It’s a Simple Game

The more I read, in both in the main stream and alternate media outlets, the more fascinated I am with the both are able to use the same words to describe diametrically opposed ideas.

Terms like “radical”, “extremist”, “socialist”, “communist”, “fascist”, “Nazi” and so on are hurled at their opponents by liberals, progressives, RINOs and Democrats.

Conservatives, Tea Partiers and non-RINO Republicans hurl them back with an equal zest – and without much in the way of clear definition by either group.

However, both sides seem to agree on one thing:  When they use such words themselves they are only pointing out and testifying to the evil of the other side.  When the other side uses the very same words, they are simply lying, causing distraction and attempting to divert attention away from their own failures.

Even when one attempts to seek reasonable definitions, one is stymied by the similar, if not nearly identical definitions of many of these terms.  Take for example, the words “socialist” and “fascist”.  Now everyone knows (at least that’s what they will say out loud) that “fascism” is a lot like “Nazism”.  I mean, Hitler and Mussolini were on the same side, right?

Look, though, at the dictionary definition of “fascism”:

…a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Now, how about “Nazism”:

…political control of the country, suppressing all opposition and establishing a dictatorship over all cultural, economic, and political activities of the people… aggressive anti-Semitism, the natural supremacy of the German people, and the establishment of Germany by superior force as a dominant world power

Of course, even though these two definitions are very, very similar, the problem is made a bit more complex when you remember that Nazi stands for National Socialist.  So are socialists Nazis?  Are Nazis really socialists?  Are either fascists?

This is the kind of discussion that leads almost unavoidably to an argument that reminds one of the spirited disagreements among theologians revolving around the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

In 1988, Kevin Kostner starred in a film called Bull Durham about a minor league baseball team.  In one scene, the manager of the team, in a fit of anger brought on by the poor quality of play of his men, screamed at them: “It’s a simple game!  You hit the ball, you throw the ball, you catch the ball!  It’s a simple game!”

For conservatives to win, politics needs to be a simpler game.  We need to avoid those “angels on the head of pin” arguments with our opponents.  We need to make sure that the low-information voter can draw a clear distinction between those who oppose liberal-Progressive-Democrats (LPDs) and those who support them.

Instead of dozens of definitions describing multiple political theories (which, in reality, only concern academics in faculty lounges located in the bowels of intellectual ivory towers) how about we only have two theories of government.

The first is a theory that people should be free to do exactly what they want with minimal interference from any level of government.

The other?  Everything else is the other theory.  Fascism, socialism, communism, theocracy, autocracy, monarchy, and so on.  The one thing all these have in common is that they are all based on the belief that those in power know better than you do what is good for you.  They are all based on a belief that the ordinary citizen is incompetent to decide what they should do and must be told what to do at all times.  They must be controlled.  They must remain uneducated. (Indoctrinated, yes.  Educated, no)

Is it possible that if we make it as simple as possible to differentiate between LPDs and conservatives that even the “we-can-snatch-defeat-from-the-jaws-of-victory” Republicans could close the sale?  How would the vast majority of Americans respond to a poll that asked this simple question:

Do you want to run your own life, or do you want someone you don’t know and have no respect for telling you what to do?

Even life-long Democrats don’t want someone telling them how they must live.  Conservatives have to position themselves so that even if a Democrat has never voted for a non-Democrat before, the establishment LPD candidate will be seen as exactly what they really are – someone who really believes that they are entitled to be a tyrant.


About Jim Yardley

Retired after 30 years as a financial controller for a variety of manufacturing firms, a two-tour Vietnam veteran, and independent voter.
Gallery | This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Constitution, Elections, Mainstream Media, Observing Our Culture, Political Doubletalk, U.S. Government and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to It’s a Simple Game

  1. The Framers of the United States Constitution intended to establish, in the words of James Madison, an “energetic” and effective government, one capable of fulfilling the purposes for which it was created. The Constitution provides for institutions that facilitate the formation of majorities on various issues at the same time as it limits the powers of those majorities to protect the basic liberties of the people. The Bill of Rights was adopted as an additional means of limiting the powers of the national government and has become central to the American idea of constitutional government.

  2. The United Kingdom continues to use the first-past-the-post electoral system for general elections, and for local government elections in England and Wales. Changes to the UK system have been proposed, and alternatives were examined by the Jenkins Commission in the late 1990s. After the formation of a new coalition government in 2010, it was announced as part of the coalition agreement that a referendum would be held on 5 May 2011 on switching to the alternative vote system . The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 received Royal Assent in February 2011 to allow the referendum to occur. It was rejected by British voters on 6 May.

  3. which is raised where certain policies for England are set by MPs from all four constituent nations whereas similar policies for Scotland or Wales might be decided in the devolved assemblies by legislators from those countries alone. Alternative proposals for English regional government have stalled, following a poorly received referendum on devolved government for the North East of England , which had hitherto been considered the region most in favour of the idea, with the exception of Cornwall , where there is widespread support for a Cornish Assembly , including all five Cornish MPs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s