This essay should be read in conjunction with a pre-election article on Campaign 2000, which criticized the Karl Rove directed Bush campaign as ineffective. This is not because of any desire to rub salt in the wounds of fellow Conservatives, nor to denigrate the President, who has ushered in a welcome new tone in Washington. While we feel that our candidate received very, very bad advice on the campaign, which led to the long cliff-hanger, we keep the matter on the front burner only to develop better insight--to make certain that we are stronger and better prepared, next time. And we cite the above article, that we may push on without need for repetition.
What lessons may be learned from what we have just experienced? The most obvious is that the blinders are now off. We have seen the faces of our enemies; and we can no longer pretend that they play by the same rules, that they live by a common code of ethical conduct or civility.
Most Conservatives join in a chorus that denounces Socialist values, and accuses the dominant "Liberal" wing of the Democratic Party with being Socialist. But some never quite believed that they really were. Many imagined that they were normal God fearing Americans--"do-gooder" neighbors, just politically and socially naive. Most of us have a hard time thinking of them as the ideological cousins of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler or even the more subtle British Fabians--men to whom ends always justified means--men to whom any lie was acceptable, so long as it advanced their pursuit of power: The greater regimentation of a diverse population into a monolithic new social structure. Many believed that Clinton was an aberration.
Similarly, most doubted that our news media could ever fall to the level of a Communist Pravda or a Nazi Goebbels. In the final stages of a disputed election, we had to reexamine smug and reassuring assumptions. We also learned how carefully the enemy planned its onslaught on the political process.
For example, while the polls were still open in eastern Florida--before the media pundits declared Florida for Gore with the polls still open in West Florida--the Gore campaign hired a telemarketing firm in Texas to call five thousand elderly voters in Palm Beach County, Florida, to suggest to them that they might have been confused when they cast their ballots. Why?
The initial "video op," in the long public relations battle over Florida seemed, at first blush, a serious mistake. People saw a group of obviously senile or nearly senile voters proclaiming victimization by an easy to understand ballot; some even claiming that they had been told to vote by the number of ballot position rather than name(!), but very clearly indicating that they had thought they were supporting Al Gore. When this was linked with reports of the Democrats voting skid row derelicts in Wisconsin for the price of cigarettes, the boasting of Wisconsin college students that they had voted early and often, and the numerous reports of aliens voting illegally, it looked as though the images from the Democratic effort to steal the election were going to do serious damage to their future prospects.
When Jesse Jackson arrived in Florida to take charge of the protest, however, we realized that the media would never pay much heed to the other outrages. We also learned why the Democrats had apparently targetted Palm Beach County for a major incident.
The issue, of course, if there even was an issue, should have been the reasonableness of expecting people to have and retain enough intelligence to follow simple ballot instructions. The ballot instructions clearly told the voters in Palm Beach County--as in the myriad of other Counties across the continent that used the same punch card ballot type--how to cast a valid vote. The ballots cast were then counted by a machine. There was no way that that machine could tell whether any incompletely cast or any ruined ballot lacked validity because it happened to have been cast by a dull Caucasian, a dull Negro or a dull Indian. There was no way that that machine could tell--and it makes not the slightest rational difference in the process--whether the voter, who had become too senile to cast a valid vote, was a Catholic, Methodist, Jew or once pro-Clinton secular humanist; nor was the ballot used for the particular demographic mix in Palm Beach County any different than the same type ballot used in other American Counties with vastly different demographic mixes.
But Jesse managed to get thousands into the streets in a great protest, demanding a more subjective count than that possible from any machine, declaring that the equipment in Palm Beach and neighboring Counties was denying the right of "African Americans"--the demeaning in term in the media for American Negroes--and "Holocaust victims"--a fashionable but slightly misleading media term for Jewish refugees from the massive pogrom which the Socialists perpetrated as part of the Nazi nightmare in the 1940s--to have their votes counted! With almost no one in the media--except the fair folk at Fox--even questioning Jesse as to how the equipment was able to single out these two groups; or following up on his later refinement, that the equipment was supposed to be older and more defective in certain counties than others (the equipment being basically a stylus designed to punch out a pre-perforated chad, that any five year old could manage); a flock of Democratic politicians descended upon Florida to echo Jesse's demagoguery and demand the same subjective recount.
