How Conservatives can win in a world of “Low Information Voters”

By 90 Comments 2,624 views

How did Barack Obama win reelection despite 8 million fewer people working and a doubling of gas prices since he took office? Despite a flatlining GDP, $6 trillion in new debt, and the disastrous Benghazi? How is it possible that given his abject failure voters could give Barack Obama a second term? Easy… Republicans hate everyone.

This point was crystallized this week when Mary Katherine Ham got into a dustup with Juan Williams over the issue of gun control. Ham made the cogent point that Chicago, with some of the strongest gun control laws in the country is anything but a “promise land” of tranquility. Williams responded with the absurd notion that because Virginia has much weaker gun regulations than DC, the lives of people who live in DC are somehow less valuable.

As nonsensical as William’s argument (if you can call it that) was, its demonizing of Virginians as not valuing the lives of DC residents was not unusual. That is exactly how Barack Obama won reelection and how we’ve gotten ourselves into this quagmire of a bloated mommy state with trillions of dollars flowing to the “needy” and tens of thousands of pages of regulations seeking to “protect” citizens.

Conservatives and the GOP have been participating in different conversations than liberals for decades. While conservatives seek to engage in conversations about finding solutions for problems, liberals ignore them and steam ahead building their progressive utopia, regardless of the impact on the actual problems themselves.

The conversation between Ham and Williams provides a clear demonstration of the tactic. Data clearly show that jurisdictions with the most restrictive gun laws not only don’t show lower rates of gun violence, but typically have more gun violence. The conclusion that one might draw from this is that fewer gun laws mean more saved lives. You can disagree with the conclusion or argue about a lack of causation or you can suggest some other alternative explanation for the data. But that’s rarely what liberals do. Instead they suggest that if you’re against more gun laws you don’t want to protect children.

The same construct holds true for virtually every issue in politics:

  • You oppose Barack Obama you’re a racist.
  • You oppose increasing spending on education you don’t’ care about children.
  • You oppose wind farms and electric cars you don’t care about the environment.
  • You want borders enforced you hate Hispanics.
  • You want lower taxes you hate poor people.
  • You don’t support gay marriage you’re a homophobe.
  • You want Obamacare repealed you’re a greedy SOB who doesn’t care about children with cancer or the elderly needing medicines.
  • If you oppose increasing the minimum wage you don’t care about the poor.

And the list goes on. This is the liberal modus operandi: Demagoguery. Rather than engage in thoughtful discussions on the goals and efficacy of government regulations, they seek to demonize their opponents and in the process marginalize then sideline them.

Mitt Romney was just the latest causality of this Democratic pseudo defamation machine… He’s rich and wants lower taxes, therefore he hates poor people. Nevermind he created thousands of entry level jobs that gave poor people an income.

Before him Rudy Giuliani was called racist because of his crackdown on crime in New York City. Nevermind that he saved the lives of thousands of young black men by making the streets safer for everyone.

Ronald Reagan was constantly pilloried for everything from wanting to starve children to being a war monger. Nevermind he created a staggering level of economic growth that provided incomes to parents of millions of children, and that he won the Cold War.

The worst part of this liberal tactic is that it’s almost impossible to refute. Data rarely works to sway the argument. You saw that in William’s rejoinder to Ham. He had no interest in engaging on the facts. You also see it in the painting of the Tea Party movement as racist. Andrew Breitbart offered $100,000 for proof of the claim that Tea Partiers had spit on black members of congress. Despite thousands of phone cameras rolling nobody came forward. Nonetheless the meme of Tea Party racism continues, even in the face of explicit proof to the opposite. Once the left makes an assertion and the sycophants in the media get hold of it, it’s almost impossible to reverse.

Liberals have been seeking to delegitimize conservatives for half a century. Unfortunately it’s been a largely successful strategy, as can be seen by the growth of government regulation and spending under both Democrat and GOP administrations. As such, liberals have no intention of abandoning it any time soon.

Given that playing field, in order to achieve success conservatives are going to have to face those falsehoods head on. At the most basic level they must make the point, repeatedly, that their policies of limited government and fiscal restraint seek to help all Americans, not just particular groups. More importantly however, conservatives must be willing to go toe to toe with Democrats who seek to delegitimize them as haters of one sort or another. They must be willing to stand up and state clearly “I reject the basic premise of your argument” and clearly articulate that opposition to Democrat’s nanny state policies does not suggest that they hate anybody. Rather, by reducing government entanglement in our lives, conservative policies seek to help everyone and anyone succeed.

