It's pushing the Overton window to the right. That's the goal. And it's a good strategy. As we can see from comments here, conservatives are not used to this sort of actual fighting and standing for something.
I actually don't remember it ever happening. Usually, our side starts with the status quo somewhere in the middle-left ("we want t…
It's pushing the Overton window to the right. That's the goal. And it's a good strategy. As we can see from comments here, conservatives are not used to this sort of actual fighting and standing for something.
I actually don't remember it ever happening. Usually, our side starts with the status quo somewhere in the middle-left ("we want to keep it as it is!") and then "negotiates" their way to a far-left "compromise" that results in banning individuals from praying or displaying an American flag in a public school, and 9 month and beyond "abortions."
They are learning from Trump. Take a currently "extreme" position and work from there. If they even engage you in the negotiation, you've already gained ground from the status quo.
LOL. True. It's triggered a lot of people on the conservative side, but all Trump - and those who followed his lead, like Rufo - are doing is reversing this situation. Though in a way, I guess it makes sense. Conservatives are about conserving. Therefore a change to the status quo is "bad," even when that change is actually helping.
What does "conserving" mean? In political terms, it means minimizing power in the hands of federal government officials and "conserving" it for the people and the states. In economic terms it means exercising fiduciary responsibility and prudence: conserving resources. In social terms, it means, to use a cliche, "live and let live": conserving relationships between people.
In a handful of words it means: no more government than absolutely necessary.
I actually don't think it is a good strategy, but I do understand your point. I hate starting with a compromised position. My problem is that it is deeply unserious. "Congress shall make no law" is sufficiently proscriptive to know this would be overturned 9-0 by the current SCOTUS if it ever made it that far. Put that in the platform, and I believe that you are equally unserious about other planks in the platform.
I don't care what the left makes of it. They will hate if we said "Allow all humans to exchange oxygen for carbon dioxide" and denounce those who propose it as racists, or "plant phobic" or something. We need adults in the room. We live in a pluralistic society. We always have done. And the framers understood that state run religious ANYTHING leads to tyranny.
Here's a better plank that doesn't start in the center. Privatize schools and provide vouchers. Each student attending their selected school is a free market vote for that school, its quality, etc. Don't worry about standards, that will self level after an initial period of it being the wild west. That would accomplish what the TX GOP platform plank is aiming for, but in a broadly positive and culture changing way.
First... The State will never give up control of the youth. Short of a collapse of the USG, they will never give up control of education.
Second... Vouchers are just another form of control. Funding is control. Rather, eliminate all individual property taxes. That would be a big relief to all families and would defund state education. Privatize all education. Further incentivize families to have children by eliminating 20% of their income from income taxes for each child they have. Sounds fair to me but of course that will never happen.
As for the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." simply prohibits the Federal Gov't from "establishing" a State sanctioned church. American churches are to be free from Fed Gov't regulation: no law respecting any establishment of religion. This was something the founders were very familiar with in Britain where only one church was allowed to exist. In fact, the early Congress budgeted money for the printing and distribution of Bibles for the American people.
IMO, it's all about narrative and what is deemed "acceptable" discourse. So, I think any way we push the window open is a good thing, and ultimately a good strategy. No, this is not going to be approved by SCOTUS. That doesn't matter. That same issue has certainly not stopped the left's "long march." It's considered a minor obstacle b/c they know it's a battle for narrative control and what society deems "acceptable" beliefs, which then leads to policy. Time to go on offense.
Our question should be: what's the furthest "right" position we can seed into society, to set the right boundary of the window as far right as possible? (But also, because we live in a pluralist society, the "extreme" voices on the right also need to be heard and considered. They've been silenced my entire life.) We certainly hear enough from those on the left, which is why our window currently extends from center-left (big gov't and high taxes) to far-left (institutionalized anti-white racism and calls for "socialized" everything).
As for serious or not - that is within the minds of those putting it forward. I suspect they are serious. (As it turned out the leftists chanting "defund the police" were actually serious.) I know us attacking them from our own side doesn't help move society's mental model rightward.
