« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Red State During The Political Season: My Lessons Learned

I am writing this post because of some of the posting and especially the commenting I am starting to see here at Red State. I have been here over 5 years. I am not sure exactly when I started. I think it was 2003 or 2004, but I know it was in that time frame. I remember the post announcing Erick being hired full time as the Editor here. So, needless to say I have seen a lot. I just want to pass on some advice or if you will, suggestions based upon all the things I have learned over the years. The Moderators will correct me if I miss state anything since, like our candidates, I am not perfect either.

One of the first rules of thumb is constancy. It is very very easy to go back to last year and find a comment or a post where you take an opposite position on an issue. That can prove embarrassing and will destroy an debate point quickly. The best way to avoid any problems like this is to develop a sound fundamental reasoning behind your positions. If candidate ‘X’ was wrong on a response to an issue and can factually be proved, and they do not take it back. It is okay to say you won’t support that candidate due to that problem. However, if the candidate you are supporting makes the same error will you be consistent? Does that makes sense?

I have also found that there is a right way and wrong way to respond to people with different opinions, and it is okay to have different opinions. Please just adhere to the first rule of thumb when explaining your reasoning. Then the next thing to do is to allow for the fact that you may be wrong and may have to “eat” your words metaphorically. To slam someone with an absolute statement (referred to as using pointy sticks) is a painful thing to swallow if you are shown to be wrong. It is far better to make statements where you say, “I disagree with you because….”, rather than saying, “No, they are just a jerk because ….”, or, “I will take my ball and go home if I have to….”. Well, you get the point I hope.

I have found that this site is very constructive to help me formulate why I believe what I believe. It has allowed me to understand my positions and debate them in face to face discussions. I emphasis the word “Discussions”. One of the first things you learn is that slamming someone with an absolute is the greatest way of slamming the door on communications. If you want to persuade you need to learn how to discuss an issue and the tactic of leaving no room for movement on an issue will lose the person you are trying to persuade instantly. They will become defensive and shut you out. An example is that I am an absolutist when it come to the right to life. I will not budge even a little bit. However, when discussing it I still deliver a soft sell and explain why I believe the way I do without making the other person feel threatened or defensive. This takes practice to know how to do but its worth it.

Lastly, I will recount my experiences with the 2008 election cycle, and for those here who remember that, they can tell you it was a bit intense here. I was a Fred Thompson supporter, I still am for that matter, but he is not running for office. There was a lot of painful back and forth over what a Conservative was suppose to believe, just as it seems to be repeating itself here now. Needless to say, Fred Thompson lost and John McCain won the nomination. That was a bit hard for me to swallow. Even after the convention I was still a Fredhead and disliked McCain. (You can transpose those names to Perry and Romney if you like for the proper illustration. For the record, I am a Perry supporter) I got thumped by the Moderators several times in 2008 and got threatened with banning once. I mellowed out and allowed myself to fade into the back ground and grumbled for awhile. Then I slowly started to come back and started commenting again. Without getting into details, I learned a lot back then. I am finding that it all seems to be repeating itself here again during this campaign. Something tells me it will repeat itself again in 2016. The bottom line, this is the ugliness of how political sausage is made. I definitely learned that you can take pride in the process in all its ugliness and make the best sausage you can and then be proud of the end product. Even if the end product is not exactly what you wanted in the beginning, you can be glad you had a hand in making it. If you don’t participate in the process, the heavy dose of “conservative” seasoning you wanted, will not be added at all.

However, taking your ball and going home is only for those who can’t handle the heat or can’t handle the ugliness. Most importantly, it will only ensure your seasoning won’t be put in the recipe at all.

Remember, its okay to have disagreements. Discuss the reasons why you feel the way you feel and defend them logically and consistently. However, once you walk out of the kitchen and into the dining room to serve the sausage, serve it with a smile, even if it is not exactly what you wanted in the beginning. In the end, it is far far better than that liberal sausage you will end up eating if you don’t get the customer to buy yours (ours).

…and put away the pointy sticks. They are not needed here. This is a team endeavor.