In a universe of “low information voters” the only recipe for success is for conservatives to stay laser focused on the idea that limited government helps drive prosperity, which helps everyone. Period. That’s it. There’s nothing else.  In a cacophony of issues we must narrow the focus to the only ones that count: freedom and prosperity, because once they’re gone, nothing else matters.  Conservatives must learn to compellingly deflect the “hate” label and focus attention on how freedom drives prosperity and prosperity makes everything else possible. By explicitly refuting those “hate” labels they can narrow the spectrum of discussion to the consequences of government policies. They should be under no illusion that doing so will change the votes of dyed in the wool liberals. It may however catch the attention of a sufficient number of those “low information voters” to sway the next two elections red and save the country from our impending Greece like collapse.

The product of a military family, growing up in Naples, Italy and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and being stationed in Germany for two years while in the Army, Vince spent half of his first quarter century seeing the US from outside of its own borders. That perspective, along with a French wife and two decades as a struggling entrepreneur have only fueled an appreciation for freedom and the fundamental greatness of the gifts our forefathers left us.

90 Responses to “How Conservatives can win in a world of “Low Information Voters””

  1. 79

    ilovebeeswarzone

    sometimes it come not as fast as I would like,
    but as long as it come,
    meaning that an observation came to my mind about
    how CONSERVATIVES CAN WIN, IN A WORLD OF LOW INFORMATION VOTERS,
    we know that there is a big difference between the DEMOCRATS
    AND THE CONSERVATIVES REPUBLICANS,
    THAT IS THE FACT THAT THE DEMOCRATS WILL COVER THE SINS OF THEIR PEERS,
    no matter how corrupt, no matter how liar they are,
    they will continue as if nothing is the matter and keep them on the people’s payroll as long as
    it’s not discovered and expose to the PEOPLE,
    THE DIFFERENCE IS GREAT IS IN IT? WE HAVE SEEN IT.
    BUT THE CONSERVATIVES ARE SHOWING INDIVIDUALTY OF EACH ONE AND DEBATE THEIR CONTRA DICTION AMONG THEMSELVES , WITHOUT TOUCHING THE OVERAL TOTAL VALUES OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY THEY ARE UNIFY WITH IT BUT KEEPING THEIR OWN CORE OF ONE EACH
    AS A RIGHT TO TELL HIS OR HER OPINION CONCERNING MANY SUBJECTS MORE THAN THE DEMOCRATS FOLLOWING ONE LINE WHICH IS OF THE LEADER NO MATTER HOW THE FAILURES
    OR THE DOWNFALL IT BRING THE PEOPLE TO BE HURT,
    THE CONSERVATIVES HAVE A BETTER BRAIN POOL TO SOLVE PROBLEMS IN AMERICA ON ALL FRONT, BECAUSE OF THEIR MANY PEOPLE INTERESTED IN THE PROBLEM SOLVING,
    COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO DEMOCRATS FOLLOWING THE LEADER AGENDA EVEN IF
    THEY KNOW TO SINK AMERICA,
    BUT WHEN YOU HAVE A ROUND TABLE OF CONSERVATIVES IN THIS BLOG FOR EXAMPLE, DISCUSSING A PROBLEM ON GOVERNMENT ISSUES,
    IT GIVE THE PEOPLE A SOLID BASE TO MAKE THEIR MIND
    EASIER TO JUDGE WHERE THE RESOLUTION IS RIGHT OR WRONG,
    AS OPPOSE TO THE DEMOCRATS NON DEBATES, BUT ACCEPTING THE LEADER FAILURES AS RIGHT JUST BECAUSE HE CAMPAIGN ON IT

  2. 80

    another vet

    @Richard Wheeler: I didn’t see the movie if that’s what you are referring to. I stopped going to see mainstream movies a long time ago. If “Lincoln” was made in the vain of an Oliver Stone movie or most Hollywood movies for that matter that try to pass themselves as being historical dramas, then it must not be very historically accurate most likely leaving out details or misrepresenting facts in order to promote a certain theme. Having not seen the movie though, I can’t comment as to its accuracy either way. Perhaps it was a rare bird that was fairly historically accurate.

    If the main theme was that Lincoln went to war was free the slaves then it is historically inaccurate. The main reason Lincoln went to war was to preserve the Union not to end slavery. Lincoln believed slavery was evil and preferred it didn’t exist but he also believed blacks were inferior to whites. His main reason for signing the Emancipation Proclamation was military in nature. He knew the only way to win was total war and that meant freeing the slaves not only to end the institution of slavery as a divisive issue but because he would need their manpower. Prior to issuing the EP, he made one last gesture to the South telling them they could keep the slaves they had if they returned to the Union. If none of that was brought out in the movie, then it left out historical facts in order to promote a certain theme.

