They are talking down to their audience. They are assuming that their listeners are callous, hostile, shallow, or (most recently) sadistic. It would be much better and perhaps even easier for Republican politicians to proceed from the assumption that conservative voters are intelligent and basically decent people rather than greedy, angry brutes. They might even convince some non-conservatives to listen to them. And they might even do a little to undermine the myth that conservatives don’t care for the poor. ~ Peter Spiliakos Im less concerned about the political calculus of a less presumptive approach to conservative messaging than I am about how it enhances our chances to inform people and change their lives. If theres one point I hope Ive made clear over time, my main purpose in promoting the views and values I hold is to provide insight so that people may be helped, not to secure power for a political party. That said, however, do you believe todays conservative elites assume the worst of us? They call this kind of messaging red meat, and the implications of that term are not flattering. Picture a pack of snarling, ravenous dogs ripping apart a bloody carcass, and tell me if you feel complimented. Im curious to know if you agree with the writers premise. I should also add that red meat isnt just for conservatives, either. A similar column could be written about liberal elites who use particular phrases, buzz words and metaphors to stir up their base. In the end, I guess thats the question Id like us to ask ourselves -- is it beneficial to human flourishing for partisans to be stirred up? Does the tendency of these elites to inflame passions represent responsible statesmanship in these divisive times?
Posted on: Sat, 03 May 2014 15:32:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015