 |
  |
 |
Posted on 01/22/2016 10:50:22 AM PST by Flick Lives
I need to add one level to the BOTTOM of the persuasion stack. That level involves arguing about the definition of a word.
Persuasion Stack
Identity (best)
Analogy (okay, not great)
Reason (useless)
Definition (capitulation)
You'll see a lot of debate on whether Trump is a true conservative or not. That is argument by definition. It is the linguistic equivalent of throwing your gun at a monster because the clip is empty. National Review's cover story, in which the big question comes down to whether Trump is a true conservative or not, is your tell for capitulation on the right.
The left is still in the fight, but the right just capitulated to Trump.
In the 2D world, it might seem that National Review's organized resistance of "thought leaders" opposed to Trump is a big deal. But that incorrectly assumes "thought" was ever important. In the 3D world of persuasion, National Review's move is nothing but throwing the gun at the monster.
On some level, people can feel that.
Update: Some of you asked why "conservative" is not a valid identity play. It is an identify of sorts, but one that is cobbled together from ideas. It is not the same level as gender, race, or nation. People can stop being conservative in ten minutes, if they choose.
The persuasion stack is an approximation. Assume there is always some reason and some identity in all the levels.
When Trump walks into the Oval Office, a whole lot of ‘gravy trains’ are going to be ‘de-railed’ and that will free up some of the money we need to keep America and getting America out of the ‘sewer cities’ of America!!!
GO.TRUMP.GO!!!
The National Review is nothing more than a communists rag.
I think he has something there. Rush Limbaugh is currently explaining all of this on his show. What we are seeing is members of a Club who don’t like the new guys. In their heart of hearts they realize that the new guys actually want to take over their Club and run it in a different way. Now the some of the older Club members think that they can “work with” Donald Trump, but the younger ones, who have just made it into the Club, really resent Trump’s attempt to take over their Club. And, of course, everyone just hates Ted Cruz. ;-)
Will any of the people who contributed to the anti-Trump NR issue begin to regret their contribution to a once fine publication’s descent into irrelevancy.
Crying about Single Payer
We got it and GOP has done nothing
Immigration , we got it and GOP have done nothing after two huge wins
Everything they have written about Obama has already done and GOP has done nothing and Trump's voters are being blamed as racist
The ruined the Country according to the media
GOP has given everything to Obama and trying to blame Trump and not the National Review Candidates?
It’s about darn time that he gets off his butt and starts backing America!!!
But I still don’t trust him.....
Rick Lowery explained it very well on Fox & Friends.
Conservatives believe in limited government
lower taxes
and anti-abortion
Those were the three things he mentioned. I’m sure there are others.
He went on to say that Trump never talks about those things, or very rarely.
They are just not on his radar.
Well, if misguided people succeed in getting the Trumpster in, I have two predictions:
One: (not so sure about this one) He will select Marco Rubio as running mate
Two: He will be a one-term president
Then maybe we can elect a real conservative.
Scott Adams predicted that Trump would win the nomination and the general election in a landslide back in early August. His take on things has been quite interesting.
If Lowry speaks for you - you got troubles.
I’ve reached the point I don’t ever want to read or hear “conservative” again. Our dear conservatives in government have allowed this country to be destroyed. They obviously don’t believe in limited government, lower taxes or anti-abortion. They just voted again to support more government, more taxes and abortion.
Why anyone would believe the new “most conservative” politician will do anything differently amazes me. I refuse to be called conservative any longer. I am now American period. I want my country back.
We elected people that promised they’re conservative the last 3 elections (excluding 0b0la), increasing their numbers each time.
They keep promising to fix things but what have they delivered? They’ve delivered everything the dem’s and 0b0la asked for.
Screw ‘em, I’m ready to try something different this time. The way I see it, Trump can’t do any worse and if he does, it’ll be shooting time anyway.
I’m with you. At this point in time, I consider being an AMERICAN a lot more important than being a conservative.
After all, what good has being “conservative” done us since 1988?
The are out of bullets.
He’s kicking ass in all the polls, and the latest in Iowa, too.
They know they’ve lost.
...After all, what good has being “conservative” done us since 1988?...
You are so right.
“Low taxes” is not really a moral principle. Once you concede any, it’s just a matter of debate on what’s onerous or not. But it’s hardly a central pillar.
For instance, let’s look at Denmark. It has social democratic institutions and policies but has acted to CONSERVE its norms, values and its social culture of high-trust, low corruption, low interpersonal or political violence by limiting immigration.
Japan is conservative, yet it has many components of what we’d consider leftist policies. It is not the specific policy, necessarily, which renders a country or person conservative, it is the underpinnings of what they articulate and defend. Rendering the planet McWorld is not a conservative ideal. Burke or Kirk are closer than, say, Lowry. It’s a mindset, it’s a stance, it need not hinge on abortion (a kulturkampf distraction) or marginal tax rates.
Conservatives, Inc. on the other hand have thrown their lot in with rootless cosmopolitan billionaires (Zuckerberg, et al) who would cast out thousands of Americans so they can have a captive, lower-paid workforce, just as countless “job creators” have done since even the 19th century. At no point have conservatives acted to defend a coherent American culture, or to the extent they have, they have been defeated again and again-—MAINLY because they did not strongly oppose the influx of peoples alien to our way of life who will make money and live well but never truly absorb or believe in our values, and by the assertion of “America the Idea” we lost all sight of the things that make a people distinct from others and thus were sapped of our ability to ardently defend the nation and its people.
Most European nations had more restrictive abortion laws than the US. Did that make them more or less conservative?
After all, what good has being “conservative†done us since 1988?
Stop being conservative, and start being American.
I honestly don't know what to make of that.
Scott Adams points out the need for defining conservative.
If you think GW Bush is/was a conservative, then he was surely quiescent. FedGov continued its metastasizing when Bush had a majority in Congress and a conservative USSC. We put them in power to de-ratchet the thrust to socialism and they did nothing. If, then, the Bushies were/are not conservative, then surely the Tea Party movement is, in which case Palin’s endorsement of Trump should point the direction of “true” conservatism, and the NR can go pound sand.
IMHO, it was worse than nothing. GWB actually had his DoJ lawyers before the USSC arguing to uphold Wickard v Filburn.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.