Howard Chandler Christy Depicts The Founders Signing The U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1787. "Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States" (1940)

Sunday, March 10, 2013

A New Ground Game: A Conservative Road Map for Winning the Culture War and Taking America Back from the Brink of Ruin

Is it possible, or even likely, that conservatives can win elections in the age of Obama? Yes. Does it mean abandoning the Republican party in the hope that it will dissolve or be subsumed by a new party? No. Does it mean all conservatives must become Republicans? No. Does it mean Republicans can win without Independents, Libertarians, and Tea Party activists? No. Can Republicans win if they write off Democrat voters as being beyond the pale?No. The bottom line is, conservatives can win if they think of their activism in terms of education and coalition-building rather than party, identity, or ideological loyalty. 

Across the electoral spectrum, there is a growing awareness among the people that our current leadership in Washington has been, and is continuing, to lead America toward financial, economic, and international ruin. Disgust of the status quo is widespread, and the forecast offers much of the same. Conservative policies are not driving public policy. Therefore, the ruin is not attributable to conservative activism. Moreover, conservative solutions to America's economic problems are the only solutions verifiable with historic results. This state of affairs offers fertile soil for conservative grassroots to flourish. There are several steps conservatives can take if they want to succeed in taking back the soul of the American people from the big spenders and government growers who are threatening our liberty and prosperity.

Step 1: Wage our Cause in the Classrooms and Lecture-Halls 

Through like-minded proxies in the entertainment and academic world, liberals have waged an astonishingly successful war to assimilate the hearts and minds of generations of Americans. Public school teachers and textbooks have trumpeted the achievements of liberal presidents and liberal activists throughout history. Print and televised media outlets from the New York Times to ABC liberalize news coverage before it gets presented to the people.

Conservatives are getting their message out in talk radio, Fox News television channels, and through internet sites. But this is not enough. What is stopping conservative groups from obtaining the necessary permits for speaking engagements at college campuses, and not just at the big, media-attracting arenas like Columbia and Princeton? 

Why not seek out activists across the country, and help them organize rallies and other types of speaking events at local colleges? Would this cost much? It depends on how it is done, but let's consider the billions raised by GOP during the 2012 primaries and in the general election. Now, let's ponder how many of these billions were dumped on television ads, only to be skipped by DVR-equipped viewers wanting to get back to Jersey Shore or Monday night football. Would it have been worth it to have spent some of those billions on funding activist projects at college campuses? At the least, the GOP would have had everyday people shaking hands with everyday people, listening to their concerns, and explaining conservative principles in ways both understandable and attractive. If the GOP and other conservative groups want the people's support, they must invest in the people.

The people, broadly speaking, are in need information about true conservatism. The under-forty's out there have no memory of Reagan or Gingrich-led prosperity. A forty year-old in 2012 was seventeen when Reagan retired from the presidency. How politically aware do you think he or she was in high school, when they were getting their driver's licenses, chasing girls/boys, and preparing for the prom? Today, the under-forty's think conservatism reigned in the Bush II years. All they know is: it failed. 

Plausibly, President Bush handed the country to Obama in much worse shape than he found it in. What the people don't know is, in all the ways Bush failed America, he departed from conservative principles. There was nothing conservative about the Bush-backed mortgage-lending policies that wrecked the economy in 2008. There was nothing conservative about the $4 trillion in new debt Bush saddled the country with. But Republicans are loath to speak frankly about this out of partisan loyalty. In so doing, they are only contributing to the partisan fog that shields the people from learning the truth about what roads we've taken that have led to where we are now. 

In desperation, the people turned to someone from the other party, hoping for a change. That's the spirit that put Obama in power, has kept him there since, and has made 51% of the electorate unwilling to give the party of Bush another chance. If the people are equipped to understand that conservative solutions haven't had a hand in the road-to-ruin we're on, they will give conservative solutions a chance. Why not? They're desperately looking for something different than what they've had the last twelve years. 

Imagine conservative groups investing in education and bringing it to the youth of our country. How can this be done? Like all people throughout the ages, people of means have never relied on public (i.e. government) schools to educate their children. Private tutors and private institutions provide an outlet. In our present age of high unemployment among qualified educators, exploding class-sizes and fewer services due to budget cuts, horrified parents in ever greater numbers have opted to put their children in private schools (if they can afford it), charter schools (if they have the option), or home-school (last resort).

