« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

A New Revolutionary Change That Is Occurring As We Speak That Will Usher In A Long Era Of Conservative Governance

By: wonkish1 (Diary)  |  December 2nd, 2011 at 11:33 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Looking back at the start of Rush Limbaugh’s program in the 1980′s not many would have predicted at the time that it would usher in a new era of conservative talk radio that would completely change the political dynamic in the United States. The same could be said when Fox News had it first broadcast. Or even the day Rick Santelli made his comments on the floor of the NYSE that sparked the Tea Party.

Today I see a new revolutionary change that many may not think is a huge deal, but could easily be a huge ‘disruptive innovation’ that could upend our political world for generations.

What I’m referring to is the new changes in debate style that are occurring today. The Family Leader debate, the Cain and Gingrich Lincoln Douglas Debate, the upcoming Huntsman and Gingrich Lincoln Douglas Debate, and to a lessor extent the Bloomberg debate a while back all mark a very large change from the past way of doing things, and that change is that the amount of time for each candidates answers are rising enough that the expectation is changing to candidates giving an argument as opposed to talking points(because of a limitation on time).

I think a lot of people are overlooking how much of a seismic shift this represents because they are looking at it from the context of this primary and the current choices, but what they aren’t factoring in is the effect this has on the voting public and the democrats going forward.

On the Democrats

Most people(including myself) will point out that when it comes down to it the arguments of the left can’t hold under careful scrutiny. They never have and never will. So a change like this is actually going to force Democratic candidates to instead make an argument for what they are for(instead of just stating it) and defend it against pointed questions from their opponents. This is practically a guaranteed losing proposition for Democrats over the long term. There is no way a Democrat could hold an argument on Keynesian stimulus spending, government intervention in healthcare, the current construct of Social Security, etc. under that kind of scrutiny. There is no way! So going forward 1 of 2 things will happen if these debate changes stick. The first is that they will lose debate after debate after debate in the future. And the second(the more likely outcome as the population gets further educated on political issues from these) is that the Democratic party will start a very swift move to the right predicated on the fact that they can’t defend the arguments they’ve made up until this point.

 

On the voting public

There is a huge difference between 30 second talking point answers and several minute arguments and how that affects the voting public. The purpose of a 30 second(or even a minute long) limit is to force stagnation within the political views of the American public and therefore reduce the risk of loss to either side. And it comes from this broken notion in political science that 100% of politics is opposing value systems and that the two sides are going to line up the same way no matter how much propagation of information, arguments, and ideas is occurring. So essentially in the past the answers had to come in the form of “signing onto” existing proposals or beliefs that Americans already had at least a limited understanding of. But…

When you increase the answer time to allow for real arguments to formulate the dynamic changes completely. Candidates are then in the position of persuading and educating people to come to their side instead of “signing onto” existing divisions.

And since a very large number of people tune into Presidential Debates(especially during the general election) the affect this is going to have is to substantially accelerate the very slow changes in people’s personal views over time. And since I(and I’m sure practically all of the people on RedState) am confident that over time we will completely dominate these arguments we may in fact be looking at one of the most important changes in the campaign and election process in history.

 

Now I do see the irony in expecting a change that is rooted in debates from 150 years ago to last when it didn’t last back then, but I don’t think this change is going away this time. Its a different world and voters are going to demand this going forward and today political machines no longer exert influence on campaigns. Today voters do. I think(and I hope) that we will be looking back at today and pointing at this key change as a big turning point in our countries future and something that ushered in a new era of conservative governance.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • valrobex

    that the MSM is losing its clout. With the proliferation of alternative information sources the MSM can no longer control the debate a’la the 30 second sound bite answer.

    Also note, it’s the Newtmeister leading the charge on this change. Just sayin’…

    • wonkish1

      The American public does self censor its media choices. So a lot of Democrats and left leaning independents just deliberately don’t tune into places like conservative talk radio and Fox News.

      This change affects a medium that all parts of the American populace tune into. So the self censorship problem goes away. And you can actually have an environment that allows people who don’t tune into conservative viewpoints ever in their life will actually be doing so.

      He’s been leading the charge on this for about 5 years if I’m not mistaken. Its part of his long plan for a new conservative dominance in our political world.

  • wonkish1

    Appreciate it!

  • cheetah2

    My husband listens to talk radio, but he is not all that well informed about politics, and yet even he always says that the current debate format is a joke, being aware that these are not real debates.

