Posted on 08/29/2010 9:24:21 PM PDT by Lorianne
You're not going to want to hear this.
Nonetheless, you have to.
If you want to win - indeed, if you want to make any sort of serious inroad into the American Political Process, you need to read this, you need to listen, and you need to adopt this path.
If you do not, you will be marginalized into irrelevance, no matter what else you do.
Here it is:
You must discard - intentionally - all "wedge issues" as points of debate, discussion, or campaigning. You know what these issues are - they fall broadly into the category of religion in one form or another.
These are issues such as abortion and gay rights (in all it's forms, including marriage debates), but is by no means limited to these two. In short, if there's a religious basis for your position, you must not campaign on it, and indeed you must pointedly refuse to discuss it.
The Tea Party began as a protest over bailouts and handouts - that is, theft and corruption within our markets, government and economy. This is a winning position with 90% of the American Body Politic.
Any candidate who runs on these issues - and these issues alone, promising to stop it and lock up the scammers - all of them - wins.
As soon as you bring the other issues that everyone wants to talk about into this, you will lose.
Here's why.
These are called "wedge issues" for a reason.
What you personally believe is irrelevant to the political process. These issues are used by the two main political parties to get the electorate to divide on a 50/50 basis - thus leaving them having to persuade exactly one person of their position on some other issue to win.
You cannot win such a contest. At best you can force one of the other parties - the one that most agrees with you - to lose. The reason is simple - you will split that half of the electorate, which means the other party - the one that disagrees with your position on those issues - wins the election.
Drill this into your head folks:
If you allow these issues to become part of your campaign, you will not only lose you will cause the party that most-agrees with you to lose.
I know this is going to be unpopular, but it needs to be said. I've seen this happening in some of the local Tea Party groups, and it saddens me. The local Niceville branch here featured people talking about "natural law" as an important qualifying factor for political candidacy, as just one of many examples. There were times I felt like I had walked into a Baptist sermon.
The Tea Party and other political expressions like it are, of course, free to run on whatever platform they'd like, and to back candidates based on whatever they'd like. But if you're going to do this, then you'd be wise to try to take over the Republican Party instead of being "independent" or any other sort of "outside" influence, because it is the only way you can win with this approach.
The Tea Party infiltrating The Republican establishment is a long shot. Witness John McCain, who made a campaign spectacle out of bailing out the banks. How's JD Hayworth doing in challenging him? He lost, right? How'd that happen? The same way it always happens: Hayworth let the campaign's terms include those wedge issues, and then got tattoed by the guy with the bigger warchest and the ability to threaten people politically.
You either change the terms of the debate and the issues upon which the election is decided or you lose.
It's that simple.
(excerpted)
No one makes any single issue his only issue. Don’t forget that the thing that sets America apart from all other nations is the fact that we were founded on the principle that all men are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are the rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. If we give up the fight for any of our unalienable rights, America is no more. Our rights are granted by God, not government, and the purpose of the Tea party movement is to preserve, protect and defend these rights for ourselves and our posterity. And who are we defending them from? The government. And the sleazy politicians who would like us to not defend them so it would make it easier for them to get elected. No thanks. A man who cannot or will not defend our unalienable rights — ALL of them — does not deserve our support and should NOT be elected.
Lest we forget our purpose:
Damn the RINOs, full steam ahead!!
Rebellion is brewing!!
The sneering I referenced occurred during the presidential election.
I didn’t get that he was saying to hide your beliefs, only that you shouldn’t emphasize them over fiscal issues.
I disagree about Dems not bein persuadable on fiscal issues. I see that many Dems are coming around to conservative viewpoints (or at least beginning to have doubts about Keynsianism), and now is the time to strike while these issues are in the fore.
I tend to agree, somewhat. I wouldn’t want to see abortion and gay marriage become the main issues, but I don’t want them to be nonexistant either. But lets not forget Denninger voted for obama.
You’re right they will try. You don’t have to hide anything, just refuse to be defined by social issues. It’s called keeping on message ... keep on hammering on fiscal issues and don’t get defined otherwise.
Marketing basically.
troublemaker
“I didn’t get that he was saying to hide your beliefs, only that you shouldn’t emphasize them over fiscal issues.”
Uh, did you actually read what he said?
Here it is.
“You must discard - intentionally - all “wedge issues” as points of debate, discussion, or campaigning, ..... you must not campaign on it, and indeed you must pointedly refuse to discuss it.”
Discard them and refuse to discuss them, that sounds like hiding them or abandoning them to me.
