Maybe Bill Whittle wouldn’t make a good President. But he sure would make a good speech writer for and adviser to the next President.
Love it but he’d have to trim it down into sound bites.
Anyway; Neo, when we say we want someone ‘more conservative’ we mean more like that. Not someone more far out of the mainstream. Just someone willing to explain the issue from the conservative pov.
The ironic thing (and I will probably be excoriated for this) is that Chris Christie—who is widely perceived as a RINO, and one who facilitated the re-election of Obama, and I think both things are at least somewhat true—is a man most conservatives now detest, but is one Republican who has this ability. I have seen him do it when speaking about public employee unions, for example. He is amazingly effective and straightforward, a real breath of fresh air in the rhetorical sense. That is why I was very disappointed that he didn’t run in 2012, although I understood why. And I was even more disappointed at what he did re Sandy and Obama, because he may have completely ruined his chances for 2016.
Now, if that hadn’t happened, would he have been able to articulate true conservative principles? Perhaps not; perhaps he’s just too much of a RINO to do that. I’m not familiar with his points of view on all the issues. But he definitely had the ability to cut through the garbage and tell it like it is, in a way that really reached people.
It’s a fine little speech and great point but I think entirely too sanguine about the fifty-fifty split in the nation. The split is not an interlude but a downward trend.
I hope Neo, you will not mind much a link to an article about the enormity of the problem before us by Daren Joescu. This is about as smart, succinct, and insightful a post election post mortem as I have come across.
neo writes that Gov. Christie “definitely had the ability to cut through the garbage and tell it like it is, in a way that really reached people.”
A skill sorely needed. Plus the wllingness (aka the cojones) to actually ^do^ it, the media smogscreen and bile notwithstanding.
J.J.f.J.J. says, “maybe Bill Whittle wouldn’t make a good President.”
In terms of background and qualifications, agreed. But in terms of the atrocity we now see in office, what the h#ll. We would do no worse with him than we would with Hillary or Michelle Antoinette [whom I still see as a serious 2016 possibility — you think the Royal Couple will gladly relinquish their power and perks??], and we would have a champion for our point of view for once.
The electorate evidently goes for someone plain-spoken and hip, who tells it like it is. Remember, in the post-modern age, youth and rock star celebrity counts more than wisdom and experience [okay, some bitter sarcasm here].
Betrayal is the original sin.
Whittle is a good man who speaks with the courage of his convictions defended by superior principles.
Romney meets his moral obligation to voluntarily redistribute his accumulated wealth (a product of his labor). His contributions to economic development are especially notable.
Thou shall not steal — a tradition, universal maxim. Redistributive change, whether prosecuted in person, or through an agent (e.g. government), is an immoral enterprise.
I do not indulge in the sin of envy. I do not comfort myself with the sin of avarice.
neo-neocon Says:
“is a man most conservatives now detest, but is one Republican who has this ability.”
I don’t detest him but I don’t think telling it as it is worked for Romney / Ryan. You have to do that + explain why it is that way (because the other team has their narrative of who you are and why your doing what you claim is right). Romney failed there and while we were all hoping Ryan would help there (MATH and all that)… but if he did try I didn’t catch it.
Whats worse, I think Christie might have the same problem described on the video… that deep down he doesn’t buy the conservative world view.. ergo he can go south under pressure.
For the right sort of candidate Whittle would make an excellent speech writer. This speak plainly with conviction, say what you mean, and mean what you say style is what I prefer. That’s why I favored Herman Cain early on.
Christie has the same ability, but on some issues he definitely shows a streak of RINO. “I believe that each state should have the right to make firearms laws as they see fit.” I have a right to keep and bear arms. I do not recognize state or federal laws that circumscribe this most basic of human rights.
Looking in the rearview mirror Romney faced a difficult, up hill battle. But Romney, for all his accomplishments and upright character, tip-toed around the major issues a bit too much IMO for fear of the MSM response. I understand his reason for campaigning the way he did; but the results are the results. Its well past the time for Republicans to bypass the MSM. Stop throwing people like Sarah Palin under the MSM bus!
MJR, my statement about Whittle was a bit off. I should have said, “Since he does not want to be President, he would not be a good candidate. However, he would be a great speechwriter or advisor to a candidate.”
