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)
I kind of see us collapsing financially first before any of that other stuff happens.
Abortion is not going to be legal in this election cycle and we just lost a SC position. That’s why it is imperative we win so that we can stop that situation getting worse.
I am concerned about how we can win. Running on abortion or gay marriage is putting the cart before the horse. If we lose another SC position, it won’t matter what your position on abortion or gay marriage is, you’ll not win a single case for the next 30-40 years, maybe never.
>> Hayworth let the campaign’s terms include those wedge issues
Kinda’ asinine. The wedge issues in question are not a ‘problem’ in Republican primaries.
Hold on. He didn’t say “won’t govern on”.
You can have principles all day long but if you don’t win your principles will keep getting steamrolled by SC justices appointed by Democrats.
Thank you. You said a lot of stuff better than I have been able to.
Yes fiscal issues are fundamentally important, and so are issues that go the foundations of freedom established and expressed in the Declaration Of Independence.
Some people say that politics is an expression of economic relationship and realities.
I believe that this is true.
However, philosophical ideas and political philosophy are equally important.
The relationship is that the state engine is economics, and the state dynamic direction is philosophically framed. JMHO
It’s must be nice to be able to delude oneself into believing that politicians without the courage to even talk about these issues will have the spine to fight for these issues when they govern.
The reason we have these SC justices is precisely because we have spineless purported “pro-life” republicans who don’t even have the courage to mount a filibuster.
Horse hockey. I’ll be damned if I’ll take the advice of an Obama supporter. If he wants to fight for fiscal responsibility more power to him. But don’t come in here telling me I should give up the fight for Liberty to win an election. Any election that includes giving up the fight for Life and Liberty to win is not worth winning.
RINOs and Obama supporters are the enemy within. The enemy can KMA!!
Damn the naysayers!! Full steam ahead!!
Rebellion is brewing!!
Karl used “wedge issues” wrong.
Many of the arguments are taking place I think because people are using “wedge issues” differently.
“Wedge issues” are issues used to split the voters of the other party.
Talking about the craziest thing the Democrats have done is to use a “wedge issue”. You say to Democrat voters “your people did that, do you agree with that” You get the Democrat politician to talk about that crazy thing the Dems did. Put him or her on the spot. Get that Democrat talking about something that you know a sizable number of their voters won’t agree with.
One problem with using a wedge issue is that it’s not necessarily an important issue.
Also - issues and positions are different. Issues are what the candidate is spending time talking about, making tv commercials about, etc. Positions are the beliefs on any number of different things.
Keep conservative positions on abortion, gay marriage. Do not use abortion and gay marriage as issues.
Good points on the recent D.C. rally.
No one is saying the ‘wedge issues’ are not important.
They obviously are .. on both sides.
What is being said is that in this election cycle they are not the issues most likely to get the most votes.
It’s the economy, and debt and long term financial security of the nation that people are worried about right now. This is a good time to peel away those people who are worried about financial issues and win with those issues.
Guess it will take plainer talk to get it through to you. We’re not interested in electing more RINOs!! RINOs are the enemy!!
Eff the RINOs!! Full steam ahead!!
Rebellion is brewing!!
I wouldn’t give a hoot in hell for a RINO or a RINO supporter!! Those who want to give up the battle for Life and Liberty can get the hell OFF FR!!
upsetting as it may be, this writer is correct
Cool. I personally think that the tea party is doing great and wouldn’t change a thing with them.
The article was a little messed up because not only did he get wedge issues wrong, he seemed a bit confused about tea party and republican candidate. He doesn’t really draw distictions there between the 2.
The tea party message isn’t precisely fiscal responsibility, although it does include that. It also includes limited government, limited to the Constitution. The tea party message is a popular one in 2010 and republican candidates should say things in the tv commercials that are in line with the tea party message.
I’d argue that the Republican candidates should take positions that socons will like on abortion and gay marriage. Don’t run away from those positions. Don’t hide your positions. But don’t spend money telling everyone your positions on those issues. The Republican candidate is about Limited Constitutional Goverment - or however the core message is worded - and stick to it. Limited Constitutional Government is what people want right now after a year or 2 of Obama.
