conservative

There's little doubt that there's been a groundswell against the traditional leadership of the Republican party. Efforts by party insiders to anoint one of the "usual suspects" have fallen incredibly flat.

And there's plenty of reason to believe that the types of people motivated by the "tea party" movement against the Obama Administration are not going to be automatically enamored of the "Certified Pre-Owned candidates" the Beltway brain trust are eager to promote this cycle.

I note that James Carville, who may be as partisan as they come but surely not dumb, noticed how little respect the Republican voter base has for its elected leadership.  

So what are the political insiders to do with a bunch of voters looking for something completely different? Well, it's simple. They have stolen a page from the world of product marketing.

Make something sold by Corporate America look like it's from some new fresh upstart business by putting a new, different label on the product.

I predict 2010 will be the year of the "Blue Moon" candidates.  We will see many candidates who are products of the world of political insiders, but relabelled and rebranded as anti-establishment candidates expressing populist resentment.

Why "Blue Moon"?. Because that's exactly what we are dealing with

Seems one of the good ole macrobrews, Coors, wanted to start selling some different flavors of beer. But if they put the Coors label on it, people would think it wasn;t like those nice quaint microbrews and imports; it was just a spinoff from the billion or so cans of Silver Bullet quaffed every year by the masses.  So guess what.: Coors decided to sell a beer that pretended to be new, quaint and from an independent brewery.

Coors does not actively advertise the fact that the brew is owned by Coors on the belief that being associated with a major national brewery would diminish its credibility among aficionados. Blue Moon is instead branded as being brewed by the "Blue Moon Brewing Company." [5]

My local example of a "Blue Moon" candidate is liberal wrestling tycoon Linda McMahon, who will probably do something useful for real conservatives a lot less often "than once in a blue moon"  

There are some in the media who are going to be honest enough to see through the charade that people like the "Wild RINO" are trying to pull off. But in this economy, plenty more in the media will simply go along with the carnival as long as the well funded candidate buys print ads and air time from their employers. Take this example of circular reasoning.

Some Republicans wonder if McMahon’s message of an outsider is a mere contrivance. After all, she criticizes business as usual, but is often seen with veteran lobbyist Patrick Sullivan.

Nevertheless, McMahon showed she may indeed be something different when explaining at an event in Windsor that her generous campaign contributions to Democrats were “the cost of doing business.” It’s not a truth we like to hear, but it rings with authenticity.

Perhaps there's some form of "truth in advertising" herein. But I would submit that this makes Ms. McMahon's political compass much more closely aligned with that of Heidi Fleiss than that of Barry Goldwater.

Yep, we will see tycoons accustomed to buying favors from career politicians go and buy the allegiance of other career politicians.  But they will try and insist with a straight face that they will be "A different kind of Senator" when all objective indicia suggests they will be a carbon copy of the Capitol Hill lifers they seek to replace.  They'll just take their calls from Rahm Emanuel in the Republican cloakroon instead of the Democratic cloakroom.  

Much as Blue Moon beer is really dressed-up Coors, all these various rebranded political insiders are ever going to be are the campaign version of trick-or-treaters, dressed up to play the role of angry commoners. 

The worst aspect of all this is that we have a real opportunity to build a new Republican party that Middle America can once again have faith in. But that will require hard work finding and promoting new candidates for statewide office and congressional races.

 What it appears much of the political establishment thinks it can do is simply play make-believe; instead of doing the work to win a worthwhile victory.  This will fail for two reasons. First, the voters are probably going to figure this out long before the election. The resulting loss of volunteer energy and voter turnout is going to doom us.  In a low turnout election, a true-believer lefty is likely to outpoll someone who appears only to give lip service to what he claims to be running on.

One thing the various poseurs also may underestimate that even if the media lets the party roll on, the Democrats will have a full dossier of every insider deal and favor these folks got before they put on populist airs, and will simply wait to drop the hammer after they get nominated. Oops!

And if the "Blue Moon" candidates do skate through to election then what are we left with? A bunch of personality cult officeholders with a cadre of paid retainers, committed to no political agenda more important that gaining re-election. Hmmm; isn't that why we got shown the door in 2006? 

