"A conservative who understands Alinsky and can selectively use his tactics with integrity is a formidably effective activist. "
Then we agree, although - more and more - we're the positions and tactics of many Big 'R' Republicans are becoming indistinguishable from those of the Big 'D' Democrats. Alinsky-like tactics are being used to shut conservatives out of the Republican party.
I started out nit-picking a point. I'll bow out here and let the thread resume its discussion of the FRN Conference.
I'm going to bring you back in, because really your concerns are those that need to be discussed. Especially because they are concerns that might cause other FReepers to ignore a chance to use the conference(s) for the good they could do, the good of furthering the Conservative movement.
When I posted earlier, I didn't mean to imply that having a woman debate abortion, or a black person debate racism, or a male sports, are rigid tactics. The purpose of what we learned from Matt Lewis was that the tactic could be used to deflect initial appearances, but it is not necessary. However, knowing how the tactic works is essential to understanding how or why someone can lose a debate, from the get-go.
There is a credibility factor that is very important when it comes to debates, especially debates of specific natures (i.e. abortion, racism). This can be applied to other things in the universe of debates/discussions. For example, you wouldn't have an accountant debate with a NASA scientist quantum physics, or the other way around. Now, of course, the accountant could be a brilliiant physicist, but I am generalizing.
Alinsky-like tactics are being used to shut conservatives out of the Republican party.
An excellent point. But I would ask, why can't we 'fight' back and use their tactics? As long as we stay true to our morals, our platforms, or logic, the tactic shouldn't matter. This is something that Matt Lewis explained brilliantly by explaining his view of x42. x42 was (and is) inarguably a brilliant politican. His morals and policies may be anethema to Conservatives, but his ability to work within politics shouldn't be ignored, and they should especially be learned from. As much as I hate Carville and Begala, Matt was right, they knew what and why they did what they did, and it worked. Now, if we apply those tactics with the logic and morality of Conservatives, we will win, and winning is good.
Well, I would like to warmly thank you for your observations in posts #84 and #100. To characterize them as nit-picking is a bit too modest. I'd call them "profound".
...As an example, it probably wouldn't be a good idea to have a man debate a woman about abortion. Know your limitations. If you're that man and you're asked to debate a woman about abortion, politely decline, and suggest a woman in your organization would probably be happy to debate....
This is one of the scariest things I've read in a long time. So men are not to be allowed to fight for the most profound issues in Civilization? We'll let them rail anonymously on the internet , of course, but when debating out in the open men must wear a muzzle? I presume we will also allow them to rush into collapsing buidings to save our lives---upper-body strength and all. But otherwise...
Jesus was a man. I guess the Pope is out of the winner's circle too.
It will be interesting to see how the Clash of Civilizations plays out in the all-too-near-future. In China, India--the largest democracy on the planet--and, of course The Empire of Mohammed--men vastly outnumber women in sheer numbers and cultural influence.
In the United States we have turned every human activity into some form of advertising campaign---We are all consumer products that must be sold. Women do most of the shopping. Men are being culturally marginalized. It's profoundly disturbing.
Like you, I shall bow out of this discussion....