Skip to main content

View Diary: STUNNING! Banksters launder foreign drug cartel money as Wells Fargo invests in for-profit prisons (99 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Ok, friendly registered Republican here. (0+ / 0-)

    I am against the war on drugs and I will, for the first time, also be voting for Dems this year.  What I would like to say is that MOT's framing of the issue and use of the Salon article is understandable given the forum he is using (ie Daily Kos).  If you talk to liberals you want to frame it in a liberal way if you are going to persuade your target audience of the correctness of your position.  I believe that is easily understood by most people.

    The inverse is not quite as obvious but I'll offer this example of an incorrect way of framing an issue.  If your target audience is liberals it is best not to start off the argument "Look, Reagan was right.  He said....."  I'm sure that even if Reagan was arguing that we shouldn't torture enemy non-combatants that liberals would tend to, at first, look at the argument in a negative light due to the framing of the issue around a positive view of Reagan.

    I say all that as a prelude to this.  If we are to end this war on drugs you all (we all) need a few more quivers in our arsenal.  Liberals tend to be against the war on drugs and conservatives are overwhelmingly in favor of the war on drugs (look at the latest Gallup poll to confirm this observation).  What we don't necessarily need is yet another left framing of the issue.  What we need is for liberals to talk with their conservative friends and family members and get the point across to them.  Unfortunately, the Salon and MOT framing doesn't work with conservatives.

    What does work is this.  "Look, Reagan was right.  Most things that the government does it does poorly.  The first response of liberals is to always get the federal government involved.  They institute a program to eradicate some ill of society and it invariably fails.   But do they simply acknowledge their error?  Hell no.  They double down and actually expand the program.  They raise taxes to pay for it and not only does the program not work as designed but it creates a lot more problems.   A great example of this is the war on drugs.  The war on drugs promised us a drug free America but instead we spend $40- $50 billion a year for a "drug free" America but instead we get a country that that has easy access to drugs, has more murder, has more crime, has higher taxes, lower employment, and more police corruption."

    Now, I don't expect liberals to react well to the framing of the debate of the war on drugs as a big liberal program.  But as a conservative that is kinda my point.   You can't continue to frame the issue in a liberal way when the biggest impediment to creating a sane policy is to reduce the conservative opposition to the program.  To do that you need to appeal to conservatives and to do that you need to talk to them in a way that they understand.  For the SERIOUS liberals here, please learn to talk to your conservative friends and family members in a way that they can understand.

    If you do so, you can then begin to see the end of this horrible (big government) program that creates death and misery on a huge scale.

    I'm open for questions.

    We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

    by theotherside on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 03:57:01 PM PDT

    •  You do remember who started this little... (0+ / 0-)

      war on drugs some 40 years ago? He was guy named Nixon. I guess you're right on one account, we get the conservatives to support our position the same way the republicans convince their base to support their ideas. We'll just lie to them!

      We'll just them that that the stupid liberal, Nixon, started the war on drugs and they'll all just come screaming and kicking to have the program overturned. Why don't we just go one step further and tell the neanderthals that Obama actually started the war on drugs while he was being raised in Kenya. That should really fire them up.

      You don't really seem to think too highly of the intellectual ability of the republicans you stand with and support. Perhaps your screen name should have been thewrongside.

      Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

      by reflectionsv37 on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 04:16:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I appreciate your comment but I would (0+ / 0-)

        encourage you stop, listen and think.

        On the chess board of the war on drugs I'm several moves ahead of you.  I don't say this with hubris or as an intellectual slap down.  You seem to want to debate who was responsible for the war on drugs (WOD).  If the debate is who started the WOD then you and I would agree that it is "conservatives".  If we moved to the next debate as to who still promotes the WOD then you and I would agree as we would both say "conservatives".  If we then moved to the next argument of who needs to change their position so that we can end this awful war, you and I would probably agree that it is "conservatives".  This brings us to where I started my argument.

        If you want to end the WOD, you need to start convincing conservatives that they are wrong.  To do this you need to reason with conservatives and to do that you need to frame it in a way to appeal to their world view, biases, political outlook etc.  The fact of the matter is that the WOD is a FEDERAL program.  The fact of the matter is that it costs $40 to $50 billion a year.  The fact is that it causes us to raise taxes.  The fact is that it causes us to raise the debt (because we don't fully fund the federal budget).   The fact is that it causes us to increase crime.  The fact is that it causes us to decrease respect for the law.  The fact is that it erodes the constitution.  The fact is that, at a minimum,  it undermines the second, the fourth, the fifth and the tenth amendment.

