Exactly! Now that Merle knows he's still alive, fasten your seatbelt.
But I digress... Gimme a redneck or two.
Posted on 11/28/2012 7:05:38 AM PST by Lakeshark
I contend that much of the problem with current right-of-center electoral efforts involves conservatism as currently practiced. This has nothing to do with conservative principles, or any public preference for moderation in politics. It has to do with how conservatism is expressed, and can be summed up as conservatism's failure to sell itself.
**snip**
Several common stereotypes of conservatism exist and are utilized to define and destroy conservative candidates and movements.**snip** What all these have in common is that they are clown images -- laughable, easily caricatured, and, like all clowns, sinister and menacing at base..virtually any GOP or conservative spokesman or candidate can be slotted into a particular stereotype, and often more than one.**snip** These images have become received wisdom among the public at large, beyond debate or necessity of proof. They are fully integrated into public consciousness and have virtually become matters of instinct**snip** You can look long and hard to find any sign of effort by the conservative movement to combat or correct these stereotypes**snip** Palin's case marked the nadir of character assassination by the left and in a saner epoch will be looked back on as a milestone in the deterioration of American progressive politics.**snip** The conservative reaction can only be viewed as an expression of cowardice. So the public views it, and they are quite correct. A politician or party that will not stand up for its own reputation is unlikely to stand up for anything at all -- principle, tradition, or the interests of the voters.
**snip**
Leftist control of the conservative image is no longer acceptable.
Conservatives must seize control of their own image, or risk becoming the Mensheviks of the 21st century
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
what should we rebrand conservatives as?
That’s the challenge. I just know that the last thing that most people under 40 want to be is conservative. Imagine trying to sell a collection of Lawrence Welk LP’s to a twenty-year-old. Not gonna happen.
Great article, but it can be boiled down to two words:
FIGHT BACK!
I would suggest “libertarian” if it hadn’t already been hijacked by the Libertarian Party.
I vote for the moderates to go be democrats.
They spend about 80% of their time trying to figure out how to get democrats to like us.
The nerve!!
While I agree with Dunn that conservatives have to do a better job of publicizing conservatism, I fear what you said has more and more bearing on the elections. Sure, Romney and and other Pubbies could have had a more conservative message and the conservative establishment could have done a better job defending conservative candidates. But what if in 2016 we run a conservative candidate (here's where I disagree with Dunn...Romney almost ran away from conservtism), and we get beat again? After another disastrous four years from Obama? What then? It might be time for a split.
And they always do. The thing is, a lot of these media figures who facilitate the Left's mockery of conservatives love mockery itself far more than Leftist politics. Give them something to work with, and Republicans will suddenly find themselves on Comedy Channel all the time, and able to use that direct pipeline to the opinions of young people to change the debate the way Democrats do now.
It isn't gentlemanly behavior in a WASPish sense, as the author points out, but that ship sailed a long time ago.
great show - great character
I personally don’t think beating up on Obama voters is a particularly bright idea. While everybody talks about Reagan, they seem to miss the fact that he respected all the voters whether they were likely to vote for him or not.
Why don’t we call ourselves what we are?
Americans. We start the American Party, founded on principles that America should be a strong prosperous country, and we should take care of ourselves, both as individuals and as a nation.
I suggest we welcome as fellow Americans anyone who shares our basic values.
Good points. But free shyt plays into image. We need to translate the dems into a drunken uncle that promises to give everyone other people’ money once they hit the track.
Another point is we have to work on things we CAN control. We can’t compete on free shyt other than to educate the masses. We can however compete in that our growth policies will provide them a greater liklihood of having a job. So we are in effect offering them tangible material benefits.
I agree. I think the 2 largest indoctrination centers are MSM and schools. The latter is trench warfare in each states must has to be dealt with long term. Whole generations have been brainwashed.
But I think you’re right. We have to take out the MSM through exposure on facebook, twitter, youtube etc and other forms. We also need some wealthy conservatives to help acquire news outlets and establish conservative media.
It’s similar to what I’ve been saying, which is that there’s nothing wrong with our message, but our messaging is horrible. As a group, we seem to think that people will respond to facts and logic. But they don’t, at least not enough of them. We need to appeal to them at an emotional, almost visceral, level, without having to pander or compromise on our core principles.
Of course, it’s relatively easy to say what needs to be done, but unfortunately, I am at a loss for the “how”.
What’s more, hammer the truth that whatever Robin Hood was, he was a thief. The libs’ Robin Hood act is nothing more than robbery. They get away with it for the same reason Robin did: they steal from “The Rich.” But let’s point out that there’s no way they can pay for all their giveaways taking from “The Rich”. Sooner or later, Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class, they’re coming for YOU.
Ronald Reagan created a stereotype of the "welfare queen".
In this age of mass media and digital manipulation, is it so difficult to do this once again?
Bush I put Willie Horton out there. Is it so difficult to do this once again?
The Free Shyt Party can be demonized and beclowned. What is so wrong with a website that says, "Get your free stuff here! Tell us, what do you want us to take from your neighbors and give to you? Its Santa Claus Season!" Use images of kindly men in black suits with Ray-Bans holding clipboards and carrying guns. Get a couple of people supplicating themselves in front of the suited men.