Of course, the victims in the farce that followed were not the senile--whether Presbyterian, Jewish, Mormon or Seventh Day Adventist--nor the Negroes, Caucasians or Indians, of Palm Beach and neighboring Counties. The victims were the American people, in general, who had to watch this farce played out over the next five weeks, until the Rehnquist Court mercifully stopped it. But why was Palm Beach County picked as the trigger? Precisely to enable the Left to frighten and enrage Negroes and Jews with the suggestion that the Republicans were trying to disenfranchise them. Nothing else makes any sense.
Thus Jesse was soon joined by a collection of people who make a profession out of claiming one form or another of persecution; and some New York Congressmen were sent down to help polarize the issues on racial and religious grounds. These included the toad like Clinton lickspittle, Congressman Nadler, who found Jesse's thousands in the street quite acceptable, but a few dozen white collar Republicans protesting efforts to count "dimpled" ballots and imaginary votes to be a "whiff of fascism." It was Nadler's probable intention to provoke some Republican to make a nasty remark about Nadler's ethnicity or religion, so that he could go home and scare his constituents, some of whom had been showing signs of becoming more conservative--or, at least, considering the rejection of Hillary--into getting back in line with Leftist politics. But no one took the bait. Not that that stopped the outrageous rhetoric of Jesse Jackson or the New York Congressman, neither of whom is a Floridian. [To better understand the Leftist game--how the self-anointed spokesmen for minorities deliberately stir up antagonism so that they can exploit the fears of their own people and keep them in line--see our article on "Creating Hate In America Today," linked below.]
We will deal further, a bit later, with how to handle the ethnic politics of the Left.
The most obvious pitfall that the Bush Administration must not fall into, is the one the major media personalities, almost to a man and woman, have urged upon it. What it dare not do is abandon its principles to embrace the "principles" of its foes.
To say that you believe in a certain interpretation of the U.S. Constitution; that you are committed to "strict construction" of that Constitution; then to take an oath to uphold that Constitution, and then to compromise that oath as part of a political deal, as part of an effort to make your disappointed foes feel good, is to abdicate any claim to the respect of thinking Americans of any shade of opinion. Clearly, any outreach must not involve a compromise on basic principles. That sort of outreach is the equivalent to a surrender of any moral authority.
Having stated the obvious, we will try to delineate how the Bush Administration can indeed reach out to Democrats--and reach out effectively, in the traditional, non-media driven way these things are handled.
The basic tool of pure politics--as distinct from principled statesmanship--has always been the patronage system: The idea that "to the victors belong the spoils." A practical outreach, then, involves not the compromise of basic principles--which would be unconscionable--but a sharing of the patronage, of the non-policy making jobs and perks, appointments and contracts. That means, also, that maybe many of the newest state of the art post offices go to States with moderate Democratic Senators; that they get first consideration for some defense contracts. It is infinitely better to make these sorts of concessions, than to betray the promise of limited Government by which the Republicans obtained most of the votes they did have.
This will not prevent the more "liberal" Democrats from assailing Republican arrogance for pushing forward with an ideological agenda that reverses the trends of the immediate past--or from seeking to paint the new Administration as a "Minority Administration." [The answer to that can take many forms, as we will explore below. But the most obvious answer is that the Bush victory, even in the face of gross irregularities that enlarged the Gore vote totals, reflects the Federal nature of the Office. We Americans vote for President as States--as members of distinct State body politics--not as part of a National Socialist monolith. And, even if one accepts the apparent popular vote totals as accurate and psychologically significant, the Bush Administration has an enormous advantage over that of John Quincy Adams or Benjamin Harrison, the other Presidents descended from former Presidents, who won the Electoral vote while losing the popular. With modern communications, people are not going to be sitting around stewing over alleged grievances, unless Republicans let them! If George Bush will deliver regular "fireside" type speeches to the people, in which he discusses his beliefs and programs with good natured and fatherly frankness; those images, not the imagined grievances, will dominate perceptions in 2002 and especially in 2004.]
What playing the shared patronage card, in the meanwhile, will do is enable the new President to get bills passed and appointments confirmed, that would otherwise be blocked. Surely men of principle can agree that it is more important to have the right men seated on the Federal Courts than that one party get all the jobs, or have preferential consideration for Government contracts.
We have addressed the Leftist penchant for word games, in a number of essays. These take many forms, from the big lie, to subtle changes in terminology, to the use of "talking points" and slogans, to sell a proposed change. The Left has long since developed the technique of defining issues within a format where the "debate" itself pushes the unsuspecting in their direction. Thus some of the Federally-funded Writers' Projects in the 1930s skewed the debates on Communism towards the question of whether or not the ideal was practical. The same projects steered the debate over World Government towards the question of what was the best way to obtain it. To the Leftwing handbook writers, there was no place in the discussion--no plate at the table--for anyone who doubted the value of Egalitarianism or questioned the idealism of an undifferentiated humanity.
