We hear that the GOP wants to expand their standings among all aspects of Americans…..and now we see what it really is……The “big tent” can only hold so many……
The GOP is trying to be a milder, kinder face on the party these days….well at least the supposed leaders, that is…….mellowing their message and trying to appear more “populist” than they really…..they are jumping on the minority voter bandwagon, the immigration and the women’s bandwagon…..but after listening to them for a week or so…I ask just what part of their plans sound “populist”?
Do you even know what a populist is?
Populism–any of various, often antiestablishment or anti-intellectual political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person rather than according with traditional party or partisan ideologies.
Digest that for a minute.
One of the most famous populists of all time was Huey Long, governor of Louisiana and here is what he ran on…………
Number one, we propose that every family in America should at least own a homestead equal in value to not less than one third the average family wealth. The average family wealth of America, at normal values, is approximately $16,000. So our first proposition means that every family will have a home and the comforts of a home up to a value of not less than around $5,000 or a little more than that.
Number two, we propose that no family shall own more than three hundred times the average family wealth, which means that no family shall possess more than a wealth of approximately $5 million—none to own less than $5,000, none to own more than $5 million. We think that’s too much to allow them to own, but at least it’s extremely conservative.
Number three, we propose that every family shall have an income equal to at least one third of the average family income in America. If all were allowed to work, there’d be an income of from $5,000 to $10,000 per family. We propose that one third would be the minimum. We propose that no family will have an earning of less than around $2,000 to $2,500 and that none will have more than three hundred times the average less the ordinary income taxes, which means that a million dollars would be the limit on the highest income.
Does any of that sound like populism of today? Personally, I do not like the word populist because it has been misused for too long. Likewise the use of progressive to describe a liberal……it may be PC today but they are two different political animals….
In the truest sense of the term, the GOP can never be a populist movement, not with the issues it champions today.
Does the GOP really want to win the presidency? Will the GOP ‘bring in the clowns’ as they did in 2012? Will we have real issues to decide on in the election? Questions may seem a bit off-beat but take a look at what has happened since the last election.
Days after Mitt’s loss to Obama were heard how the GOP just had to change their ways if they were to ever take back the White House….we have had an autopsy on the party and a whole new way of thinking (a bit of a stretch but they want us to believe it)…….
(Newser) – Republicans were pretty harsh on themselves in their much-discussed autopsy of the 2012 campaign, but did they actually get to the root of their electoral woes or propose decent solutions? “Unfortunately, the answer on both counts is, not really,” the National Review laments. The report concludes that Republicans are out of touch with young people, preach to the choir, and need to reach out to minorities. “There is truth in each of these, which is how they got to be platitudes.”
- The report’s take on outreach is “heavy on committee formation … and tokenism,” the Review complains; its top suggestion, for example, being that minorities take charge of minority outreach. “In reality, selling the Republican party’s appeal is more about the appeal than about the selling. … The heavy lifting is going to require imagination and an appetite for risk.”
- Michael Tomasky at the Daily Beast agrees. “Back in the 1980s, the voters kept the Democrats out of power until they were persuaded that the party really had changed,” he notes, and Democrats responded by “jettisoning some longtime shibboleths.” Republicans need to do the same. Their problems with minorities run deep, and many voters believe their chief economic goal is to protect the rich.
- At the Washington Post, Dana Milbank notes that Reince Priebus’ speech skipped right over the report’s recommendations on gay rights and immigration. Priebus “took pains to avoid offending the conservative orthodoxy that is antagonizing segments of the electorate that Republicans need if they are to win.” At one point he said, to use Milbank’s paraphrase, that “All are welcome in the Republican Party—as long as they’re conservative.”
- Erick Erickson at RedState complains that the report’s recommendations to swap primaries in for caucuses and limit debates will benefit monied candidates like Mitt Romney. But the real problem with the report, he argues, is that it fails to realize that “sometimes there is nothing that can be done. Bad election years are bad election years.”
I agree that the GOP has changed nothing. They continue to grasp onto outdated views on today’s complex issues. But could it all be just a rouse?
The GOP does not need to win the national election. Surprise! They are getting everything they want by controlling state governments. Approximately 24 states are controlled by the GOP and 2016 could help that average. They could get just about everything they want by circumventing the Federal government and control society thought the use of states rights. Look at abortion for instance…..it is a legal right as a federal issue but states have found ways of seeing that that right is never used……I look for the same sex marriage thing to be the same…..SCOTUS will most likely vote that it is a states rights issue and kick it back down.
The GOP will continue to play the game with the hope that something or someone will fire up the electorate……but while they are doing that they will be working hard in the states for that is where they will get just about everything they want….