Douglas MacArthur said that in war, there is no substitute for victory. I believe in the election environment of 2010 there is no subsitute for authenticity. Either you have it- or you don't.

Republican candidates in 2010 who think they can excuse away their phoniness by massive media blitzes or slick PR tactics will find out that there is a subsitute for victory: defeat.  

The right has lost its way and a lot of people are starting to recognize this.  Books are being written (The Death of Conservatism, Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement that Shattered the Party, etc.)  Here are my thougths on what is wrong and what needs to be done about it.

Discredit those who are not helpful

Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, etc. have said a lot of downright crazy and dumb things (people with AIDS should be quarantined, etc.)  and are far too tied to Christianity.  They should be called out for that and pushed to the side so that true leaders on the right can rise to the top and give the right a real chance at regaining credibility and the minds of those who are undecided or in the center.  Those who espose hate, and anger should also be discredited and pushed to the side (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.).  It is long past time for Conservative talk radio to become more academic, constructive, and hopeful sounding, and cater to the best in us (love, hope, unity, civics, etc.), rather than the worst (fear, anger, race, etc.).

Stop catering to the Christian right

Christianity has nothing to do with conservative ideas and theory on money, foreign policy, etc.  There is also supposed to be a strong seperation of church and state.  Our country was formed partially for freedom of religion, and if our government is run by someone who wants to impose their religion through laws and perspective, then we lose that.  In addition, America is not a Christian nation; though nearly 80% are Christian, there is still another 20% that are not.

Stop simply opposing every idea President Obama has and propose alternative solutions

The right has really been a thorn in our Presidents side instead of working with him to solve the problems in America.  The way to gain credibility and get some conservative ideas into law is to honestly work with the left to create good policy, and also proactively propose laws to solve some of our problems before the left takes up the problem.

Stop supporting causes that have nothing to do with Conservative ideology

The right should disassociate itself with such issues as abortion, and other things that are outside of the ideas of conservatism.  Abortion is an issue thats argument against it is primarily based in religion.  The same applies to marriage equality for gays; the argument against it can only be made from a religious standpoint.  Because of this, and because no party should be tied to any religion, just as our government should not be tied to any religion, the right as a whole and Republicans as a party should disassociate theirselves with abortion and start supporting equal rights for gays.  These two issues alone keep some of those in the center and on the left from ever supporting a Republican candidate.  It might cause a lot of those on the Christian right to be upset, but then they can choose the party that best conforms to what their idea of government should do on all other issues, or form a new 3rd party that is tightly tied to Christianity.

Stop being inconsistent

Right now many on the right are opposing government run health care on the idea that even though it may save a lot of lives, it isn't proper for the government or taxpayers to help others.  Yet, many of those same people are in support of the war in Iraq to give people in another country freedom and save their lives.  Why should we spend taxpayer dollars to police the world yet not spend taxpayer dollars to save those within our own borders?  Either we shouldn't spend money to help others, or we should and if we should then we should definitely want to help those within our own borders before those who are not within our borders.

Stop being hawks

The right has become a group of hawks and this is contrary to conservative ideas on foreign policy.  Conservative ideas on foreign policy are as spelled out by the Cato Institute:

Cato's foreign policy vision is guided by the idea of our national defense and security strategy being appropriate for a constitutional republic, not an empire. Cato's foreign policy scholars question the presumption that an interventionist foreign policy enhances the security of Americans in the post-Cold War world, and maintain instead that interventionism has consequences, including the formation of countervailing alliances, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and even terrorism. The use of U.S. military force should be limited to those occasions when the territorial integrity, national sovereignty, or liberty of the United States is at risk.

Conservatives need to re-embrace those ideas.  They are the ideas that our nations founders had in mind, and they are the ideas that are the most ethical and that might also allow some on the left to consider the rest of our ideas.

Have a well thought out income tax policy

There either should not be an income tax as Libertarians would like, or there should be an income tax that works to support Conservative values.  A tax that is progressive helps strengthen families at the lower incomes and therefore helps literacy rates, etc. which helps to preserve conservative values of strong families, an educated populace, etc.  Right now the government has taken on far too much responsibility and therefore spends too much and our national debt is growing because of it.  It is time to start cutting back on spending, but at the same time increasing revenue and the only realistic way to increase revenue is through a progressive income tax because those in the middle and lower class cannot support any higher tax burden.