Many of these parents are of the patriotic sort and have no faith in government education. Those who home-school their children are looking for good resources to use. What is stopping conservative groups from partnering with like-minded educators (many recent graduates are looking for work and are willing except employment in a non-traditional educational venture) and forming virtual schools to deliver a quality education for home-schooled children? This would provide an opportunity to teach real history; real civics; the truth about what America is supposed to be about; the truth about the U.S. Constitution. (At same time, these virtual schools can also teach critical-needs subjects as well.) 

What is stopping conservative educators from writing 4th grade language arts stories that do not demonize business people and simultaneously glorify people who are more in tune with "the earth"?  There's nothing wrong with teaching the morals of cleaning-up after ourselves and conserving natural resources, but what's wrong with teaching the practical virtues of getting a job that can support a family instead footing that bill to others in the community who are doing it more self-sufficiently? Is this moral not worth a short story in an elementary school reading lesson? 

Educational outreach can be delivered in a multitude of ways, but 21st century parents and students, many of them possessing cutting-edge digital technology are looking for new options. There is a need to be met and there is nothing barring conservative activists and like-minded educators from engaging in this cultural front. 

The entertainment world is much harder for conservatives to do something about, but we can stand behind celebrities (like Phil Mickelson) who periodically speak out against the crushing taxation their state subjects them to. We don't have to buy movie theater tickets to support the latest Matt Damon film that promotes falsehoods about the fracking industry. 

Academia will change from the bottom-up (through educational outreach to the youth before they get into college) and from empowering college students with the knowledge to challenge the liberal propaganda being fed to them by their professors. What is stopping conservative educators from writing history books telling the truth - or a more balanced approximation - about America through the ages? What is stopping them from promoting these books at speaking engagements at college campuses, and putting these books in the hands of students willing to challenge their professors with this newly acquired knowledge? 

In sum, conservatives have long ago conceded educational forums and media outlets to liberal activists. By throwing their hats into this ring, conservatives can begin changing American culture in the homes and campuses across the nation. 

Patriot Thought

Visitor Comments

The dated links and statements below show interaction between the readers and makers of this blog to further the marketplace of ideas that enrich the education of patriots. Certain opinions made to posts are excerpted and re-posted here to highlight interesting discussions by fellow patriots.

Chris CJuly 28, 2013 at 12:31 PM [writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

I think it is absurd to draw a moral equivalence between innocent until proven guilty and guilty until proven innocent. It should be clear that one is far more protective and respectful of individual rights than the other. It's ironic that you attack the American system here, when it obviously takes more into account that someone could be falsely accused. Hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution rather than the defense.

DonaldJuly 28, 2013 at 8:27 AM[writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

It is interesting because the American Justice system goes from a innocent until proven guilty point of view. It definitely is no better in China where it is from a guilty until proven innocent point of view. Both are flawed because both lend themselves to being tainted with corruption as well as the norms of society.

Living the JourneyJuly 26, 2013 at 10:11 AM [writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

I found it interesting that Donald's perception of how America out to be was originally influenced by American fiction. This reminds me of when I arrived in China the first time expecting to see sword toting warriors running on the roofs of ancient temple like buildings. I was definitely surprised by reality.

Donald
July 26, 2013 at 9:09 AM [writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

Long before Zimmerman was pronounced innocent, people in my country were laughing at the thought of a white man (yes he is white Hispanic really) being found guilty of killing a black teenager. That will never happen they say. When things like that happen, it is the stuff of legend and stories and hollywood scripts. Look at some of the greatest literature found out there (to kill a mocking bird for example). It is the stand of the downtrodden black defendant who triumphs over the hard and brutal white man. This in itself is a tragedy as well because of the stereotypical vision people then have of the US as in the case of many of my country people as well as others from other countries in their view of America.

Anonymous
December 28, 2012 12:13 PM [writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

I do believe in evil but I also believe that Adam Lanza had mental issues that weren't being addressed. Also, he had been abandoned by his father whom he hadn't seen in over 2 years and who had a second family which Adam was not a part of. Adam had been assigned a school psychologist but somewhere along the line he dropped through the cracks and didn't get the care he needed that could possibly have prevented this tragedy. We'll never know...