    The problem I see is that if you have a format allowing for longer answers how do you manage it when there is such a large number of candidates? You can’t have a Lincoln Douglas style debate for more than 2 people can you?

    This primary would have gone very differently if we had had only Lincoln Douglas style debates with only a couple of candidates participating. Would Newt Gingrich be where he is now? I am not a Gingrich supporter right now but I can’t honestly say it is a bad thing that he is getting his chance, and he got this chance by being in all the debates.

    If he does turn out to be lacking, it will be a good thing that the lower tier candidates are allowed to keep themselves in the public eye by still participating in the debates, so that another choice besides Mitt Romney remains a possibility.

    Gingrich was able to participate in a Lincoln Douglas style debate with Cain. Now Huntsman, another currently lower tier candidate may have a chance at debating the front runner in the same way. However, will these debates have the same huge impact as the ones that are on nationwide TV?

    • lineholder

      Wonkish1 is right about how there is a greater opportunity to really talk about ideas, methodology, and implementation of policy in debates such as the Lincoln-Douglas style rather than the 30-second soundbite style. The MSM will stick with the soundbites, because they really don’t want to get into promoting substance coming from people on the right if they can help it.

      People who are genuinely interested in what’s going on politically (and thanks to Obama and the left, this number has been increasing dramatically) will either watch the debates live, find links connecting to them portions of the debate or read the transcripts. And those are the people who are more inclined to be your grassroots type who will use of word-of-mouth, talk about the issues with their friends and neighbors, put boots on the ground, etc. So what we’re talking about is that the “buzz” will be about the ideas being presented by people on the RIGHT. And hey, Obama doesn’t have a contender, so Repubs have a wide open shot to take this kind of opportunity and run with it!!!

      • wonkish1

        I appreciate it!

      • snowshooze

        Nice diary wonkish1. You are headed for the big-time around here.
        Anyway, the 30 second answer/rebuttal format is an insult.
        Newt shot a few holes in the panel on a couple of them… approximately..” You expect me to do what in 30 seconds ? ”

        Picking a President is pretty serious business and should be treated as such, rather than the rating game we currently have.
        This is not entertainment.
        Hopefully, a more in depth debate forum will eventually catch on.
        Sooner is better.
        Hardest is that MSM is stuck on this format. They are looking for profit, and ratings. Until a couple break loose and prove that there is interest in a meaningful debate.. and it pays to do it… they won’t have an interest. Especially on the Republican ticket.
        The trouble I see is that I just do not know if it will sell.
        I don’t watch TV. I get my news from sources of Drudge, Weaasel Zippers, Fox Hot-air and the like. Radio as well.
        Do the people of this country worry as much as us? No.
        Absolutely not, or we would not have the mess we do now.
        When I see the insulting level of mind rot on television… I consider throwing it out. But there is netflix… so it stays.
        So the most realistic solution I believe also lies here, in forums such as this where we have a different set of people participating.
        From there, the Networks can pick it up. At least some will get through.

        • wonkish1

          For the compliments.

    • wonkish1

      Look at the family leader for example.

      The principal issue is the expansion of time limits and the removal of restrictions on asking each other questions. If you still have lets say a 2 hour debate, several candidates, etc. then what you need to do is narrow the subject matter of the debate. Remember how in 08 the debates were everything. Today you’re seeing them separate into economy, foreign policy, etc. And among the handful up above they are getting very, very specific.

      The Cain Gingrich debate was just on entitlements. The Family Leader debate was just on moral character and leadership. Of course when you narrow it you have to increase the number of debates to cover all of the topics(but given how many there have been they have more than enough to cover a ton of topics).

      You can also do 1 on 1 separately and frequently between different pairs like your watching starting to occur today.

      Not yet, but the changes are seeping into larger debates and they do have an impact in the states they were held in and among the ardent *activists* right now. Its only a matter of time until you start seeing changes in the major network debate formats.

      • valrobex

        Lineholder makes sense that the MSM will continue with the ho-hum sound bite format. It’s all they know how to do. This will provide opportunity for the second tier candidates to move up.

        But your observation, Wonkish, that this change is coming, will probably open doors for the alternative media to get into the action. And that will be an avenue for Conservatism to reach our younger population. Our youth, more than any other group, uses alternative media.

        This is an exciting thought that the truth of conservatism will get out in spite of efforts of the Liberal establishment.

