Posted on 01/19/2013 6:13:45 AM PST by AnonymousConservative
I was emailing with a reader, who has noticed the same things about Liberal debating tactics that I have. His perception was that every interaction must have a component which will shame the Liberal. It must have some aspect which the Liberal will not want anyone else to see. Of course the reason that such a component would be shameful, is due to the fact that if it became widely known, the Liberal would be out-grouped. It is the threat of being out-grouped which motivates the Liberal to abandon Liberalism. However, there may be more to it, and there may be subtleties that we may want to examine.
Of course, from an evolutionary, and r/K standpoint, shame will only carry Darwinian consequence in a K-selective environment. Only in such a resource-limited environment will one need to belong to a group. If conditions are r-selecting and resources are everywhere, then being ejected from a group will have less consequence on survival, and may even be advantageous, since you will no longer be sacrificing for the good of the group. Under r-selection, shamelessness may be highly adaptive, even as it will get you killed in a K-selective environment.
As the reader and I compared notes, and I reviewed his arguments and mine, one thing I noticed was the most effective shaming tactics may incorporate an opening with a subtle intimation that we are in a violent, K-selective environment. The opening may even personalize the threat this poses to the Liberal. This may be a necessary foundation which greatly enhances the effect of the subsequent out-grouping. If the Liberal has a slight frame in their head that they are threatened, and could get hurt, it may lead the Liberal to feel that they need a group to hide behind, if they are to survive. Because let’s face it, none of these characters would last a minute in a K-selective state of nature.
This introducing a threat frame prior to your argument may be important, given how we seem programmed to respond to these cues subconsciously. If threats are not everywhere, and violence is not seen as real, people may not be shamed as easily over their shameful behavior, since they may not care if they are part of a group or not. I think this is why a civilized, highly productive society will be afflicted with Liberalism to begin with. Under these conditions, being out-grouped may actually be advantageous evolutionarily, and they may embrace it. Just look at how shameless our society is today. I suspect if violence returns in the coming collapse, shame will as well.
This observation of the effectiveness of providing a threat frame, before making your case is supported by scientific research, as well.
John Jost noted that when examining adherence to ideological opinions,
Situational variables—including system threat and mortality salience… affect the degree to which an individual is drawn to liberal versus conservative leaders, parties, and opinions.
Much as the Great Depression precipitated rightward shifts in Germany, Italy, Spain, Austria, Hungary, Romania, Japan, and other nations, heightened perceptions of uncertainty and threat in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, generally increased the appeal of conservative leaders and opinions
Since the publication of our meta-analysis, several additional studies have demonstrated that reminders of death and terrorism increase the attractiveness of conservative leaders and opinions.
Landau et al. (2004) demonstrated that subliminal and supraliminal 9/11 and death primes led college students (a relatively liberal population) to show increased support for President Bush and his counterterrorism policies and decreased support for the liberal challenger John Kerry. These effects were replicated by Cohen et al. (2005) immediately prior to the Bush–Kerry election in 2004. A Spanish study found that in the aftermath of the Madrid terrorist attacks of March 11, 2004, survey respondents scored higher on measures of authoritarianism and prejudice and were more likely to endorse conservative values and less likely to endorse liberal values, compared with baseline levels calculated prior to the attacks (Echebarria & Ferna´ndez, 2006).
An experimental study by Jost, Fitzsimons, and Kay (2004) demonstrated that priming people with images evoking death (e.g., images of a funeral hearse, a “Dead End” street sign, and a chalk outline of a human body) led liberals and moderates as well as conservatives to more strongly endorse politically conservative opinions on issues such as taxation, same-sex marriage, and stem cell research, compared with a standard control condition in which participants were primed with images evoking pain (e.g., a dentist’s chair, a bandaged arm, and a bee sting removal). This finding is particularly important because it demonstrates that death reminders increase support for conservative opinions as well as leaders and therefore rules out charismatic leadership as an alternative explanation for the results (see Cohen et al., 2005).
A recently conducted study of the political attitudes of World Trade Center survivors provides further support for the notion that threat precipitates “conservative shift” even among people who were not initially conservative (Bonanno & Jost, in press).
Thus, if presented fearful/threatening “mortal salience stimuli,” individuals reflexively became more Conservative on subsequent questionnaires, and they do so across all measures of Conservatism. Perhaps he was presenting what should be a foundational structure of an out-grouping attack, and noting an openness to Conservatism motivated by a reflexive desire to avoid out-grouping.