    Ditto on exercise and animals especially man’s best friend.

  3. 81

    Richard Wheeler

    Another Vet Based on your comments I think you’d truly enjoy Lincoln. Directed by Spielberg with an incredible performance from Daniel Day Lewis. Nothing “Oliver Stone” about it. Also rec. Argo, Zero Dark Thirty and Pi.
    You know I don’t personally buy into this blame the MSM for everything meme. I believe First Amendment every bit as important as the 2nd. Some great movies along with many bad ones on which I won’t waste time or money.
    I believe you’ll love Lincoln. Let me know.

    BTW I know Retire05 won’t approve but my wife and I most always catch 2 movies when we go to multi-plex. Talk about inflation 9-14 bucks per person. They should be glad we come at all.lol

    Semper Fi

  4. 82

    retire05

    @Richard Wheeler:

    I know Retire05 won’t approve but my wife and I most always catch 2 movies when we go to multi-plex. Talk about inflation 9-14 bucks per person. They should be glad we come at all.lol

    If you pay for both tickets, why should I have a problem with that? If you don’t, and only pay for one ticket, but then see another movie that you had not paid for, in my state that is called “theft of services” and you could be arrested for it.

  5. 83

    ilovebeeswarzone

    Richard Wheeler
    they are coming for you,
    you don’t know where, you don’t know when,
    but as sure as the SUN RISE, they are coming.
    oh and bring your laptop, so you will have something to do,
    bye

  6. 84

    Richard Wheeler

    Dang Bees Are they coming to take my discount entertainment book? My 2 for one movie booklet?
    Should I get me an AR-15 and a truckload of ammo?
    Will they be wearing 10 gallon hats and cowboy boots?
    Thanks for the heads up pal.

  7. 85

    another vet

    @Richard Wheeler: I have zero use for the MSM. They have an agenda and it’s to promote left wing ideals. They have given a pass to Obama for things they would have crucified Bush for. Since the election the only news I’ve listened to has been when I’m somewhere else and someone else has it on and then I try to block out the garbage spewing from their mouths as best as possible. Not into propaganda and never have been. I haven’t been to any of the online news sites either- FOX, Newsmax, CNN etc. since the election. The last news related site was Dick Morris’s where I blogged him the day after the election to essentially tell him he was full of shit and that I wouldn’t be back given his disastrous election predictions. It’s actually been quite pleasant not having to listen to or read the crap that is out there.

  8. 86

    ilovebeeswarzone

    another vet
    hi,
    I strongly think that DICK MORRIS HAD IT RIGHT, BUT HE NEVER COULD THINK OF THE SCOPE OF CORRUPTION AND LIES BE APLYED TO WIN THE ELECTION BY OBAMA,
    HE HAD SAID HE MUST WIN AND HE WILL DO ANYTHING, AND HE WENT TO MAKE A PACT WITH THE DEVIL TO WIN.
    ANYONE WITH A DECENT MIND COULD HAVE SUSPECTED IT,
    BYE

  9. 87

    Liberal1 (Objectivity)

    Conservatives are low information voters—just look at the debt incurred by George Bush’s War in Iraq and Afghanistan for questionable reasons and misinformation.

  10. 88

    another vet

    @ilovebeeswarzone: Obama’s approval rating, which is the best indicator of the percentage of the popular vote an incumbent president will receive, on election day was a tad over 50% which is about what he received in the popular vote. Despite that, Dick Morris was still claiming a landslide victory for Romney. As I told him on his site, he has no more credibility with me. That’s not to say his criticisms of this administration are without merit, he is right on in that regard, but he tried playing people for fools with his predictions. Once someone does that to me, it’s bye, bye.

  11. 89

    ilovebeeswarzone

    another vet
    I think you turned your anger on the wrong man,
    I STILL THINK HE HAD FIGURED IT RIGHT, DO YOU THINK HE WOULD PUT HIS REPUTATION ON THE LINE BY TELLING FALSE COMPUTATIONS PUBLICLY? SURELY NOT,
    AND WE JUST ARE GETTING SOME FALSIFICATION OF THE VOTES
    FRAUDULENTLY REPEATED EVEN BY ONE COUNTING BALLATS,
    THAT IS ONE OF HOW MANY? THIS ONE VOTE TWICE SHE SAID ARROGANTLY,
    AND SHE VOTE ON THE NAMES OF OTHERS,
    AND WHAT OF WHAT THEY DISCOVERED OF DEAD DEMOCRATS VOTED IN AND MORE COMING,
    SLOWLY BUT SURELY.
    and your 50% will melt radicaly as much as it inflate.
    bye

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1.  Friday morning links - Maggie's Farm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *