|Non-polemic conservatism Aka; achieving the same ends through different means.|
Posted by: LateForLunch ® |
Author Profile Mail author Edit
One of the risks of engaging in polemics is that it tends to reinforce bias in those following along.
The brilliant conservative writer Joseph Sobran pointed out years ago that, "highly emotional discourse tends to favor the left because it places the discussion on a far less-rational basis. Conservatism is strongly supported by rationality, so accenting emotionalism is counter-productive to the cause of conservatism".
Research shows that the more emotional debates become, the less the content of those debates is rational.
Because conservatism is lacking in the same "pop" (psychological candy) as leftism (Marxism) these days, allowing debates to become contests between dueling emotional appeals serves leftism more.
I therefore believe that this weakness was mercilessly (and effectively) exploited by the anti-conservative fanatics who run the democrat party now. Even though DJT's approach to rhetoric was arguably also effective (especially in getting the base out to the polls), going forward to the years ahead (regardless of the outcome of the election) this should probably be noted.
The emotional appeal of conservatism is rooted in a prerequisite understanding of reality. Those who are detached from or only loosely engaged in reality day-to-day (neurotics) will not be swayed by bland, emotionally-vapid arguments such as offered by so many conservatives (who cast themselves as anti-leftists, rather than pro-conservatives).
So in that regard, the old axiom of politics was upheld by the results of the 2020 presidential contest - the party with the more-positive message got a tremendous (and possibly the most) amount of votes. Simply being correct is no longer enough to convince people to vote for you.
As Benjamin Franklin stated so profoundly almost 300 years ago, "to appeal to intellect is not enough to sway voters. To persuade, one must appeal to INTEREST" (emphasis mine- LFL).
It was intellectually a slam dunk that conservatism and DJT/ Pence were a far-superior choice to Dopey Joe and Lucretia Borgia. But because the 'Crats were able to wield a more-positive image of their party and candidates (by going toe-to-toe with the polemics of Twitter / mass media) they achieved their objective of at the very least, getting a decisively larger share of the popular vote (and possibly the greater share of the electoral college votes).
Debating successfully without resorting to the sort of blunt-force back-and-forth polemics which marked Trump's style of campaigning is a tall task.
I don't propose to have the solution, but there is a huge market of voters out there which may be swayed by the right approach.
Conservatism is as doctrine so vastly superior to leftism in any rational view, that it seems tragic that virtually no leadership in the conservative movement was able to convey the excitement of being the purveyors of the Greater Truths of conservatism that all the conservative members of this forum feel so strongly and passionately.
I am going to give this a lot more thought. We need to get to a place in this nation where people feel as turned-on by conservatism's promised rewards as they do about the exaggerate, phony, mendacious promises of the radical revolutionary socialist Utopians.
Modified by LateForLunch at Mon, Nov 23, 2020, 14:28:11
|Post Reply | Recommend | Alert||Previous | Next | Current page|