Start supporting alternative energy and embrace that global warming is real and might be caused by us

The science is in, global warming is real and it is probably caused by our actions (and can we afford to gamble that it is not?).  Most of the oil that is easily available is in countries with citizens that do not like us.  Because of these two things, it is long past time to start looking into energy sources that do not emit CO2, and that do not require us to work with countries that are not friendly to us.

Stop catering to Israel

We give far too much money and support to Israel and it hurts our credibilty around the world and doesn't help to reduce the hatred towards us in the Muslim world.  It is time to treat Israel as we would any other country that is a friend and ally of ours.  We should work with them, and be friends with them, but we should point out when they are doing something that works against peace in the middle east and use our monetary aid as a tool to help control their actions rather than blindly supporting them at all times.

Start rethinking drug policy

The war on drugs does not work, and will never work so long as it is punitive rather than based in medicine.  It only makes organized crime stronger, and leads to a larger role of government and often leads to violations of our constitutional rights.  The punitive war on drugs was originally based on racism, and is now based in morality that is derived from religion.  For these reasons, it is time for the federal government to take a non punitive role and start considering policy that would put organized crime out of business, make drug use safer and less damaging to society, and help those who are ready to reform their lives through cessation of drug abuse.

Every time I see a pro Obama bumper sticker on a car in traffic, I can’t help but wonder about the driver. I wonder if they are embarrassed to have people see the sticker. I wonder if they forgot it was there, or else they would have removed it. I just can’t understand why anybody would be proud of Obama at this point, and especially how anybody would boast of being a supporter at this point. If I had voted for him, I would want to keep that quiet. Do they really not know that other drivers around them are leaning to get a look at them while shaking their heads and wondering, “What is wrong with you?” or “What were you thinking?” I can’t help but wonder if maybe it isn’t their car and they are just hoping nobody sees them in it.

           Where are the decent, rational, thinking, freedom loving Democrats? I know they are out there. Do any of them have the guts to stand up and be counted? Of that I’m beginning to wonder. I cannot imagine that there are not great numbers of every day Americans who also happen to be Democrats that are deeply concerned with the direction President Obama is leading our country. We can debate conservative versus liberal ideology all day long, and I’m happy to do that. But this runaway train led by Obama is beyond all that.

          This administration is trying to fundamentally change America. Obama is a radical leftist, a statist. He has surrounded himself with radical statists. He has stated his desire to remake America. The point of this piece is not to define the agenda of the Obama administration. That is being done all over the place, and thank God for that. I want to know if and when mainstream Democrats are going to wake up, stand up, and reject this garbage. Obama told the American people that if they wanted to know who he was, to look at the people he had surrounding him. Okay, we looked, and it stinks. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, ACORN, the radicals and tax cheats in his cabinet and czar positions, and more.     

         How obvious does it have to be? When is the evidence overwhelming enough? Democrats, your party has been hijacked. It’s been happening for a long time, but it has reached critical mass. Nobody gets to sit on the fence any more. You are either part of the solution, or you are part of the problem.

         At this point in the Obama administration’s tenure, I can see only three possibilities for why democrats have not joined the chorus against the statist crusade.

1)      they are ignorant

2)      they are apathetic

3)      they are true believers

         It’s hard to imagine anyone truly being ignorant with all the information available, although dependence on the mainstream media will certainly leave one ignorant. But there is just too much being said and written to not at least get some sense of what direction things are going. I include those who may still be deluded as to Obama’s real agenda as being in the ignorant category, but that excuse is getting very thin, very quickly. Apathy is worse than ignorance. At least ignorance is an excuse, albeit a lazy one. To be apathetic at this point is to be devoid of passion for anything. If it doesn’t matter to you yet, you may want to check for a pulse. True believers can at least be credited for taking a side. That’s about all they can get credit for, but it’s something.

         So where are the reasonable, non radical, America loving democrats? We, the opposition, welcome you. We need you. Find your voice, find your conviction, find your courage, and stand up for America.