Living the JourneyDecember 31, 2012 7:16 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

How can evil be defined in a pluralistic society? Is morality something decided by vote? And then following that question, how can evil be "treated"? Jason, I think you're trying to open a door that very few want to walk through because if we do, we are forced to make choices about things many would like to leave "relative".

Anonymous
December 31, 2012 7:36 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

I think we should stop offering up drug store psychology and focus on the one common denominator- GUNS. Psychotic people exist in all cultures, nations and religions. Look at the countries in the world with strict gun control laws; such as Japan, Australia, Canada to name a few, and they have far less violence involving guns. Are you blaming secularism? Science? The devil made him do it! Right? Simply, Adam Lanza and other mass murderers are mentally ill. So let's make it impossible for people like him to obtain guns of mass destruction.

Jason Aldous
December 31, 2012 10:56 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

Dear Living the Journey, We will always have tragedies so long as there is evil. Evil as such can not be cured through government policy. On the contrary, its work can only be limited through choices made by individuals.

Dear Anonymous, I do blame secular reasoning for making it difficult for us to address the problem. If you take good and evil out of your worldview, morally you can not say there is anything wrong with what Adam Lanza did. You may be horrified at what he did, but you can not judge it against any standards, if good and evil are removed as avenues of inquiry.

Jason AldousDecember 27, 2012 6:39 PM [writing in response to Wednesday, December 26, 2012: Gun Control Part 3: The Second Amendment (A Legal Analysis)]

Let's see, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Even if the wording implies that the populace must be armed when called up for militia service, it says "the right of the people shall not be infringed." Since the amendment states that bearing arms is a "right" and "not to be infringed" it is an open and shut case for anyone taking an objective reading of it. "Rights" are entitlements. Privileges can be taken away, but not rights. It matters not if this right was given with militia service in mind. Good work, Mr. Emma.


AnonymousDecember 17, 2012 3:46 PM [writing in response to Monday, December 17, 2012, Gun Control Part 2: Would Society Be Better Off If All Guns Were Made Illegal? (A Reasonable Treatment)]

On my part, I think that all guns should definitely be regulated and strictly controlled. Its interesting that almost all Americans point to the 2nd amendment. From my point of view, this 2nd Amendment was written in a time when there was 'trust' among people and their government. Today this trust has been flushed down the drain

AnonymousDecember 17, 2012 5:26 PM [writing in response to Monday, December 17, 2012, Gun Control Part 2: Would Society Be Better Off If All Guns Were Made Illegal? (A Reasonable Treatment)]

In 1959, 60% of the American public favored a ban on handguns. Today, the majority of the American people don't even support a ban on assault rifles. Why? Because since 1959, the argument that tighter gun control would reduce crime has been effectively refuted in the mind of the public. The change in attitude toward gun control is primarily due to fear of crime rather than distrust of government.


GeoDecember 8, 2012 2:11 PM [writing in response to Friday, December 7, 2012, Pearl Harbor: Was It Japan's Fault, or America's? (Conspiracy Theory vs. History)]

FDR campainged on keeping the US out of the war but when he wanted to get into the war he needed an excuse. He may very well have been tempted to withhold information from his top commanders at Pearl Harbor. They certainly suspected he did.

GeoDecember 8, 2012 at 1:28 PM[writing in response to Saturday, December 1, 2012, Voting In A Bad Economy, Recession Myths: De-Constructing Historical Falsification]

Can't argue with your observations, Jason, but even with the limited space no mention of the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs in any discussion of Hoover/Great Depression/FDR is to ignore an elephant in the room.

Chris CDecember 7, 2012 at 4:40 PM[writing in response to Tuesday, November 27, 2012, The Next Great American President: Who We Need To Look For In 2016]

One qualm: I don't think Suez can be regarded as a long-term success for Eisenhower. It bought us no credibility with the developing world and managed to alienate important Allies. As a result, we got no real help from Britain in Vietnam and plenty of hostility from France in the 1960's. France's desire to oppose or sabotage us on key issues has continued to this day.