So President Obama announced the end of the Iraq war, bringing the troops back by the end of the year.
“Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), a presidential hopeful, said in a campaign press release that Obama had shown "weakness" in making "a political decision and not a military one." The withdrawal, Bachmann argued, "represents the complete failure of President Obama...”
Now to understand today's topic, you need to remember that at the last Republican debate just a few days ago Bachmann was besides herself with rage that Obama had pulled the United States into four wars, putting our troops in danger and overextending our international presence.
President Obama also recently announced that a predator drone strike had knocked out Gaddafi's caravan allowing rebels to locate and kill them man. Now prior to this, Republicans had criticized Obama for not forming a no-fly zone over Libya and then criticized him for forming one a few days later.
In this case, they originally criticized the administration for getting involved, saying we shouldn't have gone at all. They compared the situation in Libya to other dictatorial regimes all over the world, and bemoaned the fact that if we went into this one why weren't we in the others? Then after Gaddafi's capture and execution, the party line response was “Why didn't we act sooner and with a more decisive application of US power?” Mario Rubio, Senator John McCain, and just about everyone on Fox News took this position over the last 24 hours.
Alright, Republican Party, even though I don't like you right now for all the horrible things you're doing to your own voters and to the country, I'm going to give you some advice:
While it is customary to downplay the success and leadership of opponents in office, this is a strategy that can be taken too far. There is a point where if you micro-oppose every decision a person makes you stop making convincing points about your opponent and you start making loud proclamations about yourself. People stop believing what you say about your enemy and start believing you're just talking about your own hangups.
So for example if I come to my enemy's house for a cocktail party and get served champagne, I can lean to my small circle of friends and acquaintances, tsk a few times, and decry extravagance. In so doing, I look fiscally responsible and my opponent looks excessive to people friendly to me. This is because they are listening to what I am saying about him and what he's done. If then we're told the champagne is donated, I perhaps can roll my eyes and complain of freeloading. That might fly. If my enemy then says the proceeds of an auction event later will help fund the vinyard as well as sending money to charity, I can try to say he's corrupt and is just passing the cost of the champagne to the buyers but by this time I'm starting to look suspect. My listeners are going to stop wondering about him and start wondering about me.
As I learn more and more about what my opponent is doing, it becomes clear that I'm amending my response not based on what the information really means but based on how to make the information look bad. People catch onto this. Maybe not the most die hard believers, but generally speaking people do grasp patterns and as I twist and turn to make my enemy look bad at every single move he makes, the avenues for being listened to close down as my own agenda becomes more and more apparent: My constant criticism looks like a personal issue that has nothing to do with what my enemy thinks or does but rather has to do with my own hangup and hatred for them. People don't like to get involved in personal feuds, and soon the people I'm talking to will drift away, lean back, break eye contact and shift nervously from foot to foot as they realize they're listening not to an opinion of actions taken but to a personal hang-up.
On the other hand, if I commend my enemy on holding the charity and I agree with him on the points where his ideology and approach align with mine, my ability to hammer him on places where we differ gains a force of authority and objectivity that resonates as true among those unconvinced.
If you go back to the letters between the founders during our country's birth, you'll see them regularly commending their opponents and complimenting their accomplishments. This wasn't because they were providing their ideological enemies support, it was because they knew that for their points of view to be taken seriously they had to show a respect to what their opponent had accomplished and the things that had proven successful. Otherwise their own arguments would fall on deaf ears.
The current Republican party has forgotten this truth. They are so awash in the radicalized conservatism that they simply unleash venom on everything Obama does - Moreso than any other president. The joke I've heard that rings true is that Obama could walk on water to save a drowning child and the Republicans would complain that the President can't swim. This has many conservative and independent people I talk to simply zoning out and rolling their eyes when the little loading bar appears over many Republican heads after each Obama success indicating their OS is updating their party line position to FIND a way for it to be wrong and regressive even if they look stupid saying it.
So as an open piece of advice to the Republicans: Yes, by all means oppose Obama. You'd be derelict in your duty as the opposition party to not do so. However PICK YOUR BATTLES. Weigh the political capital. Make sure you don't cry wolf so many times at everything he does that the places where your party had real, convincing arguments doesn't get lost in a sea of similarly sounding banal complains about everything from Obama's dog to his tie to his bus to to his campaign stop choices to his wife's waistline.
You have to know the election isn't about foreign policy. So admit the fact that Obama's military policy seems to be working. That he's had success after success after success using it while trying to prop up and disengage from the lunacy that was Bush's outmoded neo-con invasion based plans. You don't lose much in the upcoming election by giving credit where credit's due, and you may actually come across as far more credible if instead of whining in direct opposition to what you said a month ago to keep Obama wrong no matter which side of the coin comes up. Instead, you say: “Obama really did well here. It's about time.” and build a platform of 'reasonableness' that will let you launch your most successful attacks.
“Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), a presidential hopeful, said in a campaign press release that Obama had shown "weakness" in making "a political decision and not a military one." The withdrawal, Bachmann argued, "represents the complete failure of President Obama...”
Now to understand today's topic, you need to remember that at the last Republican debate just a few days ago Bachmann was besides herself with rage that Obama had pulled the United States into four wars, putting our troops in danger and overextending our international presence.
President Obama also recently announced that a predator drone strike had knocked out Gaddafi's caravan allowing rebels to locate and kill them man. Now prior to this, Republicans had criticized Obama for not forming a no-fly zone over Libya and then criticized him for forming one a few days later.
In this case, they originally criticized the administration for getting involved, saying we shouldn't have gone at all. They compared the situation in Libya to other dictatorial regimes all over the world, and bemoaned the fact that if we went into this one why weren't we in the others? Then after Gaddafi's capture and execution, the party line response was “Why didn't we act sooner and with a more decisive application of US power?” Mario Rubio, Senator John McCain, and just about everyone on Fox News took this position over the last 24 hours.
Alright, Republican Party, even though I don't like you right now for all the horrible things you're doing to your own voters and to the country, I'm going to give you some advice:
While it is customary to downplay the success and leadership of opponents in office, this is a strategy that can be taken too far. There is a point where if you micro-oppose every decision a person makes you stop making convincing points about your opponent and you start making loud proclamations about yourself. People stop believing what you say about your enemy and start believing you're just talking about your own hangups.
So for example if I come to my enemy's house for a cocktail party and get served champagne, I can lean to my small circle of friends and acquaintances, tsk a few times, and decry extravagance. In so doing, I look fiscally responsible and my opponent looks excessive to people friendly to me. This is because they are listening to what I am saying about him and what he's done. If then we're told the champagne is donated, I perhaps can roll my eyes and complain of freeloading. That might fly. If my enemy then says the proceeds of an auction event later will help fund the vinyard as well as sending money to charity, I can try to say he's corrupt and is just passing the cost of the champagne to the buyers but by this time I'm starting to look suspect. My listeners are going to stop wondering about him and start wondering about me.
As I learn more and more about what my opponent is doing, it becomes clear that I'm amending my response not based on what the information really means but based on how to make the information look bad. People catch onto this. Maybe not the most die hard believers, but generally speaking people do grasp patterns and as I twist and turn to make my enemy look bad at every single move he makes, the avenues for being listened to close down as my own agenda becomes more and more apparent: My constant criticism looks like a personal issue that has nothing to do with what my enemy thinks or does but rather has to do with my own hangup and hatred for them. People don't like to get involved in personal feuds, and soon the people I'm talking to will drift away, lean back, break eye contact and shift nervously from foot to foot as they realize they're listening not to an opinion of actions taken but to a personal hang-up.
On the other hand, if I commend my enemy on holding the charity and I agree with him on the points where his ideology and approach align with mine, my ability to hammer him on places where we differ gains a force of authority and objectivity that resonates as true among those unconvinced.
If you go back to the letters between the founders during our country's birth, you'll see them regularly commending their opponents and complimenting their accomplishments. This wasn't because they were providing their ideological enemies support, it was because they knew that for their points of view to be taken seriously they had to show a respect to what their opponent had accomplished and the things that had proven successful. Otherwise their own arguments would fall on deaf ears.
The current Republican party has forgotten this truth. They are so awash in the radicalized conservatism that they simply unleash venom on everything Obama does - Moreso than any other president. The joke I've heard that rings true is that Obama could walk on water to save a drowning child and the Republicans would complain that the President can't swim. This has many conservative and independent people I talk to simply zoning out and rolling their eyes when the little loading bar appears over many Republican heads after each Obama success indicating their OS is updating their party line position to FIND a way for it to be wrong and regressive even if they look stupid saying it.
So as an open piece of advice to the Republicans: Yes, by all means oppose Obama. You'd be derelict in your duty as the opposition party to not do so. However PICK YOUR BATTLES. Weigh the political capital. Make sure you don't cry wolf so many times at everything he does that the places where your party had real, convincing arguments doesn't get lost in a sea of similarly sounding banal complains about everything from Obama's dog to his tie to his bus to to his campaign stop choices to his wife's waistline.
You have to know the election isn't about foreign policy. So admit the fact that Obama's military policy seems to be working. That he's had success after success after success using it while trying to prop up and disengage from the lunacy that was Bush's outmoded neo-con invasion based plans. You don't lose much in the upcoming election by giving credit where credit's due, and you may actually come across as far more credible if instead of whining in direct opposition to what you said a month ago to keep Obama wrong no matter which side of the coin comes up. Instead, you say: “Obama really did well here. It's about time.” and build a platform of 'reasonableness' that will let you launch your most successful attacks.
Comments
Post a Comment