COMMENTS

  • Pingback: Melaine Mcmenamin

  • Pingback: aci Sarault

  • George Neitz

    further, a lot faster if we all row in the same direction once the primaries are done. I also was behind Fred and now am behind Perry but all I hear at local REC meetings is how we need to bend to the wishes of the national organization and support thier chosen candidate (Romney) if he is the last one standing I will vote for him over O however till then I will do all I can to keep him from being the last man standing as I truly get the impression the man is a Loser.

  • westcoastpatriette

    I am still struggling trying to find my groove and keep a clear conscience before the Lord. It is very much a challenge but I am learning so much about politics and how to vet candidates.

    I agree in principle with your philosophy about staying away from the pointy sticks, but still could use some improvement in that department. For example, if I detect someone being disingenuous, overly-aggressive or flat out lying to distort the truth, I tend to want to go for the jugular with as many pointy sticks as I can find. And I have succumbed a number of times — the end result being having to toss out the whole batch of sausage and start over.

    One thing I refuse to allow is the meanness and rudeness of some here to run me away for good. I am developing a thick skin in that regard and that feels good. I believe I have something to offer the flavor of the sausage and many others add to my sausage recipe, as well.

    Anyway, thanks for sharing your wisdom. It is much appreciated.

  • Wubbies World

    I think that is probably the hardest part. Following the Lord and being a witness for Him is always a challenge. I always try to ask myself before I hit if this is something the Lord wants me to post. I then reread it again before I do.

    Please do not be concerned if you use a pointy stick or two at least try to catch it afterwards. I still find myself letting loose more than I should. It is human nature. The good Lord knows I have had some ugly exchanges with people. I try to learn from them.

    I guess the trick is to be able to step back and look at the big picture. A simple example would be, and this is only an example for other readers to be aware of so don’t beat me up for it, but say I do end up supporting Romney, is there a chance that what he brings to the White House does more damage to the conservative movement than if he had not been elected? This is the kind of question I ask myself. A case in point is the Republican Main Street Partnership. This is a caucus that was founded with the express purpose of “reaching across the isle to Democrats in bipartisanship and combating conservatism”. That use to be explicitly stated on their web site until the 2008 campaign and this was a big point in opposing John McCain, who just happened to be a founding member. So, it is no longer found on the web site. A big part of the Republican Leadership is made up of its former and current members. No big surprise there. Something like this is a big issue and is hard to overlook.

    Some issues are not as important. One example of an issue that is easy to overlook would be Romney’s history at Bain Capital. Okay, it is an issue and will be used to attack him by the Democrats, but to keep it in perspective, if there wasn’t that issue to attack him on, they will find something else. No matter who the nominee is, the Democrats will be ruthlessly brutal to the Republican nominee. It won’t matter what the issue. The main stream media will play right along without blinking an eye as well.

    Rush Limbaugh was on Greta Van Susteren last night and he talked with her about Obama’s chances of getting reelected. He was referencing what some other people said, and he agreed with them in that in order for Obama to win he needs to run a complete scorched earth campaign against the Republicans that is will be beyond anything ever seen before. Is it possible? Yes, it is. I think our nominee needs to be ready for it. I doubt Romney would survive it. However, if he is the nominee I will support him and hope for the best.

    (personal side note: I am a Perry supporter)

    All we can do is pray (a lot!) and ask God to lead us to serve Him, and trust Him to know what is best.

  • Flagstaff

    **”is there a chance that what he brings to the White House does more damage to the conservative movement than if he had not been elected?”**

    This is a legitimate question, until we realize that we (at least some of us) are more interested at the present time in stopping the damage to the USA more than in protecting the conservative movement. Thus the concern that we nominate someone who can defeat Obama.

    Those who are more concerned with advancing conservatism (which I would like to see, too) seem to think that we could be worse off with the “wrong” Republican in the WH than in letting BHO back in for four more years. That I do disagree with.

    So I find myself in the classic quandary–how do I know who is “the most conservative candidate who will also beat Obama.” This is even worse this time, because my mind tells me that ANYBODY should be able to beat the worst president in post-Cold War history, but there are plenty of people saying that he is right, he’s one of the best ever! And there are plenty who believe that, or at least don’t see just what is happening before their very clouded eyes.