Agreed that Bill Whittle is far more qualified than B.O. In fact, I’m far more qualified than B.O. (Military experience, executive experience, have done hard manual labor, and know that a budget is necessary to keep any entity’s fiances under control.) My chances of being elected are less than that of a ham sandwich. I’m white, male, conservative, uncharismatic, heterosexual, with less speaking expertise than G.W. Bush. ‘Nough said on that.
Yes, I fear the Hildabeast as much as you. But we must remember she is not as glib, cool, or loved by the MSM as B.O. Actually, right now I don’t see anyone on the dem side who strikes me as a likely successor to B.O.
Watching this, I wept. I cried. Like an angry baby.
My main John. J. O. H. N. Yeah. John. My main man, John.
Curtis, I read your link expecting John to say something disappointing.
Did I misread you or him?
I’m sorry, dearest Ed. I quite misled. The “this” that I watched and was referring to, which produced the angry baby reaction (and why shouldn’t it?), is Whittle’s video.
John Campbell’s article is both a statement and example of Whittle’s assertion that power results from cohesion of message and messenger. John’s message is superb conservatism, and he is a very successful and re-elected congressman.
Oh, I guess I should explain the angry baby reaction as well.
A baby gets angry when denied its mother’s breast. Feed me, damn it. This is really rich (like Mother’s milk) because the baby knows mama should feed it and it communicates with crying, grabbing and gesturing. When that doesn’t work, the baby gets angry. And squalls and throws a fit. How else does it communicate it’s need?
We, the tax paying, gentle, abiding, and tethered to the millstone donkeys have been abused by a master we did not choose. Anger is an appropriate response.
I’ve long felt that Bill Whittle is a national treasure.
I fear however that he may greatly underestimate the degree to which the American public have and continue to swallow the left’s kool-aid.
Neo’s post just above this one of Nile Gardiner, where Neo relates her friend’s reaction to Benghazigate is illustrative of my point; “I had dinner with an old friend who is an intelligent, moderate, non-leftist Democrat with some conservative tendencies. This friend just didn’t care about Benghazi or the administration’s handling of it, didn’t know the details and was cynically dismissive of the topic because “all politicians lie.”
I too have friend’s exactly like this, as we most probably all have but Neo’s friend (and all of ours) is not dismissive of what happened in Benghazi due to easily corrected ignorance or mere cynicism.
Were unimpeachable sources to inform and confirm all the facts of Benghazi to them, they still would not care and they would continue to dismiss it all. Whatever excuse or twist of logic is needed they will employ and no amount of persuasion will illuminate the cognitive dissonance of their position.
They have done so before, still do and will continue to do so.
They have drunk so deeply of the left’s memes and narrative that anything that challenges that view is dismissed. In fact, the more deeply facts challenge their Weltanschauung (German noun; [Philosophy] a comprehensive view or personal philosophy of human life and the universe) the more adamant the rejection of fact and evidence.
The left’s useful idiots, the liberals who voted for Obama, our relatives and friends, neighbors and fellow citizens don’t want to know and willfully refuse to hear and see the objective facts and reasoned arguments that question their beliefs.
They reject it, no matter what the cost.
I find it curious that the pessimists in our midsts are the same ones who (tend) to want the House Republicans to dig in their heels a la the ‘fiscal cliff’.
I used to follow Whittle closer when he wrote essays instead of videos. I could read the essay and savor his writing.
Seeing the Unseen is classic. Also Tribes.
Then again it seems that the “uninformed voters” would rather watch than read.
Love. What is love. Love, in a word, is children. Any society that does not value children, that values abortion, will die.
Bye bye America. Thanks for the good memories but good riddance. There is a world (universe) to populate and you missed out because you got fat and selfish. Bye bye.
I play more Windows Mahjong now as a way not to think since Nov 6. I just had a game I could not win, so I said, “What if you try a strategy that makes no sense at all but will work and allow you to keep the faith.” I won.
Some deus ex machina has to reverse the wave–otherwise we live in a post-election Dennis Millerian world of shutting down with plastered happy pod faces until our final days. I read Geo Pal’s link above. It was good until the end when he let loose with a castigation of “them.” I don’t think fighting will win this fight.