        • wonkish1

          And watch a conservative destroy a liberals argument its pretty hard for the LSM to run around and try to paint over it.

          There are limitations the media has. Reagan always talked over the media directly to the American people and the media couldn’t do really much about it. This change would basically institutionalize the ability of GOP candidates to talk over the media to the American people ***during the election*** as opposed to just after taking office and that would mark a large departure from the past where candidates really couldn’t say much on stage during a debate without the timer going off.

      • cheetah2

        The best debates so far were the ones with limited topics. Even in the last foreign policy debate which used the standard format, there was more back and forth discussion between the candidates, which is good.

        The family leader debate allowed candidates to talk at length, if they wanted to. Of course that one had only 6 participating in it instead of 8.

        A big problem I see with the network debates is that because news is entertainment on the networks, they try to stir up controversy and get the candidates to fight with each other. Debates are not meant to be arguments in the sense of a fight, but rather a competition in presenting differing view points.

        Now that the internet is robustly competing with TV as a news source, things are hopefully going to get shaken up in a good way.

        • wonkish1

          They could by utilizing the exact same platform every single time. I mean how much more boring is the 10th debate with the exact same questions, exact same time limits(therefore the same talking points), the exact same rules, and the exact same subjects vs. a debate that changes all of those things.

          So the news media isn’t doing themselves any favors by utilizing the same format over and over and over again. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that varying the format is going to produce different outcomes from the candidates and therefore new interesting details emerging which improves ratings.

          By no means am I suggesting that they have to do away with all of their media driven American Idol debates, but the idea that all of them follow that mantra is a joke to not only the candidates, the process, the voters, etc. and its an insult to their ability to garner larger ratings in later debates.

          Isn’t in odd what people are calling as the best debate(that was held by one of the big networks) was the CNN foreign policy debate **because** it was the most substantive one. I mean these networks are missing a gold a mine of having a handful of a few Lincoln Douglas debates each cycle and they don’t even realize it. And they don’t realize it because they have such large ego’s that they think that the moderator him or herself is the most important person in the process.

        • wonkish1

          Thanks for the reco’s.

          • cheetah2

            The debates are getting awful repetitious.

  • Common_Cents

    Listening to in depth thought out explanations and positions would be detrimental to the left.

  • trevorb

    media’s also lost a lot of their viewers. Fox news is now equal to all of the other combined. Yeah, they’re biased, but they’re not nearly as bad as NBC or MSNBC.

    Conservatives will win once everything collapses and it will. Obama may very well win a second term, but future generations will curse us for ever electing him.

    • earlgrey

      how do conservatives win out? We will as always be blamed for all that went wrong. People will be scared and line up behind whomever they believe will provide them the best security. Those people will have almost unlimited power.

      • tomatin

        But I love Earl Grey. My wife made it today with eggnog. It was very good if you like cream in you tea.

        • tngal

          earl grey. Spent two years in England and hot tea is best w/cream and sugar. It could be Luzianne or lipton, but yeah, Earl Grey is best. . Ok, sorry, back ot the cat fighting.

          Hi earl Grey!! Howze it goin? – tngal.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            prefers sweet tea, served ice cold, the way God intended it.

          • tngal

            You flirty thang you. (Sorry couldn’t resist.)

        • earlgrey

          user name has almost nothing to do with the tea. It is the name of one of my cats.

        • earlgrey

          user name has almost nothing to do with the tea. It is the name of one of my cats.

    • earlgrey

      how do conservatives win out? We will as always be blamed for all that went wrong. People will be scared and line up behind whomever they believe will provide them the best security. Those people will have almost unlimited power.

  • pj2012

    He did great! Perry winning so far ; )

    I think Perry’s answers were well received by the group. Had a little problem with the first Q as he drifted a bit. You can see how being a long standing Governor lays the ground work for being a president.

    Newt was asked a lot Q’s on his baggage, climate change, etc.. I don’t think he looked or did all that great. None of the others have impressed… still haven’t heard from Paul, or Romney yet.

    Ron Paul’s on now….

    • windwaker24

      I was little upset that he drifted on such an easy question. All he had to say was “I will set up exective orders until Obamacare can be fully repealed in the Congress. When it gets to my desk I will sign it.”

      • pj2012

        I was doing something and missed it… don’t have the time to go back right now and watch it.

        • superpatriot

          Romney was a two-faced and flip-flopping as ever.