It is important to note, this isn’t a threatening presentation, which the Liberal could use to out-group you as violent and unstable. It is not telling the Liberal you are going to kill him. That only works if you are able to, and about to swiftly follow-up on it (in which case, the Liberal will immediately agree with you). Rather what I am describing here is merely a wholly unemotional aside, pointing out impartially, that the environment that everyone inhabits is violent and dangerous, and the Liberal may have to face that danger, like everyone else.
Of course, I immediately see Colonel Connell when he began his brilliant out-grouping attack on Mike Wallace by saying,
“Two days later they (the reporters – Jennings and Wallace) are both walking off my hilltop and they’re 200 yards away, and they get ambushed and they’re lying there wounded. And they’re going to expect I’m going to send Marines out there to get them.”
You can’t create a perception of a K-selective environment much better than by creating an image of dead and dying Liberals, strewn across a battlefield, desperately screaming and begging for their lives, like the pathetic pansies they are – their only chance for survival being the group of K-selected Warriors they have just pissed off.
This was doubly beautiful, since it combined this violent threat frame with a Diminution of Stature attack, portraying the Liberal to the crowd as weak, helpless, and pathetic.
Is the presentation of violent imagery a necessary foundational opening to an out-grouping attack? I think the science and evidence says it is, and we will explore its use further in future posts as we continue this journey.
I think I follow the idea of Fuzzy Trace Theory, but how could that be harnessed to win arguments? What would an example be?
The shite may hit the rotors, it may not. Predictions are a bar stool cottage industry. Free Republic readers were predicting Romney, if you recall, and Romney himself seemed surprised that it got out from under him. After all his hard work, two years worth with no serious stumbling and a lackluster performance by Obama in the debates, Obama still took the flag. Why? One word...media. If it comes down to tooth and claw, the militias had best take out the nation’s power grid first thing, cuz the 6 o:clock news won’t be friendly. This isn’t going to play like the years before our Civil War when Republicans were being shot down in Southern streets with impunity. It’s going to play like Oklahoma city and Waco. It’s going to suck to be you also, my friend.
Now to my main point, war drives technology, period. The strategic winners have better technology and the mental/organizational infrastructure it’s based on every time, whether raw materiel, long bows, horse mobility or A-bombs. The surplus productive capacity of WWI, and more particularly, WWII and the subsequent Cold War, created the rabbit breeding environment you have such a problem with. Our productive base made Marxism effectively vanish in the S.U and China’s Politbureau is just another board room in effect. That’s called victory.
Your K environment lawfully evolves to an r environment every time. What you will need is a global governance of some sort that can regulate the quantity of war vs. its absence, like the Aztec “War of the Flowers”, a matter of combat theatrics to provide sacrificial victims for the temples. Say good bye to nation state sovereignty and federated republics if you want to achieve any sort of K dominant stasis in the K vs. r. schematic. The smart ones will join the invisible hand priesthood at the center playing one side off against the other.
PS. This thread is the kind of analyses we need to be making. News stories commented upon here need less of the “me too” and other chit chat and more hard analysis of precipitating factors, most importantly the psychological factors, as you’ve demonstrated. But at the same time, don’t think that the lefties can’t put two and two together. As I keep repeating, they are hegemonous because they ain’t stupid. What is described here as “liberal” has its counterpart among conservatives as far as analytic rigor goes. This entire news blog should begin to take on the attributes of an intel analysis bunker or a briefing room, while being mindful of security, if only as an exercise to sharpen our observational and analytic skills.
Three rules of thumb from Evolutionary Ecology, with which to predict the future. Resources will always grow limited without mortality. This will inevitably produce mortality. And nobody wants to die.
“If it comes down to tooth and claw, the militias.....the 6 o:clock news won’t be friendly”
If there was a revolution (I think economic collapse will come first, mostly because revolution is a big step, but who knows) it won’t be with militias. Not that there won’t be yahoos grouping up and dying en masse, but that won’t last long - and those guys were never going to win anyway. What is coming will be much more horrific, and it won’t be a war waged on government. It will be faceless mostly, local, and entirely directed at the softest targets on both sides, though I suspect the r’s will have it worse.
