You raise some good points which reveal that you have done some serious thinking.
I agree with your questioning about how we grow to an electoral majority. I too have used the metaphor of the big tent and I agree with you. In my judgment one does not extend the roof of the tent willy-nilly and hope to drape sufficient yardage over the heads of a portion of the electorate to gain 50+1, rather, the idea is to open the flaps to let the people come in who will come and if they are attracted to the saliency of the message. In other words, do not pander, proclaim.
And we proclaim an attractive message because "we clearly define what we are for".
As to the social issues, there is no question that we are opening ourselves to real and substantial dangers, especially from the media. They will give legitimacy to their most naked kind of demagoguery directed against advocates of social issues on the right. Nevertheless, I think there is some social issues which we must take a stand on. My rule which determines that which we should stand fast on and that which we should give way on has to do with the presence or absence of an identifiable victim. In other words, a libertarian test. So I would fight to the death to oppose abortion but I am not particularly disturbed by the prospect of homosexual marriage because I do not see the nexus between making that union legitimate and a threat to heterosexual marriage, this though I am fully aware as a student of The Frankfurt School that the object of the left is to undermine those institutions which support capitalism and democracy, the family being prominent among them.
We face, as you point out, a partisan guerrilla war against us waged by the media which is difficult to cope with. We have tried ignoring them to death and that has failed several consecutive elections. My recommendation is that we attack them personally. We make them pay a price. We try to destroy their careers. We make life ugly for them every time they stick their heads over the parapet. We do to them what they have been doing to us. We go on Meet the Press and we attack NBC and MSNBC and we attack David Gregory. We quote him back to himself. We ask him if he will repudiate the statements of Andrea Mitchell or does NBC stand by them?
Finally, we are now four years away from the next presidential election in two years away from the next by election. We have time to sort out which issues we want to run on which is somewhat different than the issues we want to ground ourselves upon. I have suggested that there be many different groups in addition to the Tea Party Movement because I presume that the Tea Party Movement will not want to depart from its strict adherence to economic issues. That leaves the field open to other groups to do what the NRA has done, identify themselves with an issue and run with it. That is in effect what the Democrat party has done by empowering all their special interest groups. By the time of the election, we should have found out what works and run with that.
Thanks for your very thoughtful reply.
_________
” - - - As to the social issues, there is no question that we are opening ourselves to real and substantial dangers, - - - “
Your reply has many topics, so I will start with a discussion based on your above quote.
I will make the following assumptions:
1.) The primary goal of any Federal Politician is to be re-elected for as many times as possible.
2.) A secondary goal of any Federal Politician is to vote as a block to support the leaders of his or her Political Party.
Discussion: Based on the above assumptions, I derive that the Federal Politician seeks out the following:
a.) topics that have maximum chaos;
b.) the most unresolvable problems;
c.) the most emotional topics;
d.) the problems that lawyers are the least qualified to solve;
c.) and problems that have the least to do with the basic functions of governing.
For example, Zipper-Boy Clinton chose as his maximum chaos topic that of “The National Problem of Teenage Smoking.” Teenagers are hard-wired to rebel, parents are hard-wired to protect, and inhaled smoke will always damage human lungs. Thus, for generations to infinity Federal Politicians have a campaign topic that they can chose sides on depending on whatever the emotions are of the audience at hand.
The above example satisfies all of the criteria listed above, and additionally the problem can never be solved.
Problems that have the intent of malice are becoming more and more common as Federal Politicians keep searching for the ultimate topic that will bring them complete job security for the rest of their lives and their descendants career lives as well.
Health has:
A.) nothing to do with governing;
B.) disease will always be part of the human condition;
C.) and is the most personal data that is available on any given person.
Thus, Federal Politicians ‘with malice for all’ proposed Hilly’care,’ Romney’care,’ and the ultimate: Obama’care.’
The above example of the power of a Social Issue to win elections for Federal Politicians and to exert maximum control over the entire population, requires that we learn a more effective way of excising Social Issues from the sphere is governing our Nation.
For example, IF we chose to filter ALL Social Issues through the test of Financial Stewardship, THEN we we have a viable basis to oppose or promote any given topic, especially Social Issues.
By making the finance the common denominator to all Social Issues, the Federal Politician will be held accountable for any financial impact of Social Issues that they oppose or support, and thus avoid the endless morality aspect of that Social Issue.
In summary, I am of the opinion that our Conservative Base would be more effective with fewer Social Issues, and then support or oppose the Social Issues on a financial basis.
BTW, “Savings” never appear on the financial balance of any known business in the World. We should be like them: It is either a liability or an asset, a loss or a profit.
Our job is to hold our elected Financial Stewards accountable for their actions and inactions.
_________
I Invite all FReepers to ponder all these points and join in the discussion.
It is very easy to have two monologues on FR, but oft’ times difficult to have a rational dialogue.
The intent of this dialogue is to establish a Conservative Base that is focused on what needs to be done to put America back on the right track that our sorry Federal Politicians in “both” Political Parties have kept us off of for decades.
What say all of you?