          Perry actually did quite well. Look, redstaters, Perry remains my #1 choice in this thing.
          Unfortunately, if he does’nt win at least one of the early primaries, he’s done.

          So Newt is my reliable 2nd choice, who may be #1 in the GOP primary!

          • carolina

            in my opinion.
            Romney seemed fake.
            I was really glad everyone focused on state’s rights, though some of them didn’t seem to totally ‘get it’.

    • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

      Have no TV and I’m relying on RedState and Twitter, but I’m interested to see how Paul is doing. I heard he was uninvited to the Republican Jewish Coalition’s (I may not have that name right) debate, so he’s got to be a bit riled.

      • pj2012

        he was called out on something he voted for… sorry kinda multi multi tasking here… ; 0

      • carolina

        (his demeanor)
        He answered his questions with lots of caveats about “can’t do it right away”. He said he has transition plans to get rid of the Federal Reserve; medicare; SS; etc, etc

      • carolina

        (his demeanor)
        He answered his questions with lots of caveats about “can’t do it right away”. He said he has transition plans to get rid of the Federal Reserve; medicare; SS; etc, etc

      • lizzie

        not sure this is the best thread but my post-Forum-post-Forum take-away:
        1) Perry won because Huckabee was VERY enthusiastic as were all three AGs because the topics were all about the 10th Amendment Federal v State
        2) which had more to do with his 10th Amendment clarity
        3) because I groaned when his closing minute (all six had closing minutes) was to ask everyone to give him a second look, with his stump line on the part-time Congress – then asked for a second look again. I guess someone had told him the Des Moines Register poll numbers after his original eleven minutes???
        4) Huck and the AGs with Judge Jeanine thought everyone did well, BUT a) don’t trust Romney on Obamacare, b) don’t trust Gingrich on small government, c) Ron Paul is a Libertarian (and also hard of hearing and almost incoherent, imo), d) glad Santorum finally got equal time, and e) horrified that Bachmann was ok with idea of federal tort reform. (I thought Bachmann was very well spoken tonight, but admit I was surprised on Federal tort reform too)

        I have been watching the Iowa social conservative mishegoss (sorry, sometimes only Yiddish works), and knew that they were waiting for a ‘Sign from Huckabee’ because he had not yet forgiven Perry for endorsing Giuliani in 2008. yes, I understand political dog whistles very well and figure Land had a chat with Huck to be fair.

        So, Huck’s enthusiasm for Perry tonight is HUGE, for Iowa. especially since the new DMR poll still had 8% for Cain and 11% for undecided, and everyone knows the only solid number is the one for Ron Paul, so Iowa is still fluid. Newt at 25% and Mitt down to 15%. Perry could be in the top 3 on Jan 3, if his next two debates go well. or next three debates, Gingrich just accepted The Donald and NewsMax on Dec 27, after Paul and Huntsman declined, with criticism.

        Only Gingrich and Perry were asked who was their favorite Founding Father. Newt was good on George Washington, but Perry was intellectual and passionate, and quick, with his answer on James Madison.

        as for Ron Paul and the RJC – that is a separate diary, lapatriette – you can catch up there – I do not think Ron Paul is all that upset at not being invited.

        • pj2012

          Yeah, I kinda cringed at the (twice) give me a second look thing. But that’s Perry the humble guy ; )

          Good news for Perry… a new PPP Poll coming out tomorrow and Perry’s in double digits in Iowa… saw it in a post on hotair here.. http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/03/open-thread-are-you-ready-for-the-huckabee-presidential-forum/

          • carolynr

            He’s behind and he needs your vote. Was he realistic…yes…what about the others…they don’t even have the humility to ask for your vote. Remember…the president serves the people…not the people serve the president.

            I’d ask for a second look also. Style over Substance…when are we going to put character before “perfect” performance?

  • daveoconnor

    He is a “front porch” kind of person. Very likable and authentic. I wish this came through better in the early debates, but I’ve since concluded his easy-going style just isn’t suited to the sound bite format.
    I’ve only been here for about a year but I can’t recollect a more thought-provoking diary. Kudos.

    • wonkish1

      I appreciate the kind compliment.

  • dajeeps

    This country has been through what feels like hell over the course of the last few years. I think there’s tons of buyer’s remorse out there on the part of many Obama voters, and even many Republican voters after realizing that none of this mess had to happen if we had been paying attention to what was going on. It’s easy for politicians to spin when no one is really listening to what they’re saying in the first place. Obama didn’t lie about what he wanted to do with health care, or in demonizing capitalism in general, or about the stimulus he wanted. I was watching and listening. I was astounded when he won anyway, despite what he had been saying.