The Democrats will not want to argue against Limited Constitutional Government. They might think that abortion and gay marriage are wedge issues for them, and they might want to talk about those issues. Republican candidates do not want to spend time talking about those things. Get back on message - Limited Constitutional Government.
Must be running scared that religious Americans might actually change things. If you prefer to be areligious, fine, but religion defines a person in many ways. True christianity has brought freedom to the whole world over the centuries, mostly before the 20th century, after which it began to be practiced in form and not spirit. Any time that religious fervor picks up, it can be hijacked by legalists who worship the tenets of it, but don’t practice them from the heart. True religion is compassionate, but doesn’t overlook the sin. They have compassion on the individual, but in love try to help the individual to overcome the sin.
There is no reason to put down our Christian religious beliefs as if they do not have a place in our government. Just the opposite. If you do a complete study, and not from a leftisit point of view, you will see that many tenets of the US Constitution originate in the Bible, as it was the Bible that steered many settlers to the New World to enjoy religious freedom. It was the Bible that framed the documents called the Magna Charta, the Declaration of Independence, etc.
If you strip religious significance from our Constituion, you’ll have a dead piece of legalism. Today, we have tried to water down the religious effects on the Constitution and what we have is lawlessness unequaled to any period before in our history.
It’s time to have a true spiritual renewal in America. Actually, it’s way overdue!
Although the author is right in saying that the core tea party message is a winner, and the Republican candidates should stay on message, I don’t think he’s right in saying that gay marriage can’t be discussed without using religion.
1) Gay marriage is extinctionary.
If everyone did that, stuck with it, didn’t “cheat”, humans would go exinct in about 120 years or so.
That’s a bad result. We don’t want that. So, as a matter of public policy, we don’t encourage extinctionary behaviors. In fact, we should be encouraging stable, procreative behaviors.
2) Marriage is a union of man and woman. Always has been.
And gays want to change the meaning of the word. I’ll pass.
3) The people don’t want it. It’s been voted down everywhere.
I don’t think gay marriage should be used as a wedge issue this time around. Limited Constitutional Government, the tea party message, is a strong winning message this year, and the candidate should stay on message. Also, transsexuals is a better wedge issue than gay marriage. That, too, can be discussed without religion.
I agree with you that moral issues are too big to be solved at the ballot box.
We need a reawakening to solve those issues. And in fact we need one now.
The thing is, I don’t know anyone who is prepared to concede the moral or “social” issues; probably more than ever we’re inclined to fight. If a Repub is embarrassed to defend our positions across the board we’re probably going to drop him like a hot rock. There might be some exceptions in states like California and Mass, but as a rule if you’re a Mitch Daniels who doesn’t want to defend the natural order, we’re probably not going to get too enthusiastic about you.
We’re in a particularly obstreperous mood, not willing to compromise much. We’re tired of pols who are embarrassed of us and we’re looking for a fight. We’ll start with weak sisters in the GOP and clean them out, as many as we can get. Then we’ll work on Democrats. You may not think that is very pragmatic, but we’re not in a pragmatic mood. We want our country back.
It was. . . that sentiment in the Declaration of Independence which gave liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but, I hope, to the world, for all future time. It was that which gave promise that in due time the weight would be lifted from the shoulders of all men. This is a sentiment embodied in the Declaration of Independence. Now, my friends, can this country be saved upon that basis? If it can, I will consider myself one of the happiest men in the world, if I can help to save it. If it cannot be saved upon that principle, it will be truly awful. But if this country cannot be saved without giving up that principle, I was about to say I would rather be assassinated on this spot than surrender it.
Yes, they are....ON THEIR OWN. Not due to anyones campaigning, but because they've lost jobs, their homes, their 401, etc.
If they want to continue down that path and not vote for someone because they are pro-life and anti-homo marriage, then they stay stuck.
But I highly doubt they would if there's no food to put on the table.
But I’m not supposed to oppose Islamic religion or Sharia law that lops of the heads of women who don’t come into line. So religious tolerance only applies to those who don’t use the name of Jesus?
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.