School choice is a good example of what I'm trying (poorly) to say: we've been trying for decades to get choice and vouchers, but it hasn't worked. Why? IMO, because there was nothing to the right of it being offered. So, it has been taken as the "right-most" starting point - the view of the "right wingers" - which means any society-wide negotiation by definition moves to the left from that position. That is why it's gained little-to-no traction despite 60+ years of costly, abject failure of the public school system.
The way I see it, societal level arguments aren't won with reason and logic and seriousness. People are emotional and moral animals, not rational animals. So, we have to make bold, sometimes ridiculous claims - or at least support the right to be heard for those who do - in order to shake up the status quo. We need the people furthest to the right to have a voice or we will always be arguing from the center, at best. Then, negotiate to the solution we actually want.
Final example: 8 years ago Trump said "close the border and build a wall," and people gasped in horror. The avg person said things like: we're not China or Berlin! That's racist! We should have an open border and offer asylum! And so on. He opened the window to an "extreme" view. His opposition overreacted to that. Now, 8 years later, 73% of the country wants the border closed.
I love your comments, RU, and I agree with virtually everything you say, but thanks to the nutty leftists and their trans ideology, and also to Grandma Garland and his Stasi calling angry parents attending school board meetings domestic terrorists, the school choice movement is doing much better these days. Imho far too few families take advantage of the possibilities provided by laws such as Florida's and other states', but I do think Covid helped open people's minds to the notion of other modes of schooling; one of its many silver linings, for those not killed or maimed in the interim.
It's a good point, and you know I always appreciate your views! I guess that I would read that as some parents voicing an "extreme" and "unacceptable" view, the Establishment PTB overreacting and freaking out, resulting in a societal move to the "right." (Similar to the dynamic with Trump and the border.)
So, in a way, it was those emotional and sort of Quixotic actions that led to some traction finally being gained, not rational policy / economics arguments that defined past efforts to push choice. They forced the window open with an emotional appeal. I think having someone to the right of them can only help them, even if only as the new "unacceptable" position.
Yes; it was "it's gained little-to-no traction despite 60+ years of costly, abject failure of the public school system" to which I was responding. It hadn't, I agree; but now it has. I have often thought that MLK Jr's, positions were more acceptable to people because there was a Malcolm X (though his views changed not long before his untimely death).
It's pushing the Overton window to the right. That's the goal. And it's a good strategy. As we can see from comments here, conservatives are not used to this sort of actual fighting and standing for something.
I actually don't remember it ever happening. Usually, our side starts with the status quo somewhere in the middle-left ("we want to keep it as it is!") and then "negotiates" their way to a far-left "compromise" that results in banning individuals from praying or displaying an American flag in a public school, and 9 month and beyond "abortions."
They are learning from Trump. Take a currently "extreme" position and work from there. If they even engage you in the negotiation, you've already gained ground from the status quo.
Here is a simple example of Republican bipartisan negotiating:
Dems: give me $10.
Republicans: no.
Dems: ok, make it $7
Republicans: deal!
And Republicans think they made $3 on this deal...
LOL. True. It's triggered a lot of people on the conservative side, but all Trump - and those who followed his lead, like Rufo - are doing is reversing this situation. Though in a way, I guess it makes sense. Conservatives are about conserving. Therefore a change to the status quo is "bad," even when that change is actually helping.
What does "conserving" mean? In political terms, it means minimizing power in the hands of federal government officials and "conserving" it for the people and the states. In economic terms it means exercising fiduciary responsibility and prudence: conserving resources. In social terms, it means, to use a cliche, "live and let live": conserving relationships between people.
In a handful of words it means: no more government than absolutely necessary.
😂 😂 😂 Deal! Hahahaha
I actually don't think it is a good strategy, but I do understand your point. I hate starting with a compromised position. My problem is that it is deeply unserious. "Congress shall make no law" is sufficiently proscriptive to know this would be overturned 9-0 by the current SCOTUS if it ever made it that far. Put that in the platform, and I believe that you are equally unserious about other planks in the platform.
I don't care what the left makes of it. They will hate if we said "Allow all humans to exchange oxygen for carbon dioxide" and denounce those who propose it as racists, or "plant phobic" or something. We need adults in the room. We live in a pluralistic society. We always have done. And the framers understood that state run religious ANYTHING leads to tyranny.