The media undoubtedly played a large role in Obama’s victory. But the deciding factor, as far as I can tell (and it is with limited information, but...) was the mobilization of voters. Whether we like it or not, there are a lot of lazy sacks of shit to whom liberty means nothing, and which will graze freely provided resources, and then vote Democrat - but who normally don’t.
Obama got them to vote, with help from the local community organizer infrastructure. This is why I think we are seeing the AW bans now. Things are getting shaky, and they have calculated that the risk of angering the NRA is ameliorated somewhat by their new voters, and it is all perhaps more necessary now, due to financial things we are not privy to at our level.
“This isn’t going to play like the years before our Civil War when Republicans were being shot down in Southern streets with impunity. It’s going to play like Oklahoma city and Waco.”
I don’t think so. I have a blog post coming up on this. I think these things evolve, with bad strategies culled, and good strategies retained. Wacos will happen, just because the feds will want them to, but they will be theater. OKC may happen, once or twice, but it will be yahoos, and not a normal part of the strategy which will evolve organically. The real war will be personal, and I suspect it will be waged with government on the sidelines, unable to be where the action is when it goes down, no matter how badly it will want to. None of us will be walking by our windows freely anymore, on either side.
I suspect K’s will win, since they will deal with the constant threat of death better than r’s, and be more tolerant of it, but I could be wrong. It is a long way out, and revolution probably will not even happen, to begin with. But if it does, I would not think we will have enough productivity to support welfarites, and the government will be mostly tied up dealing with what will be an epic mess there. Lotsa r-mouths crowded together, and no free food will be fun. Especially when they are crunched up against the moderately and very rich r’s, who were designed to be preyed upon.
“The strategic winners have better technology and the mental/organizational infrastructure it’s based on every time, whether raw materiel, long bows, horse mobility or A-bombs.”
Not always. Vietnam, even back to the Revolutionary War. A well motivated group can find ways to disable a lot of technological advantages, and exploit a lot of weaknesses. And even then, outcomes are dependent on a lot of things, especially motivation to win, and paths of least resistance which open up. Plus, we have never seen a battlefield where information was so freely available to both participants, or where the technology was so freely available to both sides.
I am not certain r’s will not fold once the horrors begin. Stockholm Syndrome is a natural r-phenomenon of competition avoidance. Hell we had Liberals taking Osama’s side after 9/11, asking what we did to make him so angry. I will not be surprised, if the threat is made real to them, they will cave immediately.
Either way, whatever happens, I know one thing for sure. Someday in the future, the most successful society in the world somewhere, will rise out of chaos to view homosexuals as aberrant, shame single moms, discourage promiscuity and sexual exposure of children, demand loyalty to in-group, pedestalize the masculine man, and punish the pansy, punish a whole range of behaviors which are not pro-social but which hurt no-one, encourage women to be homemakers, view masculine women with suspicion, and they will be wildly successful, globally. They may even hold trials at some point, the explicit purpose of which will be to find and punish r-sympathizers. And then the whole thing will gradually turn r and come down all over again.
“Your K environment lawfully evolves to an r environment every time.”
Yes, that is true, I have written about this. And then it turns back. Every time. I don’t view this as strange, because I see it in the context of ecology, where no population can expand freely forever, absent mortality. And once mortality shows up, and the only choice is flee and die, or fight and kill, K will return, because it is designed for that killing environment, which history (and Ecology) indicate is unavoidable.
“What you will need is a global governance of some sort that can regulate the quantity of war vs. its absence, like the Aztec “War of the Flowers”, a matter of combat theatrics to provide sacrificial victims for the temples.”
Yes! I love this part, because what I see everywhere is people who understand the basics of this whole thing, on a very deep level, but don’t realize it. I mean, you coming up with that – it is as if you have been studying Evolutionary Ecology, and its relation to politics for years. Where does that come from? Question, and it is my only one : Would you be more comfortable in a world of random mortality, where a lottery sentenced indiiduals to death at the hands of another or a world where mortality arose organically in equal measure to the first, out of shortage and violence at the hands of others? Assume the deaths would be equally painful.
Back to your insight. There is only one way to sustain an r-environment in nature, and it is with a constant level of mortality. That is why you see it expressed most purely in rabbits, mice, etc. The Predator provides the mortality, which keeps the population constantly below the carrying capacity of the environment, which in turn, keeps resources freely available at all times. Without the mortality, things always turn K. Liberals, without ever studying ecology, know this, and I can’t imagine how.