2013 CPAC begins today and I will watch the doings to see who will be building their props for a national run……..
Marco Rubio is everywhere! Fox News, SOTU response, letter against Hagel, everywhere….a lead man on immigration ………….it is as if they are trying to set him up for a presidential run in 2016……remember Jindal, his first appearance was a disaster…….Mr. Vaginal Probe of Virginia was a disaster……..hopefully the GOP is using their heads in this not so subtle attempt to make Rubio a candidate…….
But is he for real?
Hydration issues notwithstanding, Marco Rubio is in a strong position in terms of the 2016 presidential race, writes Nate Silver in the New York Times. Rubio is “reliably conservative,” which would help him in the primaries, and his favorability ratings are solid, which would help him in the general election. (Silver knows it’s early to be worried about primary season, but he notes that the “invisible primary,” in which candidates woo party insiders, is already under way.) Rubio’s challenge will be to maintain his popularity as voters learn more about him and realize his positions are pretty much the same as those of his Republican rivals. (His support of immigration reform is an exception to the rule.) Great political talents, such as Reagan and Obama, have “the ability to sell ideas to voters across a wide range of the political spectrum,” writes Silver. It’s too soon to know whether Rubio is in their league, but his White House prospects hinge on the answer. Click for Silver’s full column.
We will see who buys this ad campaign. Thoughts?
Time to get real about voting!
After the loss in 2012 the GOP said it would do some soul searching and find a way to start winning elections……personally, I think it is a good idea….while I do not support many conserv ideas……I do think that the process needs a good viable party to compete……
The RNC had its winter meeting and the re-branding has begun…..
“We must compete in every state and every region, building relationships with communities we haven’t before,” Priebus will say, POLITICO’s Mike Allen reports exclusively. “We must develop the best technology with the help of the best minds—and train activists, volunteers, and candidates with the modern tools of a modern party. … We can stand by our timeless principles—and articulate them in ways that are modern…relevant to our time and relatable to the majority of voters.”
Priebus will outline a number of steps the GOP should take to expand the base and get competitive in a broader swath of states. Among his suggestions: train “candidates, volunteers and operatives” on basic subjects like fundraising and campaign strategy — but through a variety of high-tech methods, including Skype sessions and Google hangouts; give the “next generation of organizers access to the brightest experts,” take the initiative on leading in the “digital space” and focus on being “welcoming” and “inclusive” without forgetting GOP “principles.”
“It means renewing those principles because only they can offer the solutions to the liberal induced problems of our time…” Priebus is slated to say. He will add, “And to those who have left the party, we want to earn your trust again. To those who have yet to join us, we welcome you — with open doors and open arms.”
And then there was the speech by LA. governor Bobby Jindal……….
Newser) – Bobby Jindal delivered the keynote address at the Republican National Committee’s winter meeting last night, a speech billed as a “rebuttal” to Barack Obama’s inaugural address, but he took aim as much at his own party as Obama’s. Jindal said that while Republicans should stick by their “timeless” conservative principles, “we might need to change just about everything else we do.” He repeated his much-quoted line that “we must stop being the stupid party,” decrying the “offensive and bizarre comments” that have damaged Republicans. “It’s time for a new Republican party that talks like adults.”
Jindal said conservatives had become too wrapped up in thinking about Washington. “We seem to have an obsession with government bookkeeping,” he said. “If our vision is not bigger than that, we do not deserve to win.” He called for “re-thinking nearly every social program,” among other, radical moves. “What we are doing now to govern ourselves is not just wrong. It is out of date and it is a failure.” The speech was clearly intended to position Jindal for an expected 2016 presidential run, but according to Zeke Miller at BuzzFeed, it “appeared to be coolly received” by Republicans in the room.
Does Jindal believe what he says? Not sure, but I am sure that he wants to run in 2016 and will say whatever necessary to make the case that he is qualified and a good option……..
These are pretty good words and sound like the beginnings of a plan…..but only if they are true and just not some talking points to make the 6 pm news……..I personally, have my doubts that the party will do much different than the last time they ran candidates……for one their quiet plan to game the electoral college……
(Newser) – Republicans in swing states that went for President Obama are pushing for a big change in how the Electoral College works, reports the Washington Post. The idea is to apportion electoral votes according to congressional district, instead of the winner-take-all system that most states employ. In Virginia, for example, the difference would be dramatic—Obama would have taken only four of the state’s 13 electoral votes in 2012.
“The last election, constituents were concerned that it didn’t matter what they did, that more densely populated areas were going to outvote them,” says the Virginia state senator sponsoring the bill. Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania—whose legislatures are controlled by the GOP—are also considering the change, but Virginia could vote on the measure as early as next week. Currently, only Maine and Nebraska use the congressional district system. Critics call the proposed legislation “sore-loser bills” and point out ending winner-take-all would greatly reduce Virginia’s importance as a swing state.
