Left Limit, Right Limit: An Approach to Understanding Political Issues Part VII, Analyzing Karl Rove's Fund Raising Literature

What I have for you today is analysis based on a Republican fund raising letter from Karl Rove. This should probably be the last in this series. Next week I will contrast the two parties’ conventions. In Ezine #22 I quoted three paragraphs showing Rove’s assessment of the Republican vs. the Democratic Party. According to Rove—

“The choice is between a party whose leaders want to use every resource to win the War on Terror and protect America. . . or a party who wants to pull our troops out before the job is done and deny our intelligence and law enforcement the tools they need to stop terrorist attacks.

“The choice is between giving individuals freedom to spend their money and own their own health care and retirement savings. . . or allowing the “government knows best” crowd to make those decisions for you.

“On issue after issue, Republicans trust you to manage your money and your life; Democrats want more power for government and more control over you. Republicans share your values and principles; Democrats have a Liberal philosophy that’s increasingly out of touch with mainstream America.”

End quote

Here are 3 other quotes from Rove I found interesting and will discuss this time or next.

“Our country is evenly divided politically.”

“Republicans must recommit to our Party’s core principles of lower taxes, limited government, a strong national defense and individual freedom.”

“When Republicans get our message and ideas past the Liberal media filter and directly to voters—we win.”

One of the things master marketers know to use in selling their products is everyone’s desire to be consistent in their decisions. For example, parents with more than one child will strive to give equally to each child. If you go on a trip, don’t you usually stay at the same motel chain? And, if given a choice between a local greasy spoon restaurant and a nationally known franchise many people are more likely to choose the franchise. Why? Because you expect to have a consistent experience with what you get for the price you pay and are less likely to suffer a gastronomical upset on the road.

Similarly, you want political policies that are consistent and give you a sense of comfort. You do not want candidates and parties who profess to offer one policy but actually do something else with a hidden agenda.

In past Ezines, I have offered guidance to Democrats about offering reassurances their policies would not go too far to the left should they be elected to positions of power. In this instance, Democrats might be better served to simply point out the misleading assertions of Republicans.

For example, look at the conflict between the assertions of “. . .or a party who wants to . . .deny our intelligence and law enforcement the tools they need to stop terrorist attacks” and “Republicans must recommit to our Party’s core principles. . . and individual freedom.” The reason Republicans need to recommit is the Bush Administration’s breaking of the law with warrantless wiretaps shows a loss of commitment. Democrats, to my knowledge, never opposed surveillance of our enemies. Democrats merely insisted on that surveillance being done within the law. By the way, within the existing law was the procedure for doing surveillance now and getting a warrant later.

Another example is, “On issue after issue, Republicans trust you to manage . . . your life; Democrats want more power for government and more control over you.”  Republicans seem to have exceptions to the rule when it suits them. I think back to the Terri Schaivo case in March of 2005 and wonder how this can be an illustration of their commitment to individual, rather than government, control over your personal life. Similarly, how can a party oppose abortion rights and gay marriage and still claim to be in favor of personal freedom. Sounds more like hypocrisy to me.

Rereading to this point, I was concerned that I was being too critical of Republicans and not critical enough of Democrats. I went back and looked at my source material from the first Ezines. I also opened up fund raising material from the Democrats received since I started writing. I looked for Democratic examples of contradictions in what they say vs. what they do or have done. I found none beyond what I have already noted. Readers may know of other arguments you want to make based on other sources. If so, post them on the Blog.

My advice to Republicans, then, is that they make a stronger effort to make sure they govern by the precepts they assert. That old saying about, “What you do speaks so loud I cannot hear what you say,” certainly applies.

2. “Our Country Is Evenly Divided Politically”

More accurately, the country is divided into three major elements. At least it was last year before the front runners began to emerge and people began to identify with those candidates. At this time last year, almost 40% of the country was so disgusted by both Democrats and Republicans they called themselves Independents.

Of course, if 40% of the country sees themselves as Independents, then the remainder of voters seems to be split evenly between Democrats and Republicans. (Yes, there are third parties out there, but their numbers are not significant nationally.) The danger to this scorched earth, take it or leave it approach by the two majors is a shift by one or the other to adjust their policies. That adjustment might cause an element of a party to leave, but their departure might be overcome by new voters being attracted in even greater numbers. That occurrence could mean a significant defeat for the party that doesn’t change.