         In the weeks and months after September 11, 2001, it didn’t matter much if we were Republicans or Democrats, conservative or liberal, what mattered was that we were Americans. America had been attacked and we rallied together to defend her. Well, America is under attack again. Not our buildings, not our very lives, but our principles, our values, and our way of life. Our traditions, our history, the very things that have made America great are being dismantled by this administration. It is time for Americans to once again stand together and defend her. Lose the bumper sticker and get a flag.

More at http://commonconservativesense.com

Was the reaction to next Tuesday's school address by Obama 'Astroturf?'

That's one of the questions being posed at present. The Whitehouse is treating this as a tempest in a teapot, but it was severe enough to cause them to re-write their lesson plans and re-think the president's speech. Another question being posed, by ridiculous leftists and their shills, is whether this opposition is motivated by Mr. Obama's race. I consider the source, and suggest strongly to fellow right-wingers that while they should keep the bulk of their political powder dry for bigger targets, they must nevertheless expend a little ammo where needed. This is such a case, and a perfect target.

Today's educational establishment is dominated by leftists, both at the state and federal levels. It is dominated by the teachers' unions, which have been quite supportive and sympathetic to the cause of Obama and the leftist agenda. To pretend otherwise is to ignore all facts, but what is more stunning is that most American parents, busy with earning a paycheck, and leading their lives, have essentially surrendered this ground to the left.

As in virtually every issue, the left becomes arrogant when they control an institution, branch of government, or agency.  This is equally true of the education establishment.  From the time Jimmy Carter and his hacks conceived the Department of Education, the federal government has taken an increasingly dominant role in education, yet I cannot find that spot in the Constitution that enables the federal government to spend a single dime in that endeavor.

Many parents, particularly those on the right, have justly become concerned at the direction of the schools.  After more than a generation of federal domination, the schools increasingly resemble self-propagating institutions that wield too much power in their communities, frequently dominating smaller and even larger municipalities and counties. In many cases, the budgets of school districts far outstrip the local city governments, and are the ever-growing 800 pound gorillas in their communities.  Watching the growth, one parent commented to me recently after a school board meeting in our local district: "They used to say you can't fight city hall, but hell, they're a push-over compared to the school board. They do anything they want, usually out of sight, and out of mind."

So it was that this notion of an address to all school children by Obama was hatched, and since there's some precedent, what with George Bush reading books to children, and his father having tried to pull off a similar thing(to raucous cat-calls from the left) in October 1991, it really isn't a surprise that this would be tried again.  What was a little more than stunning to the administrations of schools around the country was the violence of the reaction against it by an enraged or at least concerned outcry from parents.

Parents did not want their children subjected to propaganda. Imagine that!  That the reaction was more uproarious in so-called 'red states' really isn't a surprise, since they didn't vote for this President, but a little more surprising was the reaction in states that voted for Obama in 2008.

Parents were unaware of what Obama might say, but they had the package of exercises and questions pushed out by the Department of Education as a follow-up guide to the President's speech.  That was enough.

Now, the funny thing, the odd thing about this whole story, is not what has been written or reported, but what has not been mentioned at all.  The left, along with the President's spokepersons, dismissed the whole thing as some form of 'silly season' or 'astroturf.' Yet what had they not been able to say?  Over the healthcare bill, they pointed to talk radio, and to Rush Limbaugh, as their arch enemies, simply out to taunt them any way he (and they)could.  In this case, however, Rush was on vacation.  The alleged leader of the 'vast right-wing conspiracy' was absent from behind the golden microphone.  His substitute hosts really hadn't wanted to talk about it, but they were left with no choice: Callers made it the issue. This was repeated throughout the country, on local and national talkshows, in the blogosphere, and on message boards and forums.  The reaction was viral, and it had not been manufactured at EIB or in the GOP headquarters.  Conservative Americans didn't like it.

