Posted on 07/19/2017 5:01:57 AM PDT by LRoggy
Draining The Swamp 2.0
After viewing this latest debacle with health care and now probably looking at a tax debate that will likely cut corporate taxes while not doing anything for the middle class, we on the Right significantly need to start to understand the difference between strategy and tactics. The future of our country requires it.
And that will mean we have to look within ourselves as conservatives. Sometimes we think so purely about our beliefs that we confuse strategy and tactics. A simple definition of the difference between the two would be that strategy is how we view our philosophy overall and tactics are those things we need to do that sometimes don’t jibe with our beliefs.
A great version of this is our belief in free markets and the belief that the ‘market will take care of things over the long run’. For many things that is true but we our kidding ourselves if we think that works 100% of the time and that the transition is painless. If so-called ‘free trade’ hasn’t taught us that yet then we will never learn. Anyone who has had a parent or grandparent who was ripped off by an unscrupulous financial advisor or a crooked businessperson knows that rules and regulations do have a role that the free market can’t provide.
One thing we might have to accept is that money in politics is hurting the ‘drain the swamp’ approach pretty substantially. Yet all of us basically cheered the Citizens United decision because it was a fit with our strategic thinking, but at the tactical level it is killing this part of the Trump agenda. Yes, we might be able to run the type of commercials that hurts a Hillary Clinton but did we win the battle only to lose the war? Did we open the door to allow the Establishment, defined as the politicians in all capacities, the media, the lobbyists and the big money special interest groups to make this a money battle that we ordinary citizens can’t win? Did we hand over policy fully to corporate lobbyists, unions and other big money interests solely so we could have a seat at the table . . . and get outvoted every time we want to change the system because we are not as organized and issue targeted as they are?
Here's something to ponder.
We on the Right seriously need to think about fully public funded political campaigns with NO POLITICAL DONATIONS being allowed.
You might think this is crazy.
But if we are truly confident our ideas are better than theirs then why wouldn’t we want to do this? In a day and age of the technology that gives us YouTube to spread our message without cable news and newspaper filtering, Twitter to get a message out quickly and cheaply and other ways to bond with potential voters why wouldn’t we want to cut substantially the influence of those who can write checks? How much quicker can we make this a debate of ideas than by eliminating the ability of those with an agenda to spend obscene amounts of money lying about things like throwing Grandma over the cliff or that Social Security reform will kill people.
Those arguments are a heck of a lot less effective if they need to be defended without big money behind them. The less the money the more the facts take over the argument. And if we truly believe the facts are on our side we should not be afraid to make them the central decision of the campaign, instead of the silly mud slinging. It also means that the ‘political middle’, where Rush used to argue that a moderate was someone who didn’t believe in anything, loses their ability to trade off votes for campaign contributions. Neither a Trump supporter OR a Sanders supporter tended to write a big check and both sides were far more interested in debating their strategic intent instead of delving into the tactics. Sanders lost because of this as the Clintonistas were able to tactically take away his possible primary victory. Our side tried tactically to defeat Trump but our grass roots wouldn’t go along with it, and our side are pretty much political pussies anyway so it wasn’t likely to win that battle.
But now we are truly finding out how bad our side of the Swamp is. We tend to hold our side to a higher standard on this because we just assumed the other side would be the political equivalent of the wrestling heel and would lie, cheat and steal (and possibly even kill if the Seth Rich case is truly investigated properly) to win. But we now have seen how the Murkowskis (like we should have EVER needed a reminder about that family!), the Sasse’s, McCain’s, etc., will serve their lobbyist masters more than their constituents. We already know the other side is hook, line and sinker for Silicon Valley, Hollywood, Public Sector Unions and Yacht Club Environmentalists.
Draining the swamp is going to require we go outside our comfort level and take all steps necessary to suppress the money flow to politicians. Quickly. The benefits are far more reaching than many appreciate:
No political contributions means taking away a major revenue stream from the same mainstream media we all have come to loathe. It’s one of the ‘ultimates’ in hitting the media where it really hurts, in the pocketbook.
Limiting money means someone running for office must choose carefully how they use that money. We were all grossed out by the money wasted on Georgia 06 earlier this year. Messaging becomes more factual and less personal destruction approaches. Our side wins that battle.
The Public Sector will eventually take a hit in their influence. If they can’t give money to defend their interests it will even allow some Democrats to be willing to take them on at times. It’s not perfect and it won’t be a lot but these battles are won at the margin.
A politician can actually focus on debating what THEY believe, not what their money masters believe. That will make an elected official more responsive to their voters.
And the stripping of money also makes an incumbent less likely to be re-elected if they ignore their voters and easier to run against, both at the primary level and the general election level.
We conservatives will not win every battle and we are not right on all things. But we are definitely screwing up on money in politics if we want to drain the swamp.
Time to re-think.
Swamp Monsters than need to be primaried out.
John McCain
Lindsey Graham
Lisa Murkowski
Olympia Snowe
To be replaced by the latest sell outs? It’s the system now, not the people. Take away the punch bowl.
At least we send a message, that actions have consequences.
To primary these traitors we need to do serious intervention on the mentally unbalanced citizens who elected them. The real struggle is with the hearts and minds of the electorate. That is the battle that must be won.
That would require a revision to the First Amendment to keep out independent private expenditures (a k a “free speech”). Connecticut has a public funding version for local candidates which is generally more effective, as most local races don’t draw as many independent expenditures. The law hasn’t helped conservatives much, and it hasn’t cut down on lobbying.
Its the people in CONgress, and the way they have disconnected themselves from their constituents, and became representatives for big business and foreign entities.The laws they pass on us, they exempt themselves of. There are many, from inside trading to healthcare etc. There is no penalty for their actions. Term limits? Who in CONgress would vote for their own term limits?
——That is the battle that must be won.——
Every politician knows the battle can’t be won unless there is blood flowing in the big city streets.
The solution is not to fight and win but rather to buy. Hearts and minds are purchased.
The struggle has degenerated into “how much can we reduce the purchasing of hearts and minds”
It is a Cesspool, not a Swamp.
Snowe retired four years ago.
We can start by pointing out a simple fact . . .
When Barack Obama took office in January 2009 United Healthcare stock sold at $30, now it is $188.
We upended the entire health care delivery system so that we could significantly expand Medicaid and add about 3,500,000 other subsidized privately insured.
And gave big profits to the insurers. Any wonder why they would push back against Ted Cruz’s approach of offering non-compliant Obamacare policies if they offered an Obamacare one? To PROTECT their higher profit margin policies. That’s why they are also pulling out where they can. They collected their premiums up front and are hightailing out before the claims start.
There were about 67,000 votes cast in the 1800 presidential election -- at a time when the population of the U.S. was more than 5 million. Think about that for a moment.
Back then, you had to be a property owner to be eligible to vote. Now you don't even have to be a citizen - or ALIVE.
Sorry I meant Susan Collins.
Of course, none named are up for reelection in 2018. Graham and Collins are up in 2020. Plan ahead.
Nailed it!
I listen to Mark Levine sometimes, and this post reflects why his idea for a convention of states is incredibly dangerous.
He thinks he is going to end up with a conservative, small government document
What he is going to end up with is a constitution that greatly regulates elections, greatly restricts trade, and locks in government regulations for eternity. And it’s going to happen with “conservatie” support.
This post again proves my belief: Single Payor healthcare is going to come to this country in the next decade, and it’s going to happen with mass Republican support.
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.