It appears that the voter fraud stuff did not do much to help win an election so we will try something else……..I would not be so suspicious if they chose states that were not the key swing states in the last election……or if they plan to do this is every state to include the South where they would not get all the electoral votes…..but I have a feeling that is not part of the plan…….
But beyond that…..look at all the Repubs not running for re-election…..why? They are scared to death that they will be primaried and lose……….that is NOT re-branding! That is running scared!
Let me see if I have a grip on this……..the party firers Steele, the guy who led them to a massive victory in 2010 and rehires the guy that oversaw their massive defeat in 2012……….What does this mean? Sorry Bobby but STUPID is here to stay!
College of Political Knowledge
Yesterday’s post on philosophy/ideology set the stage for today’s post………
After a national election I like to look back and to see what was going on in the campaigns……not that anyone gives a crap, but I do and that is all that matters……..they say hindsight is 20/20……but to learn nothing from the past is to make certain that it will happen again and the failures will continue exponentially……after the last campaigns I started seeing a return of a psychological technique ….not that it any different with each campaign but that this past one was a blatant illustration of a time worn tactic called…….propaganda.
I know only authoritarian regimes use this tactic to get their way and to keep the people ignorant….we can always point to Nazi Germany and the old USSR and China in the days of Mao as prime examples of this technique……but scoff if you will…..it is present in this country as well and especially during a political season……in an attempt to win friends and influence voters tactics are used….tactics that were honed in the days of Nazi Germany.
It is nothing new….it is new if one sits down and analyzes the world of politics…….even democratic politics is NO stranger to the technique of controlling the information that is ear marked for the voter……
But first…..what is meant by propaganda?
It is a noun……..
- Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
- The dissemination of such information as a political strategy.
Think back at the last campaign…..take your favorite candidate……his/her team used the tactics of propaganda to make their candidate more appealing…..bet you think this is all so much hokum…..right?
Let us look at the seven (7) different tactics employed when using propaganda as a political tool…….
Assertion is commonly used in advertising and modern propaganda. An assertion is an enthusiastic or energetic statement presented as a fact, although it is not necessarily true. They often imply that the statement requires no explanation or back up, but that it should merely be accepted without question. Examples of assertion, although somewhat scarce in wartime propaganda, can be found often in modern advertising propaganda. Any time an advertiser states that their product is the best without providing evidence for this, they are using an assertion. The subject, ideally, should simply agree to the statement without searching for additional information or reasoning. Assertions, although usually simple to spot, are often dangerous forms of propaganda because they often include falsehoods or lies.
Bandwagon is one of the most common techniques in both wartime and peacetime and plays an important part in modern advertising. Bandwagon is also one of the seven main propaganda techniques identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis in 1938. Bandwagon is an appeal to the subject to follow the crowd, to join in because others are doing so as well. Bandwagon propaganda is, essentially, trying to convince the subject that one side is the winning side, because more people have joined it. The subject is meant to believe that since so many people have joined, that victory is inevitable and defeat impossible. Since the average person always wants to be on the winning side, he or she is compelled to join in. However, in modern propaganda, bandwagon has taken a new twist. The subject is to be convinced by the propaganda that since everyone else is doing it, they will be left out if they do not. This is, effectively, the opposite of the other type of bandwagon, but usually provokes the same results. Subjects of bandwagon are compelled to join in because everyone else is doing so as well. When confronted with bandwagon propaganda, we should weigh the pros and cons of joining in independently from the amount of people who have already joined, and, as with most types of propaganda, we should seek more information.
Card stacking, or selective omission, is one of the seven techniques identified by the IPA, or Institute for Propaganda Analysis. It involves only presenting information that is positive to an idea or proposal and omitting information contrary to it. Card stacking is used in almost all forms of propaganda, and is extremely effective in convincing the public. Although the majority of information presented by the card stacking approach is true, it is dangerous because it omits important information. The best way to deal with card stacking is to get more information.
Glittering generalities was one of the seven main propaganda techniques identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis in 1938. It also occurs very often in politics and political propaganda. Glittering generalities are words that have different positive meaning for individual subjects, but are linked to highly valued concepts. When these words are used, they demand approval without thinking, simply because such an important concept is involved. For example, when a person is asked to do something in “defense of democracy” they are more likely to agree. The concept of democracy has a positive connotation to them because it is linked to a concept that they value. Words often used as glittering generalities are honor, glory, love of country, and especially in the United States, freedom. When coming across with glittering generalities, we should especially consider the merits of the idea itself when separated from specific words.
