Anger and politics

Lots of political movements are based in anger. Much of the left is based in anger. Sometimes it sells. Sometimes it doesn't. I think the times that anger has been effective in politics has been very rare.

The civil rights movement from my reading of history was much more effective in the period of the positive messages of Martin Luther King than in the angry messages of Malcolm X. The feminists did better when they talked of equal rights than now that their message is almost entirely based on abortion and, well hatred of men. I should here explain I don't regard the average woman looking for equal pay for equal work and other equalities as the same group as the angry feminists such as Gloria Steinem ,Kate Michaelman, and Betty Freidan.

Now I have been wondering why the conservative movement is not gaining ground. I think it is because the most vocal part of it, have become very angry. This is the time where you think that I am going to launch into an attack on talk radio. No not this time, although some of these hosts deserve part of the blame.

The right has not done a good job of explaining the real benefits of conservative. Some of the rhetoric that has gone along with the immigration debate has often been angry and sounding like good old fashioned racism. Here I don't want to be misunderstood. The immigration battle is important and must be won. Law and order must prevail. Assimilation has to happen. The rhetoric has to follow that aim.

Conservatism is an ideology that has to persuade, not threaten. Many of the things we believe are couter intuitive. Unless you look under the surface it may be difficult to understand that tax cuts actually create higher revenues. Welfare reform actually helps people save their own lives. Massive college subsidies do not in fact create more educated people. These thinks have to be explained patiently and repetitively. Not shouted at people. It plays into the game plan of the left which is that conservatives are based in hate not love. This is why the term compassionate conservatie was destructive. It was a surrender to the left.

We need effective leaders. Other people than just talk radio. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and others have been huge influences on my knowledge. My first 'teachers' though were Jack Kemp, Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich. I think we lack elected leaders that can evangelize the conservative message. Until we get some more of them we can't move the conservative movement back on track.

I am not sure why we don't have them today. We do have good conservatives in Congress and the Senate. Why they aren't making an impact on society, I'm just not sure why. There is a young left wing person named Barak Obama, maybe you have heard of him. I think if you ask the average Obama voter what his policies are and I'm not sure they could tell you. I'm sure they wouldn't tell you that they love that his voting record is the most liberal in the Senate even more so than Ted Kennedy.

Likewise Ronald Reagan didn't sell policy, he sold a vision of what America was to him. The policies were there, but he sold us on a vision. Of course he had great ideas that translated into great policies. He was a leader first. Why is Mike Huckabee still in the race? He is selling ideas. He has no money and sometimes his policies don't go along with his visions, but he is successful because he is attempting to sell ideas. John McCain is the presumptive nominee because he is selling an idea. A return to a Ronald Reagan America. To win in November he has to sell people that he is the man to bring that to this century with his plans and policies, but he is selling a vision first.

I remember the last few elections we had people running that I think had better policies. Steve Forbes a terrific economics man. He couldn't personalize it to the average voter, not the politics junkie, but to the average voter. Rudi Guilliani I thought was the best equipped to handle all of the roles of President, but just couldn't get the people along the way convinced. Some of it has to do with his social issues, but just didn't get it done. Mitt Romney is a great policy wonk. We never knew what he believed down deep. Unfortunately the most passion I saw him show was in his exit speech.

Great ideas and policies are vital, but the ability to convey a vision cannot be underestimated. Visions are never communicated as anger. Just as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They won't agree but they also aren't running for office anymore. That isn't because they don't want to, no one wants them to.