The basic technique involves a concentrated focus on the worst elements of a perceived problem, rather than on the underlying reality or on what is actually involved in a proposed solution. The classic example of success with this technique--including the skilled use of talking points to skew a debate--was demonstrated in the adoption of the "Civil Rights" Legislation of the 1960s. To this day, even many Conservatives have never really grasped the watershed change in the American ethos and the principles of our Government that was accomplished. Many remain focused on the widely discussed implications of the perceived problem, rather than the implications and mechanics of the "solution" adopted.
We had a perfect example of the techniques, last year, when the self-anointed champions of "Civil Rights," endeavored to extend the limitations on American freedom yet further, by enacting more "Hate Crime" Legislation. At no time did they debate the merits of trying to prosecute the social values in someone's head rather than what that someone actually did. Instead, they focused on two incidents, both immensely sad, one also incredibly ugly.
The savage dragging death of James Byrd in Texas was truly an effront to our sense of decency. And it led very quickly to three arrests and charges of aggravated murder against the monstrous sadists who perpetrated the crime. Their deeds were not made one whit less ugly by the Left's using it as a poster offense to justify a further shot at the freedom of hundreds of millions of normal Americans who, never in their wildest nightmare, would ever contemplate treating anyone in that manner. Did the demagogues on the Left not understand that? Did anyone really believe that if the threat of a Capital Murder conviction and execution would not deter degenerates from such crime, an additional Federal penalty might?
That the Left really saw this, not as a real problem but as an asset in their arsenal, was made abundantly clear when they used it in the recent Presidential campaign to smear Texas' Governor Bush, with the insinuation that his refusal to support a Federal "Hate Crime" extension was an effort to condone and actually encourage such savagery! As Governor, Bush had long been vilified by the same collection of worthies, for repeatedly allowing the execution of murderers in Texas. Yet he was now to be blamed for the Byrd murder!
The other "poster crime" for the current version of a "Civil Rights" movement, was the Matthew Shepard murder in Wyoming. (For the sake of civility and respect for the grief of the parents, we will not join in possibly mean spirited speculation that the killing may have been provoked.) Certainly the young victim appeared to be a clean cut, all American type, in his picture. Certainly his parents' grief appeared genuine and totally understandable--sufficiently genuine that one can only cringe at the callous way the Left sought to exploit their loss. But what is supposed to make the Matthew Shepard case special, is that Matthew Shepard was a known sexual deviant. To the "Civil Rights" mentality, the important thing is not an act of cruelty--to wit: the murder of a young man--but that the murder may have been caused in part by a species of personal feeling contrary to a new belief system, which they intend to impose upon all of us.
By using the cruelty of his death and the grief of his parents as the talking points, the politicians on the Left gained ground without ever discussing the real issue that they were trying to control. That issue involves two questions: (1) How should we view homosexual conduct? (2) How should we view those who flaunt such conduct in ways that most people find offensive? For millions of Americans, the use of Matthew Shepard as a "poster boy" totally obscured the real issue, and subtly shifted the balance. In focusing on cruelty, the Left undercut morality and comfort in normal instinctive perception; in appealing to our compassion, they tried to stultify our reason.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the "Civil Rights" movement reached the pinnacle of its power and influence by using similar tactics. Not only every incident, where someone in the American mainstream treated a member of a recognized minority unkindly, was treated as fair game; the American Left even appropriated what the German Left had done under the Nazis to illustrate the claimed need for "Civil Rights," "Fair Employment Practices" and "Fair Housing." In a stylized anguish over "Civil Rights" and "fairness," the actual issues they were defining went virtually undiscussed in the popular media.
The legal issue, of course, when the Government outlaws racial, religious, national origin, or sexual preferences, in employment, is not whether or not we should be nice to one another. We should, certainly, be nice to one another. That is only an egregious "red herring." The issue is whether the Government can here--as it did in Nazi Germany--so appropriate the attributes of private property, as to force those who own that property to make decisions based upon the Will of the Government--the Collective--rather than their own will. But that issue was drowned in a morass of coerced niceness, an absolute travesty of decency, coupled with the shouts of bigot, Nazi, racist and hatemonger, directed against all who tried to raise it.