        You are a liberal and I don't expect this argument to work particularly well with you.  I could explain to you why liberals should oppose the WOD but I think, perhaps, that you already understand that point.  MY POINT, is that we need conservatives to change their minds and the way to appeal to them is through logical arguments that they understand.

        I'm sorry that you apparently don't understand that the WOD is a big government program that was started by and sustained by "conservatives".  Hopefully you can stop and think and understand (or debate) that it is imperative to change conservatives' viewpoints on WOD if we are to end this awful war.

        Be well.

        We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

        by theotherside on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 05:12:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I can assure you... (0+ / 0-)

          on the chessboard of the war on drugs you are not several moves ahead of me.

          There is no question who initiated the war on drugs, that's a given, but you are wrong to think that it is just the conservatives who continue to promote this war. Both parties are equally guilty in continuing and promoting this war. Every administration since Nixon has expanded the War on Drugs in some form or another and that includes the current administration.

          This is one issue we don't need to try and convince conservatives they are wrong. As if that is even possible. They get just as upset when their friends and family members get arrested and thrown in jail as their liberal counterparts. This is evidenced by the recent Gallop poll that shows that a full 50% of the population thinks marijuana should be legalized. That 50% includes a whole bunch of conservatives. And a good portion of those opposed are liberals. Or do you somehow mistakenly believe that only liberals support legalization and that you alone are the only enlightened republican?

          It has nothing to do with getting conservatives to understand what a total waste of money the entire war on drugs has been. If they can't figure that one out all on their own, all the explaining in the world isn't going to help.

          The position of the people is clear, now what needs to be done is a concerted effort to get our politicians to bow to the will of the people. And that my friend, is where the problem really lies. Because when you have politicians that are being bought off by lobbyists for pharmaceutical companies, for profit prisons, law enforcement and other entities who profit by keeping marijuana illegal, it makes it very difficult to get the politicians to listen to the will of the people.

          And for your information, it's not NECESSARY for you to WRITE in ALL CAPS to get my attention! Checkmate!

          Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

          by reflectionsv37 on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 05:58:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Please. Slow down. Listen to what (0+ / 0-)

            I say.  Try not to infer my motive.  We agree on a LOT of things.  This isn't a battle of intellects.  You are probably in the top ten percent of all IQs.  Congrats.  So am I.  But I'm also smart enough to know that either God or genetics blessed me with a pretty darn good brain.

            But the point is not our IQs nor our debating skills, right?  You apparently want to talk about the Gallup (not Gallop) poll since you brought it up.  I'm intimately aware of that poll.  So let's discuss it.

            If you go to the cross tabs of the poll you see that 69 percent of liberals favor legalization while only 34 percent of conservatives support legalization.  It's also true that 50 percent of Americans support legalization.  So if conservatives are at 34 percent, liberals are at 69 percent but the general public is at 50 percent what does that tell you and me?  Perhaps we analyze things differently but that indicates to me that perhaps more people identify as conservatives than liberals.  The only way that this could be wrong is that moderates also heavily favor prohibition but in the poll they are at 57 percent favoring legalization.  So that isn't the case, is it?

            I believe that you and I both realize this, on some level.   You, however,  seem to believe (and are writing in a style that indicates that you believe) I'm unaware of this data.  So, yes, let's by all means stipulate that some liberals are for prohibition.  And some conservatives are for legalization.  But hard data indicates that a) conservatives out number liberals and b) conservatives overwhelmingly support prohibition.

            Another, perhaps more controversial statement, is that the public is ahead of the politicians.  I agree with this.  You agree with this based on your writings.  You identify the politicians as needing to change their position.  I agree.  Perhaps we also agree that in politics, as in business, you should act on the lead measures.   If you don't understand that concept that's ok.  In the slight chance you don't understand I'll say that a lead measure in alcohol prohibition was public sentiment.  A lag measure was the politicians sentiment.  At first the public was against prohibition and then they were for it and then the politicians were for it.  Then, eventually, the public's sentiment changed and then the politician's sentiment changed.

            What I would argue is that the key LEAD measure (please forgive the caps, I'm not shouting but emphasizing) is the public sentiment.  The ultimate outcome is the LAG measure which is the politician's sentiment (and ultimate votes).  So I'm arguing to act on the lead measure, which is the citizen's (or public's) sentiment.  I also argue that you should focus not on the people who already support legalization but you should focus on the people who support prohibition.  This is especially true when that portion of the citizenry outnumbers liberals and they outnumber moderates (although they are not a true majority either).  I further argue that liberals can better convince liberals and conservatives can better convince conservatives.  

            It's fairly logical and straightforward.  Do we not agree?

            We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

            by theotherside on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 07:28:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site