    Now the sleeping giant is awake. The silent majority is silent no more. There has been so much vetting of the common fallacies politicians use that have only superficial plausibility, over the internet and in social settings, that we can’t be fooled as easy as we once were. We are looking for substance. We’re looking for things that make sense. That has changed the market place of ideas. If a politician wants to be able to compete in it, they have give us a golden thread of logic to follow because the spin will just not work anymore and they will be left behind.

  • carolynr

    I’ll believe it when I see it. Tea Parties are forever sending me pleas for money…but they don’t come out in favor of anyone. Why? Because they have their reputation to consider….just like these governors do. What about the principles. There should be one and only one candidate leading this pack…Rick Perry. All the things that you stood for you abandoned for media approval…your friend’s approval. After all…he made a flub…you can’t be associated with a person that forgot something…right? So…you run to Gingrich…who has written in black and white, policies that you abhor…but you are right there…because you can’t wait for the smack down of Obama in the debates. People…if you want change back to the Constitution…then go with a person that puts it in his life..in his government…not in hyperbole that hardly anyone understands (meaning Gingrich). I believed in the tenants of the TPM…I called out the liars in the Republican Party locally who sold their bs to people who wanted to believe their lies.

    So…remember TPM…If you stand for something…stand for it…or be swallowed up by BIG GOVERNMENT. Oh…btw…if you do become a viable force in America again…DON’T FORGET TO MAKE YOUR SIGNS PERFECT…because that is what you expect of Perry. For dessert…this is what you are looking at: Do you think we need a wrecking ball to DC?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=xOAgT8L_BqQ&feature=player_embedded

  • tomatin

    But I don’t see general election debates changing that much. Put it this way if Romney and Obama debate it will be dueling talking points. If Gingrich and Obama debate watch out! I just think it has allot more to do with who is debating rather than formats or even questions.

  • Common_Cents

    the liberation of the American people from the lame stream media.

    That would do the world the most good, more than liberating any one people from a dictator. A truly informed America will make much better decisions.

    Gingrich has single handedly shaped the course of the debates by calling out the media. I wish he’d get some back-up there. It takes direct confrontation and alinsky ridicule right back at them. They then fold quickly, word spreads, and bam, much more respectful interviews.

    Why the GOP hasn’t come up w/ a coordinated plan to take on the hostile media is beyond me. I guess we earn the “stupid party” title largely for that.

    However, I’d be shocked, shocked, if Obama agrees to 7-3hr no mod debates w/ Gingrich in the general. Obama will somehow come up with an excuse, perhaps arab spring, tsunami, or euro crash. Obama will propose multiple choice and true/false questions against Gingrich. Of course, the lame stream media will have his back. It will be the general election battle of great proportion.

    I agree, slow but sure, the lame stream media is in decline and quality of debates/coverage will improve some, but we have a loooooong way to go.

  • wonkish1

    Buts lets operate under the assumption that Newt gets the nomination(which certainly isn’t guaranteed) and Obama does duck the debates and Newt prevails by making Obama look like he doesn’t care about the problems facing the country and isn’t confident enough in his beliefs to actually defend them.

    That still isn’t the context of my diary. Just think if this debate style sticks and from now on shows up in every single GOP primary season(but isn’t quite developed in the general election yet). What happens is that within a few election cycles the amount of Democrats and Independents watching solid conservative arguments in just the GOP primary debates will move needle significantly among the populace. And that isn’t to mention the fact that there is no way the general election debates can remain the way they are right now for long with at least one of the party’s primary debate styles having substantially more substance. It will seep into the general election debates so fast. If Obama avoided in 2012 there is no way the Democrats could avoid it in 2016 either with a GOP incumbent or an open race.

  • Common_Cents

    Agree with you it is a positive influence but I think you are a wee bit more optimistic on the time table.

  • wonkish1

    That doesn’t cast an R vote as irrational. There are plenty of rational people that have voted D in the past and even 10% of standard Dem voters switching over to standard R voters ushers in a margin that would make it very hard for Democrats to win any of the branches of government.

    So I’m going out on a limb here and am calling this change(if it sticks) one of the biggest changes in the political processes in history, but most wont look back and see it that way for many years yet.

  • Common_Cents

    there are a few of them left somewhere.