It was not just property rights that were sacrificed because we let Socialists define these issues. In outlawing private religious preferences, as well as racial, national and sexual, secular humanist utilitarians struck a major blow at freedom of religion. This should have been obvious had the debate been full and open rather than contrived. One of the common aspects of religious faith is a conviction that a particular system of beliefs actually confers a present, as well as a future, benefit upon the believer. To tell employers--or landlords, in the case of "Fair Housing"--that they may not take religion or the lack of it into consideration, is akin to telling them that you can continue to believe what you like, so long as you do not try to apply your beliefs in a practical way in making personal decisions.
The entire program was absolutely inconsistent with the traditional American view that basic rights are rights held against Government; rights to do your individual thing so long as you do not overtly injure your neighbor. (You could believe that your neighbor was living in sin. You could not stone him or burn him at the stake. But you certainly did not have to hire him.) Under the pretense of fighting "intolerance" and "prejudice," our home grown Socialists created a whole new concept of rights; the rights of your neighbor to force you to tailor your decisions to an arbitrary standard.
While it may be argued that if there really were an objective way to evaluate job qualifications, we might all benefit if employers understood and followed same; that idealized concept, almost impossible to define because of the vast number of variables that must be considered, can not confer one whit of additional power on American Government. Our institutions were not premised upon Utilitarianism--not on the Mill variety nor the Nazi variety. Yet by controlling the debate; by using "talking points" that grabbed sympathy and intimidated opposition, the movement vastly changed the nature of our Government and the relationship of the individual to that Government. Our Constitutional defenses were breached, and the rush to change America beyond recognition was on in earnest.
So much for the importance of defining a debate. What do we propose:
We must recognize, first, that the last election pointed up a real problem in America; and, second, that in dealing with that problem, Conservatives have the effective "talking points"--if we only have the will to use them. And unlike the way that the Left uses talking points, ours happen to be the only truly relevant points in respect to the problem.
The problem is a corruption of the political decision making process, not by "soft money" or the "religious right," or any of those things the Left decries, but by allowing a large number of unqualified and incompetent votes to be cast. Whether because of an inability to understand the functions of the offices they were voting to fill; or having been bribed by unearned payments from Government; or being so befuddled or corrupt that they were willing to sell their votes for cigarettes, money or whatever; or having passed a point where their capacity was too diminished to vote without a guide; or having never even become naturalized citizens; there were many, many examples of voting by people who, obviously, should not have been voting in a land that cares about values and principles. There were other reports of those who had managed to vote multiple times because of lax law enforcement: On every side, evidence of a corrupted process--corrupted by any standard by which a reasoning society can trust decisions to be made--that permitted large numbers of manipulated and controlled votes to be cast and counted.
We should seize every opportunity to discuss both the franchise and voting procedures, in a frank way; the way in which rational and reasonable people discuss issues that vitally concern them: Not with malice; not with hyperbole; but with concern, compassion and logic. When we hear people speaking of election reform, we should ask what should be done about voting by those who do not even understand the functions of the offices they are voting to fill. We should not get drawn into a debate as to whether finding a way to disenfranchise the terminally senile, the inherently dull, the brain fried and corrupted, will somehow discriminate against this or that group. That is how the Left wants to define each issue, so that we will retreat and keep our mouths shut. But if we do not take the bait; if we simply persist in questioning how any free society can allow its most basic decisions--such as the choice of a President--to be made by people who cannot even follow the most simple ballot instructions--eventually we will have a tidal wave of support for true election reform.
We must keep the focus on what is wrong with the present, not help defocus the real issue by trying to reassure the exponents of class and racial confrontation that we share whatever tangential concerns, they may select, to divert attention from our issue. (Or is there anyone, who reads this, who thinks that we should just abdicate America to demagogues who know how to mobilize and use those who really cannot reason for themselves?!)
There is no doubt that the Left will fight back. And they will do so by playing the usual demagogic card of appealing to those whom, in the past, they have been able to alienate from the American tradition. They will appeal to minorities, both ethnic, religious and economic; to recent arrivals; to those who rely on Government handouts; to the aging and dependent. And they will seek to spread panic in their client constituencies, while calling Conservatives the "pet" names that are supposed to stifle all opposition. We will be accused of being everything that America's public school children have been taught is evil and despicable over the past two generations of NEA dominated education. How we respond will determine whether we achieve the advantage, our reasoned approach would otherwise guarantee. How we respond will determine whether or not the America of the Founding Fathers survives.
