Explains why our movement failed to gain critical mass and capture POTUS

[raystone]

This is a recent article written by a liberal on why conservatives have been winning political fights, and what to do about it.

If you change the words progressive to libertarian/constitutional, and change conservative to neocon/progressive, you'll have the analysis and state of our movement in detail....

To sum up Part 1:

1) Conversatives had a specific plan starting in late '70s written by a few individuals, mainly Howard Phillips, Richard Viguerie, and Paul Weyrichand, and well laid out in several books and papers.

2) Primary focus of phase 1 was selling conversative worldview.
From article .....As Heubeck put it: "We must win the people over culturally -- by defining how man ought to act, how he ought to perceive the world around him, and what it means to live the good life. Political arrangements can only be formed after these fundamental questions have been answered."

What is the meaning of life? How should we relate to each other? Our families and communities? Other nations? God? The planet? What is good, and how do we recognize it? What is evil, and how should we respond?

My Take...
Ron Paul and the movement skipped this step entirely. We went straight to how our government should act and relate to the world. When personal liberty was mentioned, it was broad definition didn't home for the average citizen

Full article:

http://www.alternet.org/story/79511/?page=entire



Some summations from Part II include

- long recitations of facts and figures and programs and policies don't work.

From article: Offer clear examples wherever possible. Use real people in real situations. Tie values statements to everyday experiences. Listeners need to understand how your message ties directly into the way they live their daily lives, so bring it down to ground level.

My take
We talk in large and complicated governmental concepts such as dollar inflation, federal debt, and gross national income taxes "from 2000". We continually refer to the constitution knowing full well 80%? of Americans haven't read it.



Full Part II

http://www.alternet.org/democracy/79675/?page=1

[freelance]

I'd say this helped kill us, and what about the "race revelations" on the eve of the NH primary?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iW5kOB1pmg

[Psionide]

I would have to agree that we were not able to "dumb down" or homogenize the message for the masses of American's in the sense that they do not hear truth anymore, the constant buzzing in the ears about which shoes you should wear or how to increase your penis size have confused the masses to the point where truth is unrecognizable. Only those who at some point have earnestly thought for themselves and asked the hard existential questions seemed to respond immediately to the declarations of truth espoused by Dr. Ron Paul. What I find most interesting is that this does not come down to what the campaign or the movement could have done, the mass of people who aren't listening fall into a couple of potential thought forms:

"Politics are not to be discussed and so I am going to vote how the media tells me based on my affiliation to party"

or

"Politics are corrupt beyond any recognition or retrieval and so I am going to play x-box until the world comes to an end"

Seriously I was hoping that GWB would make the situation so bad that we would be forced to change the system, unfortunately the mass of Americans do not care that they can be illegally detained, searched and made into enemy combatants at GWB's whim. Do not care that our government was involved in torture and terrorism across the globe. The only thing they care about is why gas is 4.00 a gallon... and guess who they turn to to fix it... you guessed it government, even if they don't believe in the federal government.

The crime has been the long term deterioration of the American stock, they (corporations, government, media) have dumbed you all down to become the laughing stock of the world human cattle drive. As for me, my father is from Mexico and my mother is from Canada, I myself having remained a permanent resident alien through the 25 years I have lived in the states because to be honest, I saw this coming. I knew the United States government would commit some false flag attack, and when I saw 9-11 I said "oh, so they are doing that today huh?". From then on it has been a count down, you can scream and shout this message from the mountain tops or try to to water it down so the masses will understand, but in the end the reality is that there will not be a peaceful end to this system of things. I am going to be moving off to Canada to start a refugee camp for all you Americans who want to avoid RFID implants and force vaccinations. Maybe from there we can gather our forces and take it back.

[raystone]

"Politics are not to be discussed and so I am going to vote how the media tells me based on my affiliation to party"

or

"Politics are corrupt beyond any recognition or retrieval and so I am going to play x-box until the world comes to an end"


While I generally agree with you on populist lack of interest, it needs to be mentioned that while Ron Paul has received funds from over 100,000 donors... Obama now has received contributions from over 1.5 million people. That's an incredible percentage of the voting public. In addition, besides these avid donating fans, he probably has the same number that love what he says but can't donate.