    It doesn’t help to say that Gingrich and Romney will run rings around Obama in debates–why should we think anybody will listen to the substance of some debates (IF there are any)? Did we not notice that Obama simply lied in 2008 whenever his truthful answer would have been inconvenient for him to have to explain (if any newsman ever asked for an explanation, which they never did, nor will they this time)? The smartest, best debater in the world can’t complete with a glib liar, especially when the media aren’t inclined to find anything wrong with the lies. So I wouldn’t count on the debate skills of either Newt or Mitt to win the election for us.

    But I wouldn’t count on conservative principles to win it, either, especially if those principles have to be explained and defended by any of the others. The others haven’t even been able to defend themselves well enough to get into the running, although Santorum seems to be showing some signs of life. Why did Perry fall like a rock after starting with such high expectations? He couldn’t answer simple questions in a way that avoided controversy and protected his flank (and that is another problem Newt has as well).

    Again, this is all compounded by the reluctance of the press to ask the president tough questions or to examine his answers to any question very closely, while it is more than willing to grill a Republican about accusations of past indiscretions, no matter how old, how unrelated to future job performance, or even how “factually untrue,” to use a Newtism.

    This leads me to believe that above all we need to nominate somebody who knows what he’s doing, and it makes me cringe to think about it. I don’t know who that is.

  • http://redmerrimack.blogspot.com/ charliebravoNH

    quite familiar with the kind of gutter trash politics that we will see in the Obama campaign. Massachusetts is every bit of a corrupt stench-pit as Chicago. The last three former House Speakers of the MA legislature all are convicted felons.

  • Wubbies World

    As I stated when presenting the examples, these were only examples. I do agree that having Obama in office is far more urgent of an issue and anybody except maybe Ron Paul is a better alternative.

    I was just trying to present possible questions and issues I use when looking at a candidate. However, this election cycle is as far out of the norm as any election cycle can be right now.

  • Flagstaff

    Except even Ron Paul is better than Obama, because I do believe that Paul has America’s best interests in his heart, and I can’t say the same about Obama. At best Obama may think he has our best interests at heart, but his ideas about what is best are so wrong that he may as well be working for Breszhnev.

    At least Ron Paul would have sensible people (mostly) advising him about some of his worst ideas (not to do them), and some of the very worst could not get Congressional approval to pass the necessary laws. And at least he believes in smaller government, not totalitarianism, which is what is really behind Obama’s behavior.

    Totalitarianism was defined by Mussolini before WWII. Essentially, it means the government is involved in every aspect of its citizens’ lives; that citizens are subject to the state rather than the other way around. That is exactly why Obama doesn’t like the Constitution–he doesn’t like its restrictions on the power of government.

    Conversations are good. Trashing other Republicans is not. (This is not directed at you.) Even Ron Paul–instead of saying “he’s nuts, he’s the old uncle we keep hidden in the attic, he’s crazy,” his detractors should just point out what is wrong with his positions. If they can’t do that, the other comments don’t hold any water at all.

  • Wubbies World

    .

  • len_kc

    are spot on! If memory serves this old man right, your Dad (my Uncle) laid it all on the line, slogging through the hills of Sicily and Italy in WWII to put an end to his madness, and here we are, sitting on our hands, allowing the same crap to happen here. In this years’ field of (R) candidates, none are perfect, but ALL are better than allowing BHO another four years to destroy ths republic. I would hope that those that actually care about the future are also carefully picking and choosing LOCAL candidates. If the voters of Illinois cared, BHO would have had his career ended at the Statehouse in Springfield. OMG! Obama Must Go

  • len_kc

    Your’re a class act!

  • YnotNOW

    The anonymous nature of the internet encourages posters to rant and vent, often in harsh terms. Redstate is not as bad as many, but does succomb to the prevailing disease. Even I post under a pseudonym, just in case I fall prey to the virus. But I still try to keep posts positive, avoid overly provocative statements that would provoke others. And most importantly, keep perspective on the overall agreement among conservatives to move our ideals forward, rather than create death-matches over less-imporant details.

    If you can keep all of that lined up in priority sequence, then RedState is well worth it.