Replies

Have you ever worked on a political campaign?

Perhaps you did not understand my post. You asked for feedback on your article. I raised some questions and issues that I thought might help make the article more readable or understandable (at least for me). If you find any of the points valid, then by all means, please address them further in the article.

For example, in the first paragraph, it states:
Most people vote according to the patterns of subjective personal identification.

I found the syntax awkward. The word "people" often means "group of persons" or in this case, "the body of enfranchized citizens". This was reinforced by the use of "the patterns". But then the sentence refers to "subjective personal" (itself a seemingly redundant phrase). The transistion from the "many" to the "one" was not clear. So, I was awkwardly trying to ask if you meant that the body politic (the "many") votes according to well-defined group identities (the "many"). Your explanation points out that you mean something different - individuals (the "one") vote according to personal (the "one") identification with some external issue (e.g, pro-life), group (e.g., racial identity), history (e.g, parental party affiliation), or pattern (e.g., ??). Is there any significance in a top-down, macro analysis versus a bottom-up, micro analysis? Perhaps there is a way to make it clearer to a novice reader. I'm not sure how many people, even those of us who have worked in a campaign, are familiar with the meaning of the phrase "subjective personal identification".

In general, my points were asking for more information or clarification of points. I tend to believe that arguments are more believable when the key points are well-sourced or explained in detail. If you agree, then I, for one, would appreciate the additional info. I am anxious to learn more about "The Big Lie" which I associate with Joseph Goebbels.

Personally, I tend to believe that "The Big Truth" is: Users of "The Big Lie" are Nazis. This simplification makes for "sound bite" clarity. The "attack" insures it gets air play. It's sure to infuriate the Left (hehe). It might even stop them from relying on "The Big Lie". When most individuals are not inclined to engage in "deep analysis," little else may get through the noise.

As Churchill said, "A lie gets halfway around the world before truth has a chance to get its pants on." Appeals to rational thought or reflection are simply lost in the volume of attacks from the Left. Coupled with a left-biased (or at best, stupidly neutral) media, the best that conservatives can hope for, even when profoundly right, is a 50-50 tie. And guess what, that's essentially what we have in the US.

I think your point as to my first paragraph is well taken. I will probably revise it before the day is out.

But so far as macro analysis vs. micro analysis, I would shun the former except as a recorder of historic trends in the aggregate. In preparing for an election, they are of interest; but in the actual day to day campaign, they tend to lead one into the same errors as the poll driven campaign. True political leaders, I think, have an instinct as to how the individual voter is wrapped, and find the way to so structure issues, as to create new "macro" patterns--if you like the term macro--rather than rely solely on yesterday's. It is a little like the fallacy of macro economics.

The macro is basically an aggregate of diverse micros, never an entity in itself.

The Big Lie is, of course, the technique, not one specific lie. You are perfectly correct in associating the technique with Joseph Goebbels, who may even have exceeded Clinton in his ability to use the technique--but our former President was very skilled in it. Goebbels boss, Hitler, was also an expert in his own right. (See The Lies of Socialism, for more on how the Nazis and other Socialists have used the Lie as a formidable weapon.)

I cannot agree with you that the best that we can expect is a 50% Conservative vote--which we certainly do not have, anyway. While there are some good Conservatives in the Republican party, most Republican Officeholders are Moderates, and some are even Liberals. But to return to the question of possible targets, I would aim much higher. Why? Because despite the media and academia, who pursue every big and little lie of the Left as newly revealed truth, there are still ways to reach people. And in reaching people--as individual voters--we need to rally them on the issues on which they are Conservative. Most normal people have such issues.

For example, as I suggested earlier, the way to counter the Left's use of Medicare recipients as a Left leaning interest group is to appeal to their earlier and still latent identity as heirs to the American heritage; to whatever patriotic desire may be within them to pass that heritage on untrammeled to the future. There are all sorts of emotional levers that can be pulled--or if you prefer the figure, "buttons pushed"--to do this. Unfortunately, the poll driven politicos are more likely to urge the supposed Conservative candidate to try to compete with those who would buy this vote with an unconscionable Federal program! That approach loses on both fronts. They do not have the credibility with the elderly, when the latter are thinking of themselves as grasping Medicare recipients, because of the past propaganda of the Left. And in trying to bribe voters with unconscionable programs, they lose the support of more youthful idealists--as well as those voters who want to reduce the cost of Government, part of what was once the Conservatives' natural constituency.

Well, I am rambling a bit, but you get the idea.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site