The key, again, is staying focused on our talking points, not theirs. A good technique is learning to look within one's own perceptions and experiences, to best explain why the subject is really important to each of us. While the foe will hurl invective, he will have no good answer to a sincere recital of what keeping America on a wise course really means to the thinking, family oriented, Conservative. It is not a bad idea to learn to express Conservatism as a deeply held reflection of both your reason and your soul. For the true Conservative, it is both. Never be ashamed to own up to it. Sincerity--particularly among the intelligent--is a powerful argument. The strongest argument of all may be found within; in that lifetime of perceptions and experiences, each can find the truth of why an issue really matters.
The Left exploits human grievances as a stock in trade. Where there are no grievances, they will seek to create them. They are always ready to exploit jealousy, greed, fear and paranoia: to convince any susceptible group or individual of a grievance, whether or not there is even the slightest factual suggestion of injustice or wrong.
Lacking the conscience of Conservatives, who generally believe that they are accountable to Higher Authority; a succession of power hungry Socialists--ever ready to lie and demonize to advantage, ever ready to stir the cauldron of hatred between classes, races, religious faiths or communities, often while pretending to be doing precisely the opposite--turned the last Century into a nightmare of conflict. In a quest for power, via the exploitation of every perception of grievance, the demagogues of the Left relied heavily on pejorative epithets, carefully tailored to meet the peculiar needs of each particular Socialist movement. Thus, while Lenin and Hitler demonized different targets, as did the British Fabians and later Bill Clinton, all employed the same tactics. And all used those tactics, not only to recruit a susceptible following, but with a self-righteous anger, clearly designed to intimidate dissent; to unnerve the defenders of traditional values and persuade them to keep their respective mouths shut.
People sometimes muse as to how in a Nation, with as educated a population as Germany in the early 1930s, could so many people embrace the rant of Adolph Hitler? And yet without realizing it, we have examples of the same psychological methodology, and same result, in modern America. It is just that the rhetoric is very different, the targets seemingly completely different. Our Socialists pretend to be apostles of "love" and "peace," and tell us that Hitler's Socialists were apostles of "hate" and "war." But that is hardly how they described themselves. (Triumph Of The Will, the Documentary of the 1934 Congress of the Nazi Party, aired on Turner Classic Movies last year, shows Hitler ranting about his love of "peace," his devotion to a "classless, casteless" society. Except for the fact that he used ceremony much more effectively, a different speaking technique and more classical music, you might have imagined that you were at a Democratic Convention, nominating Bill Clinton.)
If you substitute the particular demonizing terminology of one for the other, you will quickly realize that Clinton and Hitler used very similar "play books." And beyond the politics of demonization, hate and personal destruction, both openly espoused the concept of a central Government redirecting the values of the population, even to the indoctrination of young children.
The answer to these tactics of the Left is as plain as the nose on anyone's face. It escapes most American Conservatives, because we have simply allowed ourselves to be cowed by emotional rant and the rhetoric of intimidation into failing to address certain subjects with our reason intact. That answer starts with respect--not the "respect" which pretends that everyone has basically the same aptitudes, political or otherwise. That was the attitude of the Nazis, except for the demonized Jews in their Socialist Germany. That was the Clintonian attitude, except for those demonized White Christian Southerners, proud of a Southern heritage, gun owners, and other targeted groups, in the America of the immediate past. When we refer to respect, we mean a genuine respect for others as those others actually are:
A respect that allows each of us to be different; that understands why America worked so well during her first generation as a Union of very diverse States, precisely because we did not try to force monolithic norms, a uniform social value system on the Massachusetts Puritan, the Rhode Island Free Thinker, the Dutch Patroon in New York's Hudson valley, the Pennsylvania Quaker, the Dane in Delaware, Maryland Catholic, Virginia aristocrat, Carolina planter, Huguenot, transported Georgian, or the coastal city Cosmopolitan. People who had waged war against each other in the Old World, smiled and called each other "fellow Americans." It was all based upon a mutuality of respect. And when that mutual respect among our very different communities broke down, we came apart at the seams.
Why did George Bush, who exudes fairness towards all, only get 8% of the Negro vote, even after a Convention orchestrated to suggest a great outreach--indeed, almost a reverence for a new "diversity?" We have suggested that that "outreach" was fundamentally flawed. In trying to win minority voters from the clutches of Socialist demagogues, it accepted--by implication--the Socialist demagogues' premises. Foremost of these were the notions of exploitation and victimization. (See the link below to the Lies Of Socialism, and The Rape Of Tolerance.)
