Right. Of course we should tell people that what we stand for is the betterment of all, but it's through freedom not more government. If you go down that "compassionate" road too far, however, you're accused of not caring enough and not enough "empathy" without this or that government program. Freedom, it must be said, is not for the faint of heart. It takes guts and courage. To be the land of the free, we must be the home of the brave. This "empathy" stuff coming from government is really a weak and weakening message IMO.
Reagan won the election but also won his eight years of over-the-top popularity and skewered the Leftists because he clearly communicated directly with the American people all the time (I feel Palin is the one who does this best now). He basically communicated two things:
1) What we conservatives stand for: Freedom to keep your hard-earned money and live your lives the way you choose.
2) What the Liberals stand for: They say "empathy" but don't believe them - they use that to take power and your hard-earned money to rule over you.
By about halfway through Reagan's presidency, the term "Liberals" was pretty much a dirty word and the Leftists ran from the label. Reagan did it by constantly shining the light on who these guys really are and then who we Americans really are. Make this our message and we win. "Empathy" is off point and too "nanny state"-ish.
I'm going on and on but I have to add something. Reagan was smarter than the average bear - he just didn't let on as such. He believed in precision whether is t was precision in the intelligence community or precision in thought and message. We need precision, not vagueness. Libs love vagueness. "Empathy" in government confuses things, is vague, and tends to play into the Left.
“I have to add something. Reagan was smarter than the average bear - he just didn’t let on as such. He believed in precision whether is t was precision in the intelligence community or precision in thought and message. We need precision, not vagueness. Libs love vagueness. “Empathy” in government confuses things, is vague, and tends to play into the Left.”
You make good points throughout, and I think we’re essentially getting at the same things. I just think in Bachmann’s case (being the most representative of the Tea Party movement currently in the race, along with Herman Cain), there is a separate element. The left- especially recently- has demonized the Tea Party as a purely “slash-and-burn” movement designed merely to dramatically cut the size of Federal government, “making millions of Americans needlessly suffer in the process.”
Making massive cuts to bloated government, however, is predicated on the assumption that we will follow Reagan’s successful, and repeatable, model of creating 21 million jobs (and not the piddly amount “created” under Obama- which is actually a net loss of millions of jobs)- and this is where “precision” is needed. I’m ok with calling it “empathy” for understanding the concerns of everyday Americans, but I think your concerns with the term are certainly valid, especially if the term starts morphing into social policies.