Do We Get It?

I came across an "interesting" (in the sense of a burning wreck being interesting) article entitled "The Left Does Not Get It" recently.  The article is another "THEY are calling everyone victims, surrendering for America, and pro-gay marriage baby-killers".  Directly rebutting the article would be completely ridiculous, and I don't intend to do so.  Rather, I am going to analyze what tactics this and other articles are using to demagogue "liberals" as evil hatemongers.

Do we get the issues today?  Of course.  Do we get how to talk about them?  I'm not sure.

First, your conservative pundit attempts to define his enemy.  This is more than just creating a straw man in order to rebut it, it is an attempt to shift the debate in their terms as well.

Liberalism underestimates the potential of the average citizen. According to modern day liberal philosophy, the average citizen cannot make it on their own. To exist, the average citizen requires assistance from the government.

The liberal position allows for compromising of our freedoms while the conservative position defends them.

By "assistance from the government", I doubt he is referring to the government's roads, security, infrastructure and other services which we all use.

The problem with rebutting these concepts is that he never actually describes WHO has them.  It's always the ambiguous "they", who happens to be a liberal.  If we try to directly rebut the charges, we will be implicitly endorsing their truth.  If we ignore the charges, people will assume they are true of "liberals" as well.

What we can do is to attempt to re-define the terms.  I think that George Lakoff and the various "framing" discussions are explained far better than I could possibly do.  But we need to remember why we need to frame the issue.

Also, we can attempt to personalize the debate.  Have Nancy Pelosi ask them if they believe that she hates America.  Make them attack people, not just ideas.  Because if they are making claims about people, we can rebut them.

Second, your conservative pundit attempts to define the American public.  As the American public can't directly speak, they attempt to tell people what they think.  In general, people tend to agree with most everything people say they agree with, so they will agree with that as well.

[T]he majority of Americans support a strong national defense without foreign influence.

More people oppose homosexuality today than four years ago.

While it's true that Americans support a national defense, I doubt it is true that a "majority" of Americans support alienating our foreign allies to make our national defense completely our responsiblity.  Similarly, I don't think that more people "oppose homosexuality" today.  Most poll numbers show that support for gay marriage is increasing, and all but the most vehement televangelists don't "oppose homosexuality" (Bush and Cheney definitely don't).  But that doesn't stop them from saying it or stop people from thinking it.

Too many Democrats try to only speak to the "liberals" and to other Democrats.  By doing so, we imply that a large portion of the country disagrees.  We need to use inclusive language.  Remember Barack Obama's convention speech.  He described how we all have the same concerns, and how the Democratic Party can help them.  We need to appeal to (almost) all voters in all 50 states, not just targetted swing voters.  Talk about how we all support equal rights.  Talk about how we all want to know our elderly relatives will be financially secure.  Don't talk about how we want to eliminate the death penalty, talk about how we want to ensure that we never execute an innocent man.

The Republicans may have some success with wedge issues, but they use them to try to unite 2/3 of the public against the other part.  It is ridiculous to suppose that a party which preaches tolerance and inclusiveness would win by trying to divide the American public.

Last, your conservative pundit attempts to "helpfully" suggest how to fix the "problems" with the Democrats.

To end this slide into political isolation, they need to change their outlook on humanity and freedom.  Instead of supporting defeat and compromise, they must advocate victory and life.

My advice is to completely ignore their suggestions.  Either they are intended to backfire and cause us to lose elections, or they cause us to be "worse" than the Republicans on the issue.  If we were to do the "opposite", it probably wouldn't work either.  Better to just completely ignore their bloviating suggestions, and do what we think is best.

In summary:

1. Frame the issue.
   
2. Make it personal.
   
3. Don't be divisive.
   
4. Ignore their recommendations.