I lunched today with members of “the industry” which, in Hollywood, means the entertainment industry. I sat with liberals (of course). The speech that preceded lunch was noteworthy for its lack of anything uplifting; it was all about how to be popular. I thought that no one in the audience could be reacting as did I, but at my little round table I discovered that I was wrong. No one’s heart is uplifted by dragging it through the dregs of how to be popular. As we munched, and the liberals were “hot dogging it” (as Clint so aptly put it) I was told that the “other candidates” wanted “to do away with all safety nets and entitlements.” I opened my eyes wide like saucers and asked which candidates wanted to “do away with all safety nets and entitlements.” Why … why … well, not a single candidate could be named with those desires. But then: “The Tea Party!” They’re the culprits. I suggested that that was a rather shallow way to understand the Tea Party and the others at the table coughed in their paper napkins and saved anyone from actually hearing what I was saying.
There seems to be a protective shield around brains that keeps them from allowing in anything but Kool Aid into the crevasses.
My interlocutor went on to say that young people today are better off than we were young because they understand that we are ruled by evil forces. I said that I think teaching they young that we are ruled by evil forces *is* evil. Everyone chose not to hear that.
I then learned that my interlocutor believes in what I believe in: freedom, values, prosperity, doing work worth doing – he just has the tails pinned to the wrong donkey.
The task of keeping the faith – let alone winning – is wily. Both “sides” are full of well-meaning people. Both “sides” think they are for what is best for humanity. No side thinks itself to be evil, crafty commies or ham handed, horrid fascists. The problem is that people do not take the time to go through evidence and theory to put together a viable world view or get lucky enough to be cracked over the head by the humiliation of having forwarded something stupid and be called on it. This is because they blather only amongst those of like-mindesets.
We need a deus ex machina. Deus only knows what it will be.
oh, I meant to say, simple, Bill Whittle is magnificently energetic and well-informed, good-natured and fun. I got a little side tracked : ).
M of Hollywood: I just got this book out of the library. Haven’t read it yet, but I think it might address some of the issues you’re talking about.
Obama has the instincts — and, more and more, the moves — of a tyrant. Plain and simple. Unfortunately, all the planets were aligned just right for his rise to the presidency.
Hillary as president would not be nearly as bad in this regard. She doesn’t have the aura that surrounds Obama and she has many enemies on the left who are not afraid to say bad things about her.
Everything Whittle says is spot on, but I don’t think necessarily needed for future presidential contests. With Obama gone from the scene, things might just get back to a more level playing field — even with regard to the MSM.
neo . . .
Jonathan Haidt! ^Please^ correct me if I’m wrong —
He’s the guy who performed this experiment: construct a current events questionnaire delving into why people think what they think; tell liberals to fill it out as though they were a conservative, and tell conservatives to fill it out as though they were a liberal.
The result — conservatives could catch the liberals’ way of thinking much better than the liberals could catch the conservatives’ way of thinking.
Maybe it’s because conservatives have much more experience ingesting the liberal way of thinking (the schools, the media, etc.) than liberals have ingesting the conservative way of thinking.
And of course, the now-old [very true] saying that conservatives think liberals have bad ideas, but liberals think conservatives are bad ^people^.
Ed: In a comment here over on Patterico you can find links that can lead you to both of those essays and more. The old E!E!E! website is gone, but, thanks to the Wayback Machine, you can still get access to them. I have a number of those links bookmarked so I can point people to them… and you can actually link backwards to his older essays, too… or just use neo’s amazon widget to buy a copy of his Silent America collection.
I, too, liked his essays more, though, I suspect he gets more attention from the videos, which is why he does them. I prefer the higher bandwidth of the printed word myself.
Haidt has conducted research in which liberals and conservatives were asked to project themselves into the minds of their opponents and answer questions about their moral reasoning. Conservatives, he said, prove quite adept at thinking like liberals, but liberals are consistently incapable of understanding the conservative point of view. “Liberals feel contempt for the conservative moral view, and that is very, very angering. Republicans are good at exploiting that anger,” he told me in a phone interview.
Perhaps that’s why the conservatives can so successfully get under liberals’ skin. And why liberals need to start working harder at breaking through the empathy barrier.
END WARNER PASTE
—
Thanks for the refresher.
M J R
If Christie ruined his chances for 2016 with that Sandy photo op with Owebama, then good. We do not need a gun grabbing RINO in the White House. We have enough gun grabbing Democraps to last a lifetime.
