To the casual observer, motivation seems much more pertinent than it actually is. In the first place, it's inherently unknowable. Although we'll theorize about each other until doomsday, we can't ever actually see into the heart of another. I seriously doubt Bush invaded Iraq just to enrich his oil buddies, but I can't ever know that for certain, and neither can his opponents.
Likewise, I can't see into the hearts of the left. I suppose it would be interesting to discover whether or not Ted Kennedy is just an old cynic or if his heart bleeds for the less fortunate, but either way, the policies he advocates are a disaster, so I don't particularly care.
Unfortunately, a substantial portion of the American public is more likely to vote for the candidate who "understands" them the most, even if that candidate is an utter fool.
This "all-you-need-is-love" manner of evaluating policy favors the left considerably for several reasons. First, that's how they wish the country to evaluate them, because that's how they evaluate themselves. Socialistic policies may always result in ruin (yes, even in Europe), but Mao had his people's best interests at heart, so he wasn't all that bad. Hippies can't be blamed for the Vietnamese boat people and the massacres in Cambodia because they only wanted peace. Bilingual education may damn hispanic kids to the fringes of society, but we don't want them to feel left out in school.
Secondly, the right's conception of human nature takes realities into consideration that make people uncomfortable. Sympathizing with a murderer and giving him a second chance won't necessarily keep him from taking another life. However, we know that forgiveness can be a virtue, and we like to think that such behavior will produce favorable results. We're good people and we like to believe we can love away our violent tendencies instead of defeating them. Beating something ugly means having to look at it.
Some might argue that we should turn the motivation game back on them, to question their patriotism, out them as race-hustlers, and expose environmental hypochrisy. I agree that this can be useful as a secondary approach, but it brings me to the third reason we should sever the caring=effective association in the minds of the American public--when we're talking about motive, we're extremely unlikely to win.
Because their entire collective self image depends on wanting peace, harmony, etc., they've developed a much keener defensive instinct in this regard than we ever will. As Dr. Sowell points out in his latest column, Democrats have mastered the art of indignation, the "how dare you question my patriotism/racial bonifides/environmental awareness?!" I'm not particularly interested in hearing about how much Barbara Boxer "supports our troops," and you shouldn't be either, unless you want her to look good.
Instead, I recommend we overtly grant them their pure hearts and then attack their effectiveness. Vice President Cheney almost actually executed what could be an immeasurably effective talking point for Republicans everywhere.
I would argue that his initial claim that the Democratic plan would "'validate the al-Qaeda strategy'" was correct but too easily allowed for a counter-attack, which inevitably came in Pelosi's strident defense of her patriotism.
In response, however, Cheney did not allow the debate to shift to the purity of her motives. "'I didn't question her patriotism. I questioned her judgement.'"
This is what needs to be done, with two caveats.
First, he should have made clear, as all Republicans should make clear before launching an attack, that we're not calling their sincerity into question. For example:
I know that Senator Moonbat cares for this country every bit as much as I do, but the simple fact of the matter is that every time he gets in front of a camera, al-Qaeda's morale goes through the roof.
This keeps Sen. Moonbat away from his "how dare you question my...!?" comfort zone, saves us a news cycle, and allows us to get straight to the point--they're helping the enemy.
You may want only peace, but you're inspiring murderers. You love America, but they're using your soundbites in recruiting videos. You support our troops, but you give terrorists reason to believe killing them will get them what they want. Your heart's in the right place, but let's talk about the harm you're doing instead.
The GOP has not done this, nor does it give us any indication that it will. Cheney allowed his master stroke to remain buried in old newspapers and the memories of the few who heard about it. I'm sure it was repeated, but it wasn't REPEATED.
Nice motives don't necessarily mean nice results, and the association between the two must be forever severed in the minds of the American public.
0 comments:
Post a Comment