Here's a better plank that doesn't start in the center. Privatize schools and provide vouchers. Each student attending their selected school is a free market vote for that school, its quality, etc. Don't worry about standards, that will self level after an initial period of it being the wild west. That would accomplish what the TX GOP platform plank is aiming for, but in a broadly positive and culture changing way.
First... The State will never give up control of the youth. Short of a collapse of the USG, they will never give up control of education.
Second... Vouchers are just another form of control. Funding is control. Rather, eliminate all individual property taxes. That would be a big relief to all families and would defund state education. Privatize all education. Further incentivize families to have children by eliminating 20% of their income from income taxes for each child they have. Sounds fair to me but of course that will never happen.
As for the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." simply prohibits the Federal Gov't from "establishing" a State sanctioned church. American churches are to be free from Fed Gov't regulation: no law respecting any establishment of religion. This was something the founders were very familiar with in Britain where only one church was allowed to exist. In fact, the early Congress budgeted money for the printing and distribution of Bibles for the American people.
IMO, it's all about narrative and what is deemed "acceptable" discourse. So, I think any way we push the window open is a good thing, and ultimately a good strategy. No, this is not going to be approved by SCOTUS. That doesn't matter. That same issue has certainly not stopped the left's "long march." It's considered a minor obstacle b/c they know it's a battle for narrative control and what society deems "acceptable" beliefs, which then leads to policy. Time to go on offense.
Our question should be: what's the furthest "right" position we can seed into society, to set the right boundary of the window as far right as possible? (But also, because we live in a pluralist society, the "extreme" voices on the right also need to be heard and considered. They've been silenced my entire life.) We certainly hear enough from those on the left, which is why our window currently extends from center-left (big gov't and high taxes) to far-left (institutionalized anti-white racism and calls for "socialized" everything).
As for serious or not - that is within the minds of those putting it forward. I suspect they are serious. (As it turned out the leftists chanting "defund the police" were actually serious.) I know us attacking them from our own side doesn't help move society's mental model rightward.
School choice is a good example of what I'm trying (poorly) to say: we've been trying for decades to get choice and vouchers, but it hasn't worked. Why? IMO, because there was nothing to the right of it being offered. So, it has been taken as the "right-most" starting point - the view of the "right wingers" - which means any society-wide negotiation by definition moves to the left from that position. That is why it's gained little-to-no traction despite 60+ years of costly, abject failure of the public school system.
The way I see it, societal level arguments aren't won with reason and logic and seriousness. People are emotional and moral animals, not rational animals. So, we have to make bold, sometimes ridiculous claims - or at least support the right to be heard for those who do - in order to shake up the status quo. We need the people furthest to the right to have a voice or we will always be arguing from the center, at best. Then, negotiate to the solution we actually want.
Final example: 8 years ago Trump said "close the border and build a wall," and people gasped in horror. The avg person said things like: we're not China or Berlin! That's racist! We should have an open border and offer asylum! And so on. He opened the window to an "extreme" view. His opposition overreacted to that. Now, 8 years later, 73% of the country wants the border closed.
I love your comments, RU, and I agree with virtually everything you say, but thanks to the nutty leftists and their trans ideology, and also to Grandma Garland and his Stasi calling angry parents attending school board meetings domestic terrorists, the school choice movement is doing much better these days. Imho far too few families take advantage of the possibilities provided by laws such as Florida's and other states', but I do think Covid helped open people's minds to the notion of other modes of schooling; one of its many silver linings, for those not killed or maimed in the interim.
It's a good point, and you know I always appreciate your views! I guess that I would read that as some parents voicing an "extreme" and "unacceptable" view, the Establishment PTB overreacting and freaking out, resulting in a societal move to the "right." (Similar to the dynamic with Trump and the border.)
So, in a way, it was those emotional and sort of Quixotic actions that led to some traction finally being gained, not rational policy / economics arguments that defined past efforts to push choice. They forced the window open with an emotional appeal. I think having someone to the right of them can only help them, even if only as the new "unacceptable" position.
Yes; it was "it's gained little-to-no traction despite 60+ years of costly, abject failure of the public school system" to which I was responding. It hadn't, I agree; but now it has. I have often thought that MLK Jr's, positions were more acceptable to people because there was a Malcolm X (though his views changed not long before his untimely death).