Our system is based, in all its aspects, upon a sense of personal responsibility. The earlier Conservative leadership of the American Negro at the time of Booker T. Washington premised its whole program for self-help and an upward reach on personal responsibility. The America, for which we Conservatives contend, is premised upon personal responsibility, not only for economic activity but for social, political and familial; for personal safety and the pursuit of happiness.
Republicans are never going to be able to out-bid the demagogues on the Left for those minority voters who have bought the Socialist line, who look to Government for the modern equivalent of the "Forty Acres and a Mule," promised by an earlier class of demagogues during Reconstruction. The appeal must be to those minority members who understand personal responsibility; who understand what Booker T. Washington stood for; what wise men like Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell stand for today. We do not make it easy for middle class Negroes to identify with Booker T. Washington, or Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell--or for that matter Republican stalwarts like Dr. Alan Keyes and Justice Clarence Thomas, when they act as though they need to compete with the demagogues; indeed, when they act almost as though they are ashamed of their Alan Keyeses, who are sometimes willing to stand alone for what they believe.
Many American Negroes, today, understand what the Left has done to their race--see the essays on the Welfare State and Creating Hate, linked below. But to come forward and speak out, knowing that the Jesse Jacksons of this world will treat them as sell outs, traitors and hypocrites, they need to know that the Republican Party is not going to undercut them by a social policy that is the same as the demagogues (just painted in pastels). And they need to know that they will be treated with respect, not as "victims," not with apologies, not as imitation Whites or imitation anything, but for whom they are, by people who will expect respect back for whom we are--each retaining normal human pride in those things which make each of us unique.
Those who worked with Booker T. Washington, had an achieved measure of true self-respect--a belief that they could obtain the good life through the strength of their character;--an awareness of how humans of every sort have managed to succeed throughout history; and a willingness to make the effort, not as victims but as achievers, without being maneuvered by the demagogues of the far Left into the politics of confrontation. That quality has been lost to many in the present generation because of the antics of those who pretend to be their friends: Friends who have launched programs that have left much of the Negro youth with a sense of social alienation; programs that have deliberately subsidized a breakdown of the family structure, the very means by which each generation is able to pass on its achievements, both material and spiritual, to the next.
Indeed, the Leftwing racial onslaught in the Twentieth Century succeeded in destroying much of the self-respect of all three major American races. Do we exaggerate?
Return again to the well of your own experience. Do those children, who are given regular chores and a growing sense of responsibility within a family have a better or worse image of themselves, a more constructive or destructive attitude, than those children who are treated only as dependents? Americans since FDR have been treated more and more as dependents! And the result is precisely as anyone able to learn from experience would have expected.
Consider, also, a proposed partnership between two individuals premised upon one apologizing for a lifetime of misconduct, and the other attributing a lifetime of problems to having been victimized by the first. Is the sort of mutual respect necessary for a successful business partnership--the sort of trust and comfort level needed--possible with such premises? How do you preserve a common purpose in a shared homeland, where intergroup relations are premised on such apologies and attributions? This has been the Left's approach to inter-group relations since the "Civil Rights" movement and "Affirmative Action." Does anything within the ken of any rational individual, able to learn from experience, suggest that this is a constructive approach?
With the shambles that the Welfare State has made of Negro society in America, the Republicans are not likely ever to obtain a majority of the Negro vote. The price of even attempting as much, would be far too high in terms of betrayed values. But with the approach we suggest, the vast majority of the 30% who still maintain a family structure, will vote Republican. So too will some of the others, who can understand the message that America offered before "Liberalism": If you make IT (materially or spiritually), YOU get to KEEP IT. You can rise as far and as high as your talents and drive will take you, not because of anything that Government can or should do, but because even in the worst of times, there are opportunities; and because of what is within you.
We can win on a platform that values those qualities which made America what it has been, because it rallies the thinking among us to take back our country, so that we may all hold our heads high and live as free men. Or we can lose on a platform, which by implication demeans us all into guilt, envy or persecution ridden wards of the wisdom of our would be Socialist masters. We can draw on our own wealth of personal experience to explain to our neighbors why a Society based upon personal responsibility works, or we can let Socialist "experts" convince us that only those who deny the day to day realities of human existence can manage our future.
What we cannot do--given unchecked patterns of current immigration and the higher birth rate among Gore supporters than among many classes of Bush supporters, 15 to 18 years ago and since--is not address the real election problems (discussed) and expect a brighter future. Not unless we want a slow strangulation under the next Bill Clinton, likely to begin at high noon on the 20th day of January, 2005.