In the end, most school districts relented, particularly in 'red states.'  The speech would be recorded, or viewing and participation optional, or other solutions.  You might wonder why the schools, havens of leftist thought, would so easily capitulate.  I am here to tell you the answers to that question:

1.) The immediate effect would have been that hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions of parents would have withheld their kids from school next Tuesday.  Remember, public schools are the recipients of federal funds, based on daily attendance that amounts to roughly $35 per head.  This would have made a serious dent in their budgets directly in the beginning of the school year.  In a year in which tax revenues have been down, and passage of local bond elections more difficult owing to higher unemployment, they couldn't risk alienating any parents.

2.) It won't matter anyway. Whether Barack Obama speaks directly to your children on Tuesday, or the educational establishment merely speaks on his behalf for the remainder of the school year, and ever after, they will have their say.  They will make their best attempt at indoctrinating your children, whether or not President Obama's ever given access directly to their young minds.

This is why I would personally urge conservative and libertarian parents alike to pull their kids on Tuesday anyway, and any other day they think the schools have gone too far.  The penalty the school will pay in lost headcount dollars is worth the lesson they will learn.  Schools have increasingly become populated by a faculty that views parents and parental authority with contempt.  They now routinely refer to the children entrusted to them as 'their kids.'  Many of them feel that this is their special calling, to step into the legal role, acting in loco parentis, and have their ways with the minds of your children, through ways large and small, 'making the world a better place' by indoctrinating your children with their moral standards.

There are a great number of very good, sincere and dedicated teachers, and not a few conservatives among their number, but the overwhelming majority are of a leftward tilt, and their bureaucracy is constructed to strict leftwing standards. It is inevitable that too much political indoctrination, and even moral indoctrination in contradiction to parental wishes goes on in public schools.  Take this opportunity to send them a message, and don't be afraid to change direction, get involved with your kids' schools, and even enter the field of teaching.  Conservatives have yielded this ground for too long, and it's time we begin to think about taking it back. Show them that there's nothing silly about this season.

side-bar to editors: Is there some reason comments posted to an earlier entry might have disappeared? THANKS!

Why I Support WorldNetDaily

I have read many center-right attacks on Joe Farah's Worldnetdaily.com over the years, but they all come down to the same thing: "We, the wise folk of the Republican Party, do not wish to be associated with the riff-raff of the [Christian] conservative movement."

I am not a Christian. I don't particularly support the notion that we should teach the Ten Commandments in public schools. I am not aboard with any of that. That said, I cannot help but see the supposed 'Wise folk of the Republican Party' as nothing more than smarmy pseudo-conservatives who have compromised all the root principles to which their alleged ideology lays claim.

The taunts directed at Joe Farah are like so many from the allegedly wiser sect: They lack sincerity. These, who would be our leaders, simply don't get it. We don't need leaders, like lefty-statists do. Leaders on the conservative side are a matter of convenience, but not a necessity. We don't need a cabal of supposedly elite righty-statists leading us around by the nose.

If they don't like stories about Obama's birth certificate, then don't read them. They don't need to agree. I cannot fathom, however, what could be wrong, in this era of political fakery, in demanding that a President provide his bona fides for that office. The requirement is law.

The allegedly 'wiser set' of the Republican party doesn't understand at all, and it threatens to leave them alone, without party to lead. For decades, we have watched as lefty-statists made a mockery of law, the notion of law, the idea of rights, and all that is justice. We have watched them smear and sneer since at least the time of Ronald Reagan. We have watched them line up with enemies of the United States in order to further their opposition. We have watched, and mostly remained silent, except at the polls.

That time is past. While we watched that horror show in progress, we also noticed that those 'wiser republicans' would abandon us and principle at the first hint of danger. Like the philosophical vacuums they are, ever-wishing to remain in the popular and uncontroversial middle, they would take no stand on the side of justice if it was difficult or complicated to explain. No, it is easier to jettison principles and go with the flow. This is why their 'pragmatic' approach denies all truth, in the end: They cannot suffer a moment's discomfort in its name.

To these 'wiser republicans,' this 'new(or next) right,' there can be no truth. Not absolutely.

This is why they must now pummel Joe Farah and WND.com: Joe doesn't flinch under pressure, and it is rewarding him now. Only media elites, lefty-statists, and fake republicans hate Joe Farah's site. Yes, the 'wiser republicans' have again thrown their lots in with the enemy. Make no mistake about it: They are the enemy.

