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.
IMHO, it was worse than nothing. GWB actually had his DoJ lawyers before the USSC arguing to uphold Wickard v Filburn.
Absolutely. And Bush can take credit for Raich v Gonzales,
which used the Commerce Clause to destroy our republican form of government.
WHY do you believe his so fervently? This is a sincere question.
and getting America out of the 'sewer cities' of America!!!
Huh?
If you haven’t figured it out by now, you never will....
That was the case where it was argued to uphold Wickard v Filburn. That case is a wellspring of constitutional abuse that needs to be stomped into and mud hole and then walked dry, and instead of grasping that opportunity he turn on us.
He also set a precedent with the Patriot Act that Obama used with the ACA of handing Congress a massive piece of legislation and demanding that it be voted on without anyone getting a reasonable opportunity to read it first.
Poll FReep: If the election were held today, who would be your first choice for President of the United States?
...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.
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.