Lesser of Two Evils:
The “lesser of two evils” technique tries to convince us of an idea or proposal by presenting it as the least offensive option. This technique is often implemented during wartime to convince people of the need for sacrifices or to justify difficult decisions. This technique is often accompanied by adding blame on an enemy country or political group. One idea or proposal is often depicted as one of the only options or paths. When confronted with this technique, the subject should consider the value of any proposal independently of those it is being compared with.
Name calling occurs often in politics and wartime scenarios, but very seldom in advertising. It is another of the seven main techniques designated by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis. It is the use of derogatory language or words that carry a negative connotation when describing an enemy. The propaganda attempts to arouse prejudice among the public by labeling the target something that the public dislikes. Often, name calling is employed using sarcasm and ridicule, and shows up often in political cartoons or writings. When examining name calling propaganda, we should attempt to separate our feelings about the name and our feelings about the actual idea or proposal.
Pinpointing the enemy is used extremely often during wartime, and also in political campaigns and debates. This is an attempt to simplify a complex situation by presenting one specific group or person as the enemy. Although there may be other factors involved the subject is urged to simply view the situation in terms of clear-cut right and wrong. When coming in contact with this technique, the subject should attempt to consider all other factors tied into the situation. As with almost all propaganda techniques, the subject should attempt to find more information on the topic. An informed person is much less susceptible to this sort of propaganda.
The plain folks propaganda technique was another of the seven main techniques identified by the IPA, or Institute for Propaganda Analysis. The plain folks device is an attempt by the propagandist to convince the public that his views reflect those of the common person and that they are also working for the benefit of the common person. The propagandist will often attempt to use the accent of a specific audience as well as using specific idioms or jokes. Also, the propagandist, especially during speeches, may attempt to increase the illusion through imperfect pronunciation, stuttering, and a more limited vocabulary. Errors such as these help add to the impression of sincerity and spontaneity. This technique is usually most effective when used with glittering generalities, in an attempt to convince the public that the propagandist views about highly valued ideas are similar to their own and therefore more valid. When confronted by this type of propaganda, the subject should consider the proposals and ideas separately from the personality of the presenter.
Simplification is extremely similar to pinpointing the enemy, in that it often reduces a complex situation to a clear-cut choice involving good and evil. This technique is often useful in swaying uneducated audiences. When faced with simplification, it is often useful to examine other factors and pieces of the proposal or idea, and, as with all other forms of propaganda, it is essential to get more information.
Testimonials are another of the seven main forms of propaganda identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis. Testimonials are quotations or endorsements, in or out of context, which attempt to connect a famous or respectable person with a product or item. Testimonials are very closely connected to the transfer technique, in that an attempt is made to connect an agreeable person to another item. Testimonials are often used in advertising and political campaigns. When coming across testimonials, the subject should consider the merits of the item or proposal independently of the person of organization giving the testimonial.
Transfer is another of the seven main propaganda terms first used by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis in 1938. Transfer is often used in politics and during wartime. It is an attempt to make the subject view a certain item in the same way as they view another item, to link the two in the subjects mind. Although this technique is often used to transfer negative feelings for one object to another, it can also be used in positive ways. By linking an item to something the subject respects or enjoys, positive feelings can be generated for it. However, in politics, transfer is most often used to transfer blame or bad feelings from one politician to another of his friends or party members, or even to the party itself. When confronted with propaganda using the transfer technique, we should question the merits or problems of the proposal or idea independently of convictions about other objects or proposals.
Scoff if you will but take any campaign ad, either party, and apply these techniques and see if they are employing propaganda……I know most people will look at this and apply it to the opponent of their personal candidate….but that is stupid…..DO IT with ALL campaigns……you will see that you, as a voter are being played to control the outcome of the election….it is about power….NOT DEMOCRACY!
This is just a form of indoctrination…..and the sad part is we are assisting the powers that be in the total conditioning of ourselves….it is not a forced indoctrination….we gladly volunteer to be played…..we gladly allow ourselves to be fed erroneous information that has consequences that we in turn blame on our political opponents….it is sick and pathetic.
Print this out and save it for future use…….vet your candidates well….do NOT accept the line that they are out for your concerns….they are NOT! Be an informed voter and this country will prosper….but continue being played by both sides and this country is on the road to ruin…..I may be wasting my time but I feel I must try to help the voter understand what is happening and why……please learn the issues, both sides of the argument, if you settle for one side, the side that you think makes you feel warm and fuzzy because someone has told you what you want to hear….then you are not doing the country any good and are definitely screwing yourself in the end (and that is not a play on words)…….