Unless and until the right shamelessly casts off this 'cabal of the wiser,' it is always going to be drug in the direction that cabal flows: Leftward, and downward.

Do I believe everything on Joe Farah's site? No. Do I believe everything on the Six O'clock news? No. Do I agree with all the commentary there? No. Am I glad it's there, anyway? Yes. Am I glad the six O'clock news is on? Yes.

The question most conservatives need to ask themselves is: "Do I believe I can compromise with those who would undermine me?" Look around, all of you, and see with whom it is you've chosen to lie down. The idea of a new(or next) right that is wiser, and better able to lead is the kind of arrogance we generally associate with which politicians and party? Yes, that's quite right. It's okay to think it. It's even all right to say it. These "Next Right" types look a bunch like the old left, don't they? Well, that's why I support Joe Farah's Worldnetdaily.com: He doesn't mind saying it, either.

 Update: Several hours after I posted this, Van Jones, Obama's 'Green Czar', resigned amid a hub-bub over his past associations and advocacies. The first news organization of which I am aware that covered this story and began pummeling the Obama administration over Van Jones was...you guessed it...worldnetdaily.com

Farah is jubilantly taking credit for the ouster, and there can be no doubt he made a significant impact by reporting a story that for months, no other news outfit, left, right or middle, would touch. One of the most interesting parts of this story is that during a press briefing on Friday, Gibbs was asked how he could reject 'conspiracy theories' about Obama's birth certificate while employing an avowed conspiracist... Touché!  The irony that the Van Jones story became well known largely due to the work of Farah's worldnetdaily.com should put to rest the notion that wnd.com is a bad site.

In an effort to win back the youth vote, Senate Policy Committee Chairman Sen. John Thune (R-SD) and House Republican Whip Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) co-chaired a Young Conservatives Leadership Summit in Washington, DC. The purpose of the summit was to connect young conservative leaders from around the country with one another, brainstorm ideas about fostering youth activism, and discussing the next generation of the conservative movement.

“Winning back the trust and support of our nation’s young people has to be a top priority for the Republican Party and I am encouraged to see so many dedicated young conservatives. This summit is just the beginning and I look forward to working with these groups to rebuild the support of younger generations in the future,” said Rep. Cantor.

The summit was sponsored by the Young Conservatives Coalition, a group dedicated to organizing the next generation of the conservative movement. The participants who attended were young conservative leaders, in between the ages of 18-40, and represented various political center-right young adult and college organizations. The day-long summit consisted of roundtable discussions, brainstorming sessions, and presentations from congressional leaders and media allies.

“After last year’s poor showing with the youth vote, we felt it was necessary to gather young leaders from across the country and strategize ways to foster youth activism within the conservative movement to ultimately win back the youth vote,” stated Christopher Malagisi, President of the YCC.

Guest speakers included summit co-chairs Sen. John Thune (R-SD) and Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), House Republican Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), NRCC Chairman Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), RNC New Media Director Todd Herman, and Bill Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard.

The group will release a national youth assessment, organize a national youth “strike force” ambassadors program and develop a strategic memo on winning back the conservative youth vote. A strong emphasis will be placed on conservative education, outreach, and harnessing new media and technology.

"If we take the route of the permanent handout, the American character will itself be impoverished"

Richard M. Nixon

They’re getting comfortable. As Henke alludes to here, the self-satisfaction that comes with being in control was a primary factor in the waning of GOP power after 2002. The Dems know political power is nothing if not entropic. That’s exactly why the leadership is rushing like hell to do what they can to entrench their power and fundamentally alter the economy (i.e. before things start to burn and the people turn). Having mastered both the blame game and the art of sophistry, they think they’re better and smarter—despite all the linear thinking and pseudo-intellectual fervor. But victory has a half-life.