This level of interest from the "masses" seems to give support to the Part II of this article series. That is, relate to the individual person, stay away from programs and policies in your speeches, and you'll gain popularity.

What additional interest could Ron Paul have attained if he more frequently translated the broad constitutional message to the individual ?

By the way, before anyone says the MSM didn't give him the chance, I saw him have the opportunity > 20 times on the MSM and he didn't speak to the individual.

[Kade]

The Civil Libertarians.


More than 30% of Americans are civil libertarians.

They vote Democratic overwhelmingly, because more important than the economy to them are issues of civil liberties.

From the Wikipedia Entry:

Civil Libertarians also often support the Democratic Party because Democratic positions on such issues as civil rights and separation of church and state are more closely aligned to their own than the positions of the Republican Party, and because the Democratic economic agenda may be more appealing to them than that of the Libertarian Party. They oppose gun control, the "War on Drugs," protectionism, corporate welfare, government debt, and an interventionist foreign policy. The Democratic Freedom Caucus is an organized group of this faction.

This movement was hijacked, from people like me, who had joined in it relatively early, by people who maintain social conservative values. The libertarian democrats are a huge base,


These group of people are, like me between 25-40 year olds, college educated, upper middle class professionals. They are part of the internet age, the growing city intellectuals, and the newest leadership class, and they are all libertarian leading.

They despise the government interference on social issues more than the government interference of business. They have switched, from a strong alliance with Republicans throughout the 20th century, to overwhelming Democratic in the last 12 years.

They are also the second strongest coalition of votes for Obama, and the reason he will win the Democratic Primary.

This group was ignored by the RP campaign and more recently this movement in general. This group is the future of this country, and it was shat on by the libertarians.

The culmination of this took place May 25th, 2008, when the Libertarian Party chose Theocratic right wing whackjob Bob "Candy" Barr as the nominee, demonstrating that they have learned NOTHING from the Ron Paul firestorm.

[phixion]

Please stop it with this nonsense.

Explain how McCain caught on, who had no package with zero substance.

Explain how Obama caught on, who had a shiny package with zero substance.

Explain how Hillary did so well, who had no package with zero substance.

Explain how Ron Paul, who had a shiny remarkable and exciting package with substance that beats them all, which spreads like wildfire, didn't do so well at all.

The media placed certain candidates on the top shelf for the masses to take a good gander at, despite their quality of substance.

YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THIS!

IT'S THE ONLY REASON RON PAUL ISN'T GOING TO BE YOUR PRESIDENT.

If Ron was placed up there on the same shelf he would of had the nomination and won over almost every American. All he needed was exposure like the other candidates received.

The media put Ron at the bottom of the shelf. It's called special interests. He still did miraculously well (far far far better than any other candidate would of if they had been placed on the same lower shelf as Ron) which only proves how Ron Paul would of become president.

Pete

[scholarpreneur]

Good point.

We need to bring up the philosophical aspects of conservatism: Liberty, Freedom, Individualism (<--big one), and how all these things relate to the hard core "boring" stuff like government. You have to translate it.

[Kade]

Please stop it with this nonsense.

Explain how McCain caught on, who had no package with zero substance.

Explain how Obama caught on, who had a shiny package with zero substance.

Explain how Hillary did so well, who had no package with zero substance.

Explain how Ron Paul, who had a shiny remarkable and exciting package with substance that beats them all, which spreads like wildfire, didn't do so well at all.

The media placed certain candidates on the top shelf for the masses to take a good gander at, despite their quality of substance.

YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THIS!

IT'S THE ONLY REASON RON PAUL ISN'T GOING TO BE YOUR PRESIDENT.

If Ron was placed up there on the same shelf he would of had the nomination and won over almost every American. All he needed was exposure like the other candidates received.

The media put Ron at the bottom of the shelf. It's called special interests. He still did miraculously well (far far far better than any other candidate would of if they had been placed on the same lower shelf as Ron) which only proves how Ron Paul would of become president.

Pete

You don't get it.

I'll spell it.

C.I.V.I.L. L.I.B.E.R.T.I.E.S.