Liberals seem to want to try to do this other ways, instinctually, even though they don’t consciously know of the r/K relationship. From forced sterilizations to sterilants in drinking water, to Brave New World’s gestation bottles, and government run breeding, to over-population concerns and Malthus. China did it it’s own way with births. Stalin had his methods.
The problem you have is, r’s are are fundamentally less capable at inflicting mortality themselves. Occasionally, r’s can rise up and seize power, ala the Soviet Union, so they can get the K’s of the society to do their killing for them.
But r’s can’t eliminate the competition in our species – it is in the DNA. Gain power, ala Lenin, and K’s will realize the rules have changed, and then dive in, and what you eventually end up with is an even more aggressive and ruthless K than you had when you started – because those K’s which succeed do so in a less rule/honor governed r-model of competition. Try advocating for gays in Russia today. Try telling the government the rich need their wealth seized, and given to the poor. Try taking the side of the Chechens. It is more K than we are, and it wouldn’t be that way if Communism had never taken hold.
r’s are chaos generators. K creates great, efficient systems, r wrecks them, collapses the system through delusional attempts to make it better, then K-selection returns, and r’s then either adapt by becoming K out of necessity (most) or die back, resulting in a more K-environment. As a mechanist, I find this very cool. Jiggle it one way more than it should go, and it will jiggle itself back the other way, more than it would have gone otherwise.
You may not like my work, but it is sound, and will eventually be how politics is universally viewed - it is just too interesting to go away. It will prove predictive, if looking back is any measure. And I have no doubt it will have dramatic effect on the nature of our battles in the future. Knock it all you like, but all you are doing is ignoring what I think will be the greatest advance in the Political Sciences since the American Constitution. And I have a feeling your IQ is high enough that you see that.
“Demographics play a role if there are group loyalties. Consider that. Just my 2.0000 cents”
True, but only because Republican Leaders aren’t that smart. I still think religious and hardworking Blacks and Hispanics could be won, maybe easily, but it requires approaching them as honest equals looking for an ally, and not manipulative r-losers with cups in our hands.
Romney did well among young Blacks, considering he did practically nothing to overtly appeal to them, and seemed even to many on our side, wholly untrustworthy.
The problem is the K’s in these groups which we need to appeal to have a specific psychology. And part of that psychology has an instinctual distrust of r’s. Yet most of our political leaders are r’s.
When we send some sleazy politician to ask for their support, I don’t blame them for saying no. And when we finally have a K like Allen West, the r’s in the party see him as a threat, and do everything in their power to kick him out, without actually facing him down.
Our biggest problem is our leadership, which appeals to no-one, IMHO. Until we produce an honest leader, things will stay as they are, and each side will remain static, which is why I think we are destined for a collapse.
On using conflicting negatives, one thing I did to a black girl once. She had talked a lot about Amadou Diallo, even though she was a long way from New York City. Months later she is on a kick about gun control. I then brought up that Amadou was killed by agents of the state who had been assigned specifically to enforce gun control, by searching everyone, which is the only way gun control gets enforced.
For a second, she looked like a computer, locked up, then sudenly said, “I want to talk about something else.” She was really bothered by that. Interestingly, that too, entailed a mortally salient stimuli of death and violence, now that I think about it.
“I think I follow the idea of Fuzzy Trace Theory, but how could that be harnessed to win arguments? What would an example be?”
Thanks for the note. Fuzzy Trace Theory has been particularly associated with explaining false memory syndrome. Consistent with Fuzzy Trace Theory, the remedies for bad liberal thinking might include framing (positive v negative) of points being made. Remedies might also include avoidance of numerical information—people don’t respond well to quantitative information including probabilities, even though such information is valuable in making good decisions. Stick to qualitative relationships and make a few points salient. Don’t overwhelm with data or points made. Keep it simple and memorable. Sort of like a simple melody you can’t forget. A good example of this is the Eddie Eagle child safety message—that message is simple, memorable, not numerical, and can be framed in a fun way while getting serious attention from a child because it is about their personal safety (they want to be safe, of course, as it is a natural human drive). “Stop. Don’t touch. Leave the area. Tell an adult.” I might even drop the “leave the area” element as “tell an adult” may accomplish that part and the remaining message is a simple, almost rhythmic message—very memorable and likely effective in protecting a child.
Perhaps the message to a liberal is “Protect yourself. [Politician] is power hungry.” Repeat, over and over. See if the lib can come up with a refutation. If the lib degenerates into emotional meltdown (they often do), hope that others see his reaction.
Just some $0.0200 thoughts.
Your comment about Repub leaders deserves some thought. If we view them as a group seeking to win political support, then they probably use the typical consulting approach of analyzing data, trends, and thinking of messages that will appeal to each “group” but not alienate them.
That approach might work for rational, business investment planning but when trying to persuade individuals to behave in a supportive manner (vote and send money) you must understand the psychology of individual decision making.
Yes, I agree Blacks and Hispanics are potential supporters. But, you have to understand the psychology. It is interesting to note that Romney got young Blacks’ support without direct appeal. That hints at young Black’s economic desires and still looking forward to a future of economic opportunity. If you get some rich Black celebrities to brand your message, you can get the hopeful young Black’s hopes up. If you point to your opponent as having a silver spoon-in-mouth upbringing by a white banker, raised in Hawaii and Indonesia, and having a white parent from Kansas—then ask the Black group just how much they have in common with him, then you start to challenge the identification. If you tell the Hispanics that you will move them from just working to owning the workplace and you tell them you draw the contrast between life in the places they or their ancestors came from and what you will protect for them here—you might start to make the connection. There are male-female differences that must be tackled in a different way—there are different psychologies. It is done on a one-on-one level. It takes contact. You must counter other messages they receive with ridicule.
Just some thoughts—not meant to criticize anyone.
1. This needs to be weaponized. I argue with liberals often, and if there's one thing I'm convinced of, it's that most political conversations with liberals have to take place at the bumper sticker level. iacovatx's point about Fuzzy Trace Theory reinforced my initial reaction, which was that this concept will provide odd and incomprehensible to most people without a very simplistic way to convey it without losing too much of the significance of it. It needs its own vocabulary and manual of arms.
2. This needs an arsenal of sources at the ready. I'm not familiar with Evolutionary Biology, except in passing, but once this makes contact with more well-read progressives, they'll panic, demand sources and try to tear them apart. Aside from your book and website, what general background sources would you recommend to help develop understanding of this concept? (From a biological and not necessarily political viewpoint, at least at first.)
As a side note, spearing progressives with an Evolutionary Biology line of attack will do bonus rhetorical damage, as they are deeply wedded to the 'conservatives are anti-science and anti-evolution' idea.
(just getting back to this discussion)
I like this. I must confess that most of the time when I deal with the left it is either alpha-mode (”get away from me or I’ll kill you”) or FUD mode where I attempt to discourage the softer, non-activist leftists (“Protect yourself. obama is power hungry and will sell you out.”)
I’m going to go back and study AnonymousConservative’s blog for more tips on non-conventional approaches to cross-ideological communications.
Mama always taught me that there’s more than one way to skin a cat (I always wondered what she had against cats? ;-)
Interesting stuff on Fuzzy Trace Theory. Thank you for that.
Note, in the model of Fuzzy Trace Theory, an individual is quieting the anxiety triggered by the amygdala, by focusing attention upon any bits of information which turn the anxiety off, and assuage the amygdala. The mechanism which drives this is described in this post. I think it is why Liberals are Liberal, and why logic is of no use to them.
http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/?p=315
I have invested a lot of time and energy into this, so it is solid.
You are right about weaponization. I am good when it comes to understanding mechanisms, but I cannot easily process how to make something into a soundbite. It is a known weakness I am working on. So far, the picture of the wolf and the rabbit is about a condensed as I think I can make it. The real utility of this for now will have to be in understanding how Liberals debate. Over time, once it spreads, it will have a deeper, more pronounced effect on the fight.
r/K first was introduced in The Theory of Island Biogeography by MacArthur and Wilson, Princeton University Press. Lots of papers on it, and it is still being published upon very recently. The main modification since then has been the idea that r/K is density dependent. This si actually helpful, since as I have discussed elsewhere, that explains Libertarianism nicely. r/K is in every major textbook, and still taught in every Bio 101 class today.