RickZ: would you prefer Hillary Clinton instead?
I enjoyed the video and I like the points he makes, but I can’t be the only one to watch that video who imagines how a candidate as plain-spoken as the one he envisions would get savaged by the press. Part of what has me feeling down about the results of this election is what it suggests as an indication that the country and the electorate has substantially changed. Reagan won easily in a different time. In 1980 the alliance between social, economic and foreign policy conservatives that got Reagan elected was a new force in American politics. Today the media is particularly adept at helping the Democrats by demonizing all three types of conservatives, plus the Democrats now have a group of young voters who have been taught to vote for them after many decades of propaganda in the schools and colleges.
After four more years of Obama, I hope Americans have enough sense to vote for a conservative candidate, but I thought they would have done so this time. The biggest challenge may be reaching the “low-information” voters, and as long as the Democrats control a significant segment of the media, that’s going to continue to be a problem.
neo,
As I said, we have enough gun grabbing Dems, and Hillary is a gun grabbing progressive/communist. Besides, I’ve already had Cankles as my Senator, so no, I don’t want her.
What I want will not happen. I want a fighter for the conservative cause and Christie ain’t it. I’m not saying I wouldn’t want him in an administration, but not as president or vp.
At this moment, there is no candidate who I want in 2016. I’m not sure 2016 is even relevent at this point as I don’t give us even two years before the Free Shyt Army vs. Producers War begins, and not just politically but with real violence. It’s happening now with union thuggery, etc. If I make it to 2016 (those pesky death panels, I’m disabled), then I’ll worry about it. But I have a feeling that the eGOPs (pronounced ee-gops or elite GOP) will go for the next in line, so what I think and who I want will not matter one whit anyway.
The Democraps will serve us the shyt sandwiches while the eGOPs will ring up the bill.
Heads they win, tails I lose.
Kurt Says:
“I can’t be the only one to watch that video who imagines how a candidate as plain-spoken as the one he envisions would get savaged by the press.”
Depends. A lot of things that send liberals ballistic don’t bother the general public. You know; threatening to bomb Iranian military facilities if they keep giving arms to people killing Americans… Spin as they might; most Americans would be for it. He would just have it say it in less of a rant.
Such a relief to hear someone say it out straight. It is actually refreshing and a relief from all the usual mealy-mouthed ‘talking heads’.
Wonder if the majority of the people might feel the same way.
Now that I think about it, that speech gave me the same feeling as the speech in “Independence Day”.
thx much for the book rec, neo neo. I read the first part of the sample of Kindle, then went to reviews on Amazon, and the bought it for Kindle so as to put my yellow markings on the real Kindle copy, not the sample. Plus I’ll get to re-read the great beginning.
For those who want to know the title without scrolling up: “The Righteous Mind” by Jonathan Haidt, 2012.
Two observations:
1) The America Mr. Whittle is talking to does not exist, at least not as a majority. I wonder if it ever did. If it did there would be no need to make an argument.
2) The divide is not between conservative and liberal ideals but between fashionable and unfashionable. Obama won because he was and is “cooler” than a stuffy white businessman; the oldest cliche in America. Ideology had little if anything to do with his victory.
3) The Republicans shouldn’t waste time trying to get their message across but rather they should try and recruit sexy young movie stars and news commentators.
4) Obama is not a liberal, he is a left wing fascist. his support for anti-democratic personages in Honduras, Latin America and the Middle East leaves little doubt. But saying so is racist McCarthyism or something. I wish someone who is mainstream would at least say this man is not committed to freedom but rather rule by a single party and inevitably a single man.
5) If the economy tanks the public will vote for a savior rather than a solution. The majority will not care about any hidden agenda.
I meant “some observations” not “two observations”. I can count, honest I can count. Of course I have to take off my shoes to count over ten.
Fantastic speech!
Maybe Bill Whittle wouldn’t make a good President. But he sure would make a good speech writer for and adviser to the next President.
Love it but he’d have to trim it down into sound bites.
Anyway; Neo, when we say we want someone ‘more conservative’ we mean more like that. Not someone more far out of the mainstream. Just someone willing to explain the issue from the conservative pov.