Do a video of some nice middle-class Asian guy going off to his engineering job and being mugged by the "Free Shyt Party" and carjacked. Yes, its an extreme image, but imagine the impact of having folks in vests with "IRS" on it in big yellow letters would have. Then have the "IRS" people giving this guy's stuff to someone else and telling him to get his arse back to work so they can take more stuff away from him.
Get that meme out there and hammer it daily and watch what happens.
“The Free Shyt Party can be demonized and beclowned. What is so wrong with a website that says, “Get your free stuff here! Tell us, what do you want us to take from your neighbors and give to you? Its Santa Claus Season!” Use images of kindly men in black suits with Ray-Bans holding clipboards and carrying guns. Get a couple of people supplicating themselves in front of the suited men. “
My favorite of your several great ideas.
Might not be able get through to the Obama-phone lady, but a lot of the people out there getting government freebies have been educated in government schools.
They think the government just has a stash, and it needs to be pounded into their heads that the government can only give away to them what they take from someone else.....
Exactly! Now that Merle knows he's still alive, fasten your seatbelt.
But I digress... Gimme a redneck or two.
If we don't take out the media, it won't matter how well crafted our image becomes, or how pure we become.
That is what I have been about since Carter Administration times. Not that I can claim any success but I have made intellectual progress, at least.The first and fundamental point to make is that if you want to preserve the First Amendment, there is no point in going after fiction, whether books, TV, or movie. And in fact as far as nonfiction goes, they will stand or fall on their own merit, or lack thereof. Therefore, we should focus our attention on the topical nonfiction. To put it plainly, journalism.
If you can’t take on journalism head on, you are nowhere. If you can, then the whole problem of “the media” would be tractable.
The vulnerabilities of journalism are:
The third vulnerability, independence, was subverted by the advent of the wire services, particularly the Associated Press. Adam Smith pointed out that
- journalism needs the presumption of objectivity to attract an audience,
- journalism needs the presumption of objectivity to retain broadcast licenses.
- journalism needs the presumption of independence, so that when one news report quotes another news report, the effect is cumulative and the quoting newspaper can rely on the existence of the quoted report as good-faith reason to believe that the report is true.
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Wealth of nations, Book I, Ch 10Since the AP newswire constitutes a 24/7/365 virtual meeting of all the major news outlets, the presumption has to be that all major journalism outlets are in cahoots as regarding anything which touches the collective interests of journalists.The interests of journalists are to attract audiences to advertisers and to promote the influence of journalists (since “making a difference” is the driving motivation of aspiring journalists). Rules of journalism such as “If it bleeds, it leads' and "'Man Bites Dog', not ‘Dog Bites Man’” have nothing to do with objectivity and everything to do with interesting an audience. In fact they promote sensationalism rather than serious analysis. Since journalists do not get “in the arena” and make tough decisions in a timely manner before all facts are known in order to provide the public with food, shelter, clothing, water, and security, but are eager to set themselves up as superior to those who do, journalists are eager to point out the errors and failings of the people who work to a bottom line. There are others besides journalists who do the same thing - union leaders, socialist politicians, college professors, even high school teachers.
It is no accident that those who promote the same interests as journalists do get positive labels from journalists: “moderate,” “progressive,” “liberal,” . . .
And of course those who defend interests which journalists attack get negative labels such as “right wing,” “conservative,” extreme,” . . .Viewed from that perspective, journalism is not at all independent - individual news outlets subordinate their individuality to the Associated Press consensus, and journalism as a whole promotes the Democratic Party because the Democratic Party promotes the interests of journalism as a whole.
The Associated Press and its entire membership promote the idea that “journalists are objective” for the very good reason that the individual member of the AP need the credulity of the public for reports written by reporters whom the editor of the individual news outlet not only does not employ but does not even know. But there is a logical oxymoron entailed: you cannot become a reporter for an AP member news outlet without knowing that the AP will claim that you are objective, and that makes accepting employment by an AP news outlet tantamount to claiming objectivity for yourself. But it is impossible even to attempt to be objective without being open about the motives and incentives you have which might tend to influence your perspective. And you cannot admit nonobjective motives and simultaneously claim to be objective.
This shows that journalists, all protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, do not even attempt to be objective. They cannot. It is impossible. Even when they think they are giving “the other side of the story,” they do not do it because they cannot. Since they “know” that they are objective, they do not accept the legitimacy of any other side of the story and, such being the case, they cannot avoid setting up mere straw man versions of the (“conservative") arguments they have already rejected.
One would hope, given this ammunition, that it would be possible to counterattack in any place where facts and logic, as opposed to PR, might prevail. I have reference to the Supreme Court. At least as long as there is no conservative retirement there . . .
I really gotta give the makers of the show props for fair treatment of Redneck Daryl. Even with SS lightning bolts on the tank of his cycle they don’t portray him as a racist.
Brother Merle on the other hand is an all around piece of crap but he does get some great one liners. When he turned the walker loose on Glenn “He’s gonna be hungry again in an hour.”
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.