There has been a strange periodic drive to discredit it in the field, which will pop up in a single zealous individual here and there. Indeed, a year ago a guy even showed up on Wiki, seized control of the r/K page, and rewrote it to say r/K had been discredited and was wrong. Immediately a bunch of professors went to the talk page to bitch, since it is still taught actively in every bio 101 class, as an introduction to evolutionary ecology. Nothing like a student telling you what you are teaching is wrong, according to a guy on Wiki. They are still fighting with him, and the talk page is emblematic of what I am discussing. Most scientists are cool with r/K but every so often a guy comes in, seemingly obsessed with this little theory, trying to say it is totally wrong.
This leads me to suspect several individuals along the way saw this all long before I did, panicked at the implication and tried to discredit r/K preemptively. It survived, even when a guy did some work linking r/K to race (which was very unpopular in academia at the time). r/K lives because it works, though it is now seen as more general, and when you get into the field, they will now do a comprehensive analysis of the entirety of a species’ Life History Traits, to generate a specific picture of it and its relationship to its unique environment. This is mainly because you run into species which break the rules occasionally due to specific nuances of their environment favoring a deviation in traits.
But if you have two groups, which adhere perfectly to the r and K models, it is pretty clear you are looking at adaptations to resource availability. If these are strategies, that is what changes everything.
You are right about the progressives panicking. For sources on the research behind this, go to http://www.anonymousconservative.com/modern.pdf
One problem will be presentation. You need to do it a certain way. I have noticed an amazing evolution of my presentation of this over the last year. I don’t know the material any better, it is just a familiarity with how to present it clearly, and knock the Lib down with one shot, IN A WAY WHICH APPEALS TO THE CROWD. They want a dialog, to make it look like you have left a lot unanswered, or are making it up on the fly, but if you know how to hit them with an answer which answers not only their question, but any question they can think up, they become very dejected, and you will get no resistance. Unfortunately, you not only have to know the theory, but have experience bumping heads with them, so you know what questions are coming, and deal with them before they arise. But if you do, it is incredible. They do not want to be bunny rabbit people.
The biggest problem will be getting Conservatives to see its importance, and move it into the mainstream. It will get there on its own, because it is viral. Once you see it, it infects your mind, and there is no forgetting it. And you will tell someone else at some point. But I would guess it will take a few years to gradually infect everyone on our side, since those who see it are Mechanists who study the world, and not social butterflies who spread stuff mindlessly. That idiotic Gangham Style video just cleared a billion views on youtube, because Social butterflies spread it to each other. People who see this don’t generally operate like that, so this will be slower, unless somebody knows how to get it in front of everyone at once.
But once it is seen, it will hit the debate like a sledgehammer.
“As a side note, spearing progressives with an Evolutionary Biology line of attack will do bonus rhetorical damage, as they are deeply wedded to the ‘conservatives are anti-science and anti-evolution’ idea.”
I think that may be the worst part of it to them. Liberals seem instinctively to see this, in a Way Conservatives don’t. Perhaps because they see the social status implications of it, and the potential it has to out-group them. But having to deny science is a nice touch.
BTTT
Check the Touching the Raw Amygdala link on the right side of my page, and look at the Mike Wallace video a couple of times. Particularly check when he makes the unconscious grimace.
I’ve found the key to doing that is a totally emotionally detached, but focused, hyper-logical presentation. Connell was perfect. He wasn’t out of control emotional, or wild, just matter of fact, and contemptuous.
No offense here - I totally agree.
Unfortunately I can’t get that particular page to load but I’ll bookmark it for later study. Thanks.
bttt
Did you see this?
I subjected this information to some debate testing earlier, and got about the reaction I was expecting. Conservatives sniffing it curiously but unsure what to make of it. Liberals freaking out and calling it pseudoscience.
One lib in partiuclar claimed he’d never heard of such a theory, and he studied environmental science for seven years (before dropping out to surf and smoke the reefer), although he did catch on pretty quick.
Interestingly, when I told him, ‘Look you’re the test subject here, bunny rabbit. I’m curious to see if this Revlon mascara causes irritation and death, not if you like the color, dig?”, that both got a laugh and shut them up.
I’ll continue testing, but my initial impression is that there’s a very steep grade between initial comprehension and acceptance. I think people get the basic idea very quickly, but there needs to be a good intermediate rung to grasp next. Libs wanted to tear it down. Conservatives kind of liked it but weren’t sold.
It’s going to be a new language to most people, so you a good set of layman definitions and talking points will be invaluable. I had to refer people to the Wiki page for more information after sending them to your website, and it was a bit dry. The broader audience will need something more accessible.
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.