Yes, but Lorianne you need leaders who'll stand strong on moral clarity on social issues. Who'll say that the family unit must be preserved, the unborn must be protected, and that homosexual marriage contradicts centuries of civilization.
All the tax cuts and limited government won't mean a thing if abortion is still legal and gays are allowed to marry and adopt kids everywhere. It'll just mean the U.S. will implode in population and then the Muslims and illegals will take over.
Hogwash. The tea party movement is NOT about republicans or libertarians. It’s about being anti progressive. If certain aspects of the tea party make republicans uncomfortable...TOUGH TITY. Republicans need their ass kicked once in awhile too.
I guess I was unclear. Yes these are big issues, and that is exactly why no one is going to run on them.
Instead they will run on “balanced budget”, “small government”, but I'm saying that this actually means very little unless the core fiscal issues are addressed. This is what has been happening, and the result is where we are now.
Being elected running on just “balanced budget”, “small government” without detailing the more core issues gets you elected, but the people ‘win’ nothing because these slogans are easily sidestep by ‘unexpected’ circumstances that always seem to occur.
Discard them as points of debate ... not discard them from your personal beliefs (which is what many here are trying to make it seem).
I’m sorry, maybe not you, there are too many responses for me to keep track of who said what.
What I’m getting he is is saying is don’t be DEFINED by social issues politically. Don’t let them pigeon hole you as ___ social issue and co-opt your fiscal message.
It’s about marketing.
I never said they were. I'm just recognizing that the GOP is merely the vehicle for the movement to win office.
It’s about being anti progressive. If certain aspects of the tea party make republicans uncomfortable...TOUGH TITY. Republicans need their ass kicked once in awhile too.
Hey I agree.
Well ok I agree with you there.
But either fiscal issue are important or they are not.
I say they are because this country is about to collapse ... others may not be worried about that or they may welcome it for all I know.
I agree that it is hard to campaign on the REAL financial issues. They don’t lend themselve to soundbytes ... which is why we always fall back on the very soundbytable social issues.
Great post and I know a lot of them in banking.
A lot of Obama voters are coming around to conservative points of view on financial matters. We should capitalize on that and not reject people who are waking up the financial side ... even if they are not waking up on social issues.
Here’s how Karl defined “wedge issues”
“These are called “wedge issues” for a reason.
What you personally believe is irrelevant to the political process. These issues are used by the two main political parties to get the electorate to divide on a 50/50 basis - thus leaving them having to persuade exactly one person of their position on some other issue to win.”
Nope, not what “wedge issues” are.
A better definition of “wedge issues” might be something like this, although someone might be able to come up with a better one.
“Wedge issues” are issues that party x uses against party y when party y has taken a position that a significant number of party y’s voters don’t agree with. Good wedge issues are not ones that the country is split on 50/50, good wedge issues are ones where 60%, 70%, 80% of the public has one position and party y has the opposite postition.
The best wedge issue right now is probably transsexuals.
In Maine, and maybe other parts of the country, Pre-op transsexual men can use the womens room in restaurants. The Democrats decided that men were in fact women. In Maine, in the Gubernatorial race, LePage can ask his Democratic opponent, Libby Mitchell, why she thinks that men should use the women’s room. Use the wedge issue, transsexuals, to force the opponent to say something, anything, that will piss off either the crazy homosexual activists or the more normal Democrat voters. The “wedge” goes into the solid block of Democrats, and wedges the sides apart. Pro-transsexual Democrats and Anti-transsexual Democrats are wedged apart by the issue of transsexuals.
I’m not suggesting that LePage use this wedge issue. I’m not suggesting that Republicans use wedge issues this election cycle.
Karl did say a couple things there that are somewhat close to the truth. What he could’ve said, or almost said, was that Republican candidates should not use wedge issues this election cycle, because the tea party’s message of limited government, or “do not like what Obama is doing and will keep him from doing any more of it”, or whatever the core tea party message is, is a winner. And, as is typically the case, it’s important to say on message.
So, talking about anything that isn’t Obama sucks is a dangerous strategy, whether it’s mosques in nyc or gay marriage, because it is a possible distraction from the core message. The core message is simple and powerful enough to win. If it gets cluttered up with islam and gays, people might not remember what the core message is.
What’s the point of having principles that you refuse to talk about, and won’t govern based on. There is no difference between that and abandoning them altogether.
no it’s not about marketing. it’s about being genuine.
Karl used wedge issues wrong and I think you are too.
You’re talking about “red meat for the base”.
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.