Abortion.
War.
Education.
Religion.
Science.

His voting coalition is made up of highly educated young professionals.

This movement crapped on these people. That is your answer.

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

Please stop it with this nonsense.

Explain how McCain caught on, who had no package with zero substance.

Explain how Obama caught on, who had a shiny package with zero substance.

Explain how Hillary did so well, who had no package with zero substance.

Explain how Ron Paul, who had a shiny remarkable and exciting package with substance that beats them all, which spreads like wildfire, didn't do so well at all.



Pardon me? Ron Paul had no package. He just had Ron Paul. The point of having a package--the entire point--is to bring about, "candidate legitimacy" and, "electability". When the media labels you a kook and you are not even issuing timely press releases, (look at the spin from, "frontrunner", "maverick Murray" Sabrin), then you have no package. When you go on talk shows and actually answer the host's questions, instead of hammering out bullet points:

#1 on taxes.
#1 on the second amendment
#1 on health care. The only medical doctor running for president.

...it shows that you are creating no brand. Congressman Paul ran on the issues and the Constitution. Emotion wins elections, not issues.

[Libertarian Ideals]

You don't get it.

I'll spell it.

C.I.V.I.L. L.I.B.E.R.T.I.E.S.

Abortion.
War.
Education.
Religion.
Science.

His voting coalition is made up of highly educated young professionals.

This movement crapped on these people. That is your answer.

Completely agree.

The civil libertarians that supported Ron Paul were the anti war protesters, the athiests and those who support seperation of church and state, the people who wanted a third party run and those that I think, were dissapointed that Paul didn't call out vote fraud in NH or elsewhere.



Emotion wins elections, not issues.

Being able to relate emotionally helps, but people want to hear what you have to say as well. When the media isn't crafting public opinion, people come to different conclusions. I don't think there is a perfect behavior to win over the electorate.

[WRellim]

To sum up Part 1:

1) Conversatives had a specific plan starting in late '70s written by a few individuals, mainly Howard Phillips, Richard Viguerie, and Paul Weyrichand, and well laid out in several books and papers.

2) Primary focus of phase 1 was selling conversative worldview.
From article .....As Heubeck put it: "We must win the people over culturally -- by defining how man ought to act, how he ought to perceive the world around him, and what it means to live the good life. Political arrangements can only be formed after these fundamental questions have been answered."

What is the meaning of life? How should we relate to each other? Our families and communities? Other nations? God? The planet? What is good, and how do we recognize it? What is evil, and how should we respond?

My Take...
Ron Paul and the movement skipped this step entirely. We went straight to how our government should act and relate to the world. When personal liberty was mentioned, it was broad definition didn't home for the average citizen



Interesting articles... and NOT surprising that it comes from the "left" who always seem to have to interpret everything in a "centrally planned economy fashion" (it's kind of their "conspiracy theory" weakpoint).


But it is vastly oversimplified and it thoroughly ignores a LOT of real events, plus demographic, resource and technology trends that were significantly more important.


This article essentially come from the viewpoint that Phillips, Viguerie, Weyrich somehow "created" (in a thoroughly planned and orchestrated fashion, controlled from the "center" by a small coterie). Problem is that THAT is NOT what happened, and such "central planning" is doomed to long-term failure in the same way (and for the same reasons) that a centralized planned economy is doomed. (And if you don't believe me... tell me what exactly happened to Karl Rove's "uber-genius" plan for a stage managed "permanent" GOP majority? )

Truth is that WORLD EVENTS and DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS overtook their plans (boomers aging, joining churches, getting greedy, funding the market with 401K money, etc) -- it is true Weyrich and the gang capitalized on those trends while the Dems failed to realize what was happening and got sideswiped -- but that is NOT the same thing as saying that the Weyrich gang's machinations actually CAUSED their success (post hoc ergo propter hoc).


So the proper question to ask is whether the "Liberty" movement is properly positioned to "ride" the coming wave (a demographic downturn) or if we need to paddle further out and catch the next one.


I would contend that RP's emphasis on the youth and educating them about sound economics and government are more in the vein of preparing them for survival of the "coming wave" (the recession/depression) so that in it's wake, they (and we who remain) can take over with the following wave.