The ironic thing (and I will probably be excoriated for this) is that Chris Christie—who is widely perceived as a RINO, and one who facilitated the re-election of Obama, and I think both things are at least somewhat true—is a man most conservatives now detest, but is one Republican who has this ability. I have seen him do it when speaking about public employee unions, for example. He is amazingly effective and straightforward, a real breath of fresh air in the rhetorical sense. That is why I was very disappointed that he didn’t run in 2012, although I understood why. And I was even more disappointed at what he did re Sandy and Obama, because he may have completely ruined his chances for 2016.
Now, if that hadn’t happened, would he have been able to articulate true conservative principles? Perhaps not; perhaps he’s just too much of a RINO to do that. I’m not familiar with his points of view on all the issues. But he definitely had the ability to cut through the garbage and tell it like it is, in a way that really reached people.
It’s a fine little speech and great point but I think entirely too sanguine about the fifty-fifty split in the nation. The split is not an interlude but a downward trend.
I hope Neo, you will not mind much a link to an article about the enormity of the problem before us by Daren Joescu. This is about as smart, succinct, and insightful a post election post mortem as I have come across.
link tags problem – the article is here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/facing_up_to_the_enormity_of_our_problem.html
neo writes that Gov. Christie “definitely had the ability to cut through the garbage and tell it like it is, in a way that really reached people.”
A skill sorely needed. Plus the wllingness (aka the cojones) to actually ^do^ it, the media smogscreen and bile notwithstanding.
J.J.f.J.J. says, “maybe Bill Whittle wouldn’t make a good President.”
In terms of background and qualifications, agreed. But in terms of the atrocity we now see in office, what the h#ll. We would do no worse with him than we would with Hillary or Michelle Antoinette [whom I still see as a serious 2016 possibility — you think the Royal Couple will gladly relinquish their power and perks??], and we would have a champion for our point of view for once.
The electorate evidently goes for someone plain-spoken and hip, who tells it like it is. Remember, in the post-modern age, youth and rock star celebrity counts more than wisdom and experience [okay, some bitter sarcasm here].
Betrayal is the original sin.
Whittle is a good man who speaks with the courage of his convictions defended by superior principles.
Romney meets his moral obligation to voluntarily redistribute his accumulated wealth (a product of his labor). His contributions to economic development are especially notable.
Thou shall not steal — a tradition, universal maxim. Redistributive change, whether prosecuted in person, or through an agent (e.g. government), is an immoral enterprise.
I do not indulge in the sin of envy. I do not comfort myself with the sin of avarice.
neo-neocon Says:
“is a man most conservatives now detest, but is one Republican who has this ability.”
I don’t detest him but I don’t think telling it as it is worked for Romney / Ryan. You have to do that + explain why it is that way (because the other team has their narrative of who you are and why your doing what you claim is right). Romney failed there and while we were all hoping Ryan would help there (MATH and all that)… but if he did try I didn’t catch it.
Whats worse, I think Christie might have the same problem described on the video… that deep down he doesn’t buy the conservative world view.. ergo he can go south under pressure.
For the right sort of candidate Whittle would make an excellent speech writer. This speak plainly with conviction, say what you mean, and mean what you say style is what I prefer. That’s why I favored Herman Cain early on.
Christie has the same ability, but on some issues he definitely shows a streak of RINO. “I believe that each state should have the right to make firearms laws as they see fit.” I have a right to keep and bear arms. I do not recognize state or federal laws that circumscribe this most basic of human rights.
Looking in the rearview mirror Romney faced a difficult, up hill battle. But Romney, for all his accomplishments and upright character, tip-toed around the major issues a bit too much IMO for fear of the MSM response. I understand his reason for campaigning the way he did; but the results are the results. Its well past the time for Republicans to bypass the MSM. Stop throwing people like Sarah Palin under the MSM bus!
MJR, my statement about Whittle was a bit off. I should have said, “Since he does not want to be President, he would not be a good candidate. However, he would be a great speechwriter or advisor to a candidate.”
Agreed that Bill Whittle is far more qualified than B.O. In fact, I’m far more qualified than B.O. (Military experience, executive experience, have done hard manual labor, and know that a budget is necessary to keep any entity’s fiances under control.) My chances of being elected are less than that of a ham sandwich. I’m white, male, conservative, uncharismatic, heterosexual, with less speaking expertise than G.W. Bush. ‘Nough said on that.
