL of it. It will take time. But that is the goal and we should keep hammering that home. And what better way to do that than to simply say when things went wrong and where we need to go back to in order to start over?

I am a PROUD 1912er! WILL YOU JOIN ME?

[knarf]

1912er does not roll verbally .. even thinking the phonic is obtuse.

The idea is terrific.

I'll think about this a while.

[rhombus]

Conservatism 2010 comes down to this: the need to roll back the USA, legally and governmentally, to about 1912 — before the tyranny of Woodrow Wilson set us on the course toward socialism.

If you regularly watch Glen Beck this makes a lot of sense. If you regularly watch John Stewart, this probably makes no sense. It's the people who watch John Stewart who you have to keep it simple with and they don't care much about 1912 or Woodrow Wilson. Instead they like the sound of progressivism because it has the word progress in it. That's the level of simplicity we need to strive for.

[ClearCase_guy]

The concept is OK, but to communicate it you have to provide a history lesson to people -- "What do we mean when we say 1912?" and most people don't like history lessons (though the story of the Progressives and Wilson's debasement of our freedoms is a gripping yarn).

If we're going to educate people, I would not educate them about 1912/1913 -- I would educate them about Fascism. Everyone hates Fascism, but most folks don't know what it really means. Woodrow Wilson is very much part of the Fascist tradition -- I would argue that this country has been a Fascist country since 1913 and that this is where our problems come from.

I'm an anti-fascist. I'm happy to explain that position to people. Personally, I think that is an easier "sell" than to say I'm a 1912er.

[Huck]

That makes me a 1786er, then, because I think we need to roll it back to the time before Fedzilla was created, in those secret meetings in Philadelphia.

[ClearCase_guy]

"I like to say I'm more conservative than Goldwater. He just wanted to turn the clock back to when there was no income tax. I want to turn the clock back to when people lived in small villages and took care of each other."
-- folksinger Pete Seeger

[TangoLimaSierra]

How about we go back an even 100 and call ‘em the Centennials or Tenners. A little easier on the tongue.

[Huck]

Ha. Funny line. I always thought of Seeger as a blue-work-shirt-wearing commie. But I must say, it's a funny line. Quite Jeffersonian, although I'm sure if you scratch a little, you'll find a pinko there.

I would like to see big cities go the way of the do-do bird. Not by fiat, of course. And I don't know where all those crammed-in people would go. But I despise cities. Just look at the politics. Rural people are much more reliable. They are more self-reliant. Hell, they're better to the "eco-system."

And I would like to see Fedzilla retired. The Constitution and federalism, properly defined, are incompatible. Meanwhile, back in the real world, I'll settle for a GOP landslide and a few points shaved off my tax bill.

[USALiberty]

How about “Repeal the 20th Century”?

[ClearCase_guy]

I consider the 20th century largely a lost century -- with the exception of technology-related issues.

Antibiotics, blood transfusons, airplanes, computers -- I approve these things.
Duke Ellington, Frank Capra, CS Lewis -- I approve these things.

But psychology? sociology? Education? Political Science? Economics? Rap Music? Andy Warhol? My God, the twentieth century is largely a wasteland of empty-headed posturing based on nothing at all. It all feels like a vast ponzi scheme to me.

[daisy mae for the usa]

Back To The Future — the 12’s are key!

[ansel12]

It will be dismissed as racist and sexist since it returns us back to a pre, multi-cultural, multi-racial country, when women could not vote.

[USALiberty]

It will be dismissed as racist and sexist since it returns us back to a pre, multi-cultural, multi-racial country, when women could not vote.

No state would dare repeal women's suffrage. It's silly to suggest they would. The issue is whether you trust the Great Nanny State in Washington to make such decisions more than you trust the states. Also: The voting rights for black males were already in place by 1912.

[ansel12]

You didn’t understand my post, I didn’t say anything about repealing women’s voting, or that blacks could not vote.

Your idea would be easy to dismiss, because it would simply be portrayed as a white man’s wet dream.

A return to 1912 is not a rallying call to many Americans, “1912” just doesn’t mean anything to the public.