What is the Right to do? Let the Left languish in their smugness. Let's innovate: 

1. Get better organized and unified. (Includes networking and collaboration.)
2. Convert talk radio listeners into givers and doers. (Need help from the jocks.)
3. Focus on popular messages of freedom, prosperity and suspicion of government.
4. Create new constituencies resistant to government takeovers of their sector.
5. Create media markets to further dilute the leftish MSM. Hasten the destruction of print.
6. Tap, activate and integrate existing grassroots networks while creating new ones.
7. Use mockery and satire to prick the Obama bubble. “What were we thinking?”
8. Redirect resources from policy wonks to message-makers, writers and activists.
9. Find and exploit joints and weak-points. (Attack from the side. A distracting swarm is better than a standing army.)
10. Develop an “operating system” for distributed activism. “Embrace and extend” the left’s successful methodologies.
11. Crowdsource investigation of key leaders. Dig Relentlessly.
12. Use technology as a means to 5 primary ends—registering voters, organizing activists, changing minds, increasing transparency and crowdsourcing ideas.
13. Make a continuous show out of dissatisfaction. Be creative. Create distractions.
14. Plan carefully, but execute rapidly. Make media. Explosive media campaigns should make people do a double-take.
15. Rebrand as a new breed with new ideas. (Use veterans/old guard sparingly.) Think: New Labour circa 1996.
16. Turn the Left’s apparent strengths (brand, power, media adoration, momentum) into weaknesses, a la Sun Tzu.
17. Create alternative funding channels, including micro-donations.
18. Invite in a million ideas and create a filtration mechanism for the best ones.
19. Take risks with policy messages and critiques. Simple and powerful.
20. More meme machine, less policy argument. (Emotion, images, stories & sticky sayings.)

When you’re clinging to power and pushing your agenda, it’s hard to keep tabs on the enemy. It’s hard to continue innovating now that your foot-shoulders spend most of their days doe-eyed before O-TV, or making snarky comments on rightwing blogs. In 2008, the Left took all the best aspects of the free market – distributed systems, decentralization, collaboration and voluntary association – and out-organized the Right. Disillusionment with the war and the Obama emotion-bubble helped too. But those will soon fade. It’s time to turn the tables.

To be sure, the Left’s leadership will be busy tearing down what is right and good about the U.S., building up what is wrong and adding to a network of special interests and dependents whom they honestly believe will keep them around forever. They’ll make a good go of it. But take heart: Ireland, New Zealand and Britain all rebounded from the depths of socialism and its crony-capitalist variants. Ireland is now economically freer than the U.S. So is New Zealand. Britain is currently moving right. So there is hope. Let’s start innovating.

A clickable list of about 60 English-language hard-copy conservative and libertarian journals whose back issues can be accessed on-line may be found at :  http://liberty-resource-center.blogspot.com

Nicholas Kristof attacked the subject of differentiating liberals from conservatives. Any such attempt is bound to have some limitations considering that there are a wide variety of people falling under both labels, and to some degree the labels are fluid over the years. For example, Barry Goldwater spent most of his career as a conservative leader, considered himself a liberal in his later years and, while he wouldn’t fit in perfectly with either group, would be radically at odds with today’s  conservative movement.

For whatever it is worth, I’ll throw out Kristof’s way to tell if someone is liberal or conservative:

If you want to tell whether someone is conservative or liberal, what are a couple of completely nonpolitical questions that will give a good clue?

How’s this: Would you be willing to slap your father in the face, with his permission, as part of a comedy skit?

And, second: Does it disgust you to touch the faucet in a public restroom?

Studies suggest that conservatives are more often distressed by actions that seem disrespectful of authority, such as slapping Dad. Liberals don’t worry as long as Dad has given permission.

Likewise, conservatives are more likely than liberals to sense contamination or perceive disgust. People who would be disgusted to find that they had accidentally sipped from an acquaintance’s drink are more likely to identify as conservatives.

The upshot is that liberals and conservatives don’t just think differently, they also feel differently. This may even be a result, in part, of divergent neural responses…

One of the main divides between left and right is the dependence on different moral values. For liberals, morality derives mostly from fairness and prevention of harm. For conservatives, morality also involves upholding authority and loyalty — and revulsion at disgust.

This fits in well with George Lakoff’s strict father view of conservatives. This mindset based upon upholding authority explains why so many go ballistic in response to criticism of government activities and see liberal dissent as subversive and unpatriotic, along with their tendency to compromise civil liberties to support authority.