Yes, I fear the Hildabeast as much as you. But we must remember she is not as glib, cool, or loved by the MSM as B.O. Actually, right now I don’t see anyone on the dem side who strikes me as a likely successor to B.O.
Watching this, I wept. I cried. Like an angry baby.
http://campbell.congressnewsletter.net/mail/util.cfm?gpiv=2100096990.1874.107&gen=1
My main John. J. O. H. N. Yeah. John. My main man, John.
Curtis, I read your link expecting John to say something disappointing.
Did I misread you or him?
I’m sorry, dearest Ed. I quite misled. The “this” that I watched and was referring to, which produced the angry baby reaction (and why shouldn’t it?), is Whittle’s video.
John Campbell’s article is both a statement and example of Whittle’s assertion that power results from cohesion of message and messenger. John’s message is superb conservatism, and he is a very successful and re-elected congressman.
Oh, I guess I should explain the angry baby reaction as well.
A baby gets angry when denied its mother’s breast. Feed me, damn it. This is really rich (like Mother’s milk) because the baby knows mama should feed it and it communicates with crying, grabbing and gesturing. When that doesn’t work, the baby gets angry. And squalls and throws a fit. How else does it communicate it’s need?
We, the tax paying, gentle, abiding, and tethered to the millstone donkeys have been abused by a master we did not choose. Anger is an appropriate response.
I’ve long felt that Bill Whittle is a national treasure.
I fear however that he may greatly underestimate the degree to which the American public have and continue to swallow the left’s kool-aid.
Neo’s post just above this one of Nile Gardiner, where Neo relates her friend’s reaction to Benghazigate is illustrative of my point; “I had dinner with an old friend who is an intelligent, moderate, non-leftist Democrat with some conservative tendencies. This friend just didn’t care about Benghazi or the administration’s handling of it, didn’t know the details and was cynically dismissive of the topic because “all politicians lie.”
I too have friend’s exactly like this, as we most probably all have but Neo’s friend (and all of ours) is not dismissive of what happened in Benghazi due to easily corrected ignorance or mere cynicism.
Were unimpeachable sources to inform and confirm all the facts of Benghazi to them, they still would not care and they would continue to dismiss it all. Whatever excuse or twist of logic is needed they will employ and no amount of persuasion will illuminate the cognitive dissonance of their position.
They have done so before, still do and will continue to do so.
They have drunk so deeply of the left’s memes and narrative that anything that challenges that view is dismissed. In fact, the more deeply facts challenge their Weltanschauung (German noun; [Philosophy] a comprehensive view or personal philosophy of human life and the universe) the more adamant the rejection of fact and evidence.
The left’s useful idiots, the liberals who voted for Obama, our relatives and friends, neighbors and fellow citizens don’t want to know and willfully refuse to hear and see the objective facts and reasoned arguments that question their beliefs.
They reject it, no matter what the cost.
I find it curious that the pessimists in our midsts are the same ones who (tend) to want the House Republicans to dig in their heels a la the ‘fiscal cliff’.
I used to follow Whittle closer when he wrote essays instead of videos. I could read the essay and savor his writing.
Seeing the Unseen is classic. Also Tribes.
Then again it seems that the “uninformed voters” would rather watch than read.
Love. What is love. Love, in a word, is children. Any society that does not value children, that values abortion, will die.
Bye bye America. Thanks for the good memories but good riddance. There is a world (universe) to populate and you missed out because you got fat and selfish. Bye bye.
I play more Windows Mahjong now as a way not to think since Nov 6. I just had a game I could not win, so I said, “What if you try a strategy that makes no sense at all but will work and allow you to keep the faith.” I won.
Some deus ex machina has to reverse the wave–otherwise we live in a post-election Dennis Millerian world of shutting down with plastered happy pod faces until our final days. I read Geo Pal’s link above. It was good until the end when he let loose with a castigation of “them.” I don’t think fighting will win this fight.