Sadly, that means we probably have a "decade from H*LL" staring us in the face. With recovery only beginning to happen somewhere in the 2012 to 2024 timeframe... provided we sow the right seeds now and are prepared to reap them then.

Politics, like economics is NOT a "mechanism" that can be completely controlled by gears, levers and button-pushing. If it were, actual history (not the textbook revisionism) would be much different.

[Kade]

Completely agree.

The civil libertarians that supported Ron Paul were the anti war protesters, the athiests and those who support seperation of church and state, the people who wanted a third party run and those that I think, were dissapointed that Paul didn't call out vote fraud in NH or elsewhere.




Being able to relate emotionally helps, but people want to hear what you have to say as well. When the media isn't crafting public opinion, people come to different conclusions. I don't think there is a perfect behavior to win over the electorate.

Exactly, an the voter fraud as well.

The point is also that these people control, slowly, the mood of the country. It is with this group, who are the leaders in their societies, that the zeitgeist of the country changes.

When they shift towards anything, the country soon follows. Right now, because of the abuse of this administration, ranging from the justice department, to the war, to the destruction of personal freedoms, this group has shifted towards Democrats, especially now that the movement has failed to capitalize on them.

[Mahkato]

The primary reason Ron Paul is not in the top spot right now is this:

1) the entire power structure of the U.S. government, U.S. political parties, U.S. media, and the U.S. economy as a whole would be completely uprooted if we restored a Constitutional republic.

2) no one with power under the current system wants to lose it.

3) Ron Paul is a threat to their power, so Ron Paul must be marginalized.

4) Those currently not in power (i.e. citizens) will not gain significant power by restoring the republic, so their only incentive is an abstract concept of liberty and a general hope for improved quality of life and happiness under a free market.

What remains to be seen is if those in power have done enough to keep the idea of a Constitutional republic out of enough minds.

[RideTheDirt]

The primary reason Ron Paul is not in the top spot right now is this:

1) the entire power structure of the U.S. government, U.S. political parties, U.S. media, and the U.S. economy as a whole would be completely uprooted if we restored a Constitutional republic.

2) no one with power under the current system wants to lose it.

3) Ron Paul is a threat to their power, so Ron Paul must be marginalized.

4) Those currently not in power (i.e. citizens) will not gain significant power by restoring the republic, so their only incentive is an abstract concept of liberty and a general hope for improved quality of life and happiness under a free market.

What remains to be seen is if those in power have done enough to keep the idea of a Constitutional republic out of enough minds.
This guy nailed it.

[constituent]

The Civil Libertarians.


More than 30% of Americans are civil libertarians.

They vote Democratic overwhelmingly, because more important than the economy to them are issues of civil liberties.

From the Wikipedia Entry:

Civil Libertarians also often support the Democratic Party because Democratic positions on such issues as civil rights and separation of church and state are more closely aligned to their own than the positions of the Republican Party, and because the Democratic economic agenda may be more appealing to them than that of the Libertarian Party. They oppose gun control, the "War on Drugs," protectionism, corporate welfare, government debt, and an interventionist foreign policy. The Democratic Freedom Caucus is an organized group of this faction.

This movement was hijacked, from people like me, who had joined in it relatively early, by people who maintain social conservative values. The libertarian democrats are a huge base,


These group of people are, like me between 25-40 year olds, college educated, upper middle class professionals. They are part of the internet age, the growing city intellectuals, and the newest leadership class, and they are all libertarian leading.

They despise the government interference on social issues more than the government interference of business. They have switched, from a strong alliance with Republicans throughout the 20th century, to overwhelming Democratic in the last 12 years.

They are also the second strongest coalition of votes for Obama, and the reason he will win the Democratic Primary.

This group was ignored by the RP campaign and more recently this movement in general. This group is the future of this country, and it was shat on by the libertarians.

The culmination of this took place May 25th, 2008, when the Libertarian Party chose Theocratic right wing whackjob Bob "Candy" Barr as the nominee, demonstrating that they have learned NOTHING from the Ron Paul firestorm.

probably the best post here in a veeeeeeeeeeeeery long time.