I lunched today with members of “the industry” which, in Hollywood, means the entertainment industry. I sat with liberals (of course). The speech that preceded lunch was noteworthy for its lack of anything uplifting; it was all about how to be popular. I thought that no one in the audience could be reacting as did I, but at my little round table I discovered that I was wrong. No one’s heart is uplifted by dragging it through the dregs of how to be popular. As we munched, and the liberals were “hot dogging it” (as Clint so aptly put it) I was told that the “other candidates” wanted “to do away with all safety nets and entitlements.” I opened my eyes wide like saucers and asked which candidates wanted to “do away with all safety nets and entitlements.” Why … why … well, not a single candidate could be named with those desires. But then: “The Tea Party!” They’re the culprits. I suggested that that was a rather shallow way to understand the Tea Party and the others at the table coughed in their paper napkins and saved anyone from actually hearing what I was saying.
There seems to be a protective shield around brains that keeps them from allowing in anything but Kool Aid into the crevasses.
My interlocutor went on to say that young people today are better off than we were young because they understand that we are ruled by evil forces. I said that I think teaching they young that we are ruled by evil forces *is* evil. Everyone chose not to hear that.
I then learned that my interlocutor believes in what I believe in: freedom, values, prosperity, doing work worth doing – he just has the tails pinned to the wrong donkey.
The task of keeping the faith – let alone winning – is wily. Both “sides” are full of well-meaning people. Both “sides” think they are for what is best for humanity. No side thinks itself to be evil, crafty commies or ham handed, horrid fascists. The problem is that people do not take the time to go through evidence and theory to put together a viable world view or get lucky enough to be cracked over the head by the humiliation of having forwarded something stupid and be called on it. This is because they blather only amongst those of like-mindesets.
We need a deus ex machina. Deus only knows what it will be.
oh, I meant to say, simple, Bill Whittle is magnificently energetic and well-informed, good-natured and fun. I got a little side tracked : ).
M of Hollywood: I just got this book out of the library. Haven’t read it yet, but I think it might address some of the issues you’re talking about.
Obama has the instincts — and, more and more, the moves — of a tyrant. Plain and simple. Unfortunately, all the planets were aligned just right for his rise to the presidency.
Hillary as president would not be nearly as bad in this regard. She doesn’t have the aura that surrounds Obama and she has many enemies on the left who are not afraid to say bad things about her.
Everything Whittle says is spot on, but I don’t think necessarily needed for future presidential contests. With Obama gone from the scene, things might just get back to a more level playing field — even with regard to the MSM.
neo . . .
Jonathan Haidt! ^Please^ correct me if I’m wrong —
He’s the guy who performed this experiment: construct a current events questionnaire delving into why people think what they think; tell liberals to fill it out as though they were a conservative, and tell conservatives to fill it out as though they were a liberal.
The result — conservatives could catch the liberals’ way of thinking much better than the liberals could catch the conservatives’ way of thinking.
Maybe it’s because conservatives have much more experience ingesting the liberal way of thinking (the schools, the media, etc.) than liberals have ingesting the conservative way of thinking.
And of course, the now-old [very true] saying that conservatives think liberals have bad ideas, but liberals think conservatives are bad ^people^.
M J R: here’s my previous writing on Haidt.
Ed: In a comment here over on Patterico you can find links that can lead you to both of those essays and more. The old E!E!E! website is gone, but, thanks to the Wayback Machine, you can still get access to them. I have a number of those links bookmarked so I can point people to them… and you can actually link backwards to his older essays, too… or just use neo’s amazon widget to buy a copy of his Silent America collection.
I, too, liked his essays more, though, I suspect he gets more attention from the videos, which is why he does them. I prefer the higher bandwidth of the printed word myself.
neo . . .
Yessss!! Here it is:
http://neoneocon.com/2008/09/13/a-liberal-tries-to-understand-the-palin-phenomenon/
. . . in which you quote a Judith Warner in an article she published September 11, 2008:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/no-laughing-matter/
Here’s your quote of Ms. Warner:
BEGIN WARNER PASTE
Haidt has conducted research in which liberals and conservatives were asked to project themselves into the minds of their opponents and answer questions about their moral reasoning. Conservatives, he said, prove quite adept at thinking like liberals, but liberals are consistently incapable of understanding the conservative point of view. “Liberals feel contempt for the conservative moral view, and that is very, very angering. Republicans are good at exploiting that anger,” he told me in a phone interview.
Perhaps that’s why the conservatives can so successfully get under liberals’ skin. And why liberals need to start working harder at breaking through the empathy barrier.
END WARNER PASTE
—
Thanks for the refresher.
M J R
If Christie ruined his chances for 2016 with that Sandy photo op with Owebama, then good. We do not need a gun grabbing RINO in the White House. We have enough gun grabbing Democraps to last a lifetime.
RickZ: would you prefer Hillary Clinton instead?
I enjoyed the video and I like the points he makes, but I can’t be the only one to watch that video who imagines how a candidate as plain-spoken as the one he envisions would get savaged by the press. Part of what has me feeling down about the results of this election is what it suggests as an indication that the country and the electorate has substantially changed. Reagan won easily in a different time. In 1980 the alliance between social, economic and foreign policy conservatives that got Reagan elected was a new force in American politics. Today the media is particularly adept at helping the Democrats by demonizing all three types of conservatives, plus the Democrats now have a group of young voters who have been taught to vote for them after many decades of propaganda in the schools and colleges.
After four more years of Obama, I hope Americans have enough sense to vote for a conservative candidate, but I thought they would have done so this time. The biggest challenge may be reaching the “low-information” voters, and as long as the Democrats control a significant segment of the media, that’s going to continue to be a problem.
neo,
As I said, we have enough gun grabbing Dems, and Hillary is a gun grabbing progressive/communist. Besides, I’ve already had Cankles as my Senator, so no, I don’t want her.
What I want will not happen. I want a fighter for the conservative cause and Christie ain’t it. I’m not saying I wouldn’t want him in an administration, but not as president or vp.
At this moment, there is no candidate who I want in 2016. I’m not sure 2016 is even relevent at this point as I don’t give us even two years before the Free Shyt Army vs. Producers War begins, and not just politically but with real violence. It’s happening now with union thuggery, etc. If I make it to 2016 (those pesky death panels, I’m disabled), then I’ll worry about it. But I have a feeling that the eGOPs (pronounced ee-gops or elite GOP) will go for the next in line, so what I think and who I want will not matter one whit anyway.
The Democraps will serve us the shyt sandwiches while the eGOPs will ring up the bill.
Heads they win, tails I lose.
Kurt Says:
“I can’t be the only one to watch that video who imagines how a candidate as plain-spoken as the one he envisions would get savaged by the press.”
Depends. A lot of things that send liberals ballistic don’t bother the general public. You know; threatening to bomb Iranian military facilities if they keep giving arms to people killing Americans… Spin as they might; most Americans would be for it. He would just have it say it in less of a rant.
Such a relief to hear someone say it out straight. It is actually refreshing and a relief from all the usual mealy-mouthed ‘talking heads’.
Wonder if the majority of the people might feel the same way.
Now that I think about it, that speech gave me the same feeling as the speech in “Independence Day”.
thx much for the book rec, neo neo. I read the first part of the sample of Kindle, then went to reviews on Amazon, and the bought it for Kindle so as to put my yellow markings on the real Kindle copy, not the sample. Plus I’ll get to re-read the great beginning.
For those who want to know the title without scrolling up: “The Righteous Mind” by Jonathan Haidt, 2012.
Two observations:
1) The America Mr. Whittle is talking to does not exist, at least not as a majority. I wonder if it ever did. If it did there would be no need to make an argument.
2) The divide is not between conservative and liberal ideals but between fashionable and unfashionable. Obama won because he was and is “cooler” than a stuffy white businessman; the oldest cliche in America. Ideology had little if anything to do with his victory.
3) The Republicans shouldn’t waste time trying to get their message across but rather they should try and recruit sexy young movie stars and news commentators.
4) Obama is not a liberal, he is a left wing fascist. his support for anti-democratic personages in Honduras, Latin America and the Middle East leaves little doubt. But saying so is racist McCarthyism or something. I wish someone who is mainstream would at least say this man is not committed to freedom but rather rule by a single party and inevitably a single man.
5) If the economy tanks the public will vote for a savior rather than a solution. The majority will not care about any hidden agenda.
I meant “some observations” not “two observations”. I can count, honest I can count. Of course I have to take off my shoes to count over ten.
Pingback:Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog
Pingback:This Week’s Watcher’s Council Nominations | therightplanet.com
Pingback:GayPatriot » Watcher of Weasels — Dreary December Edition
Pingback:The Start of December |
Pingback:Watcher’s Council Nominations – Playing Politics With Other People’s Money Edition | Virginia Right!