|
That's the way to change minds. Call your opponents stupid. :sarcasm:
Here's an idea. Conservatives are not stupid. They just filter their experiences differently from progressives. It's called a "world-view". Everything they do and believe is logically consistent with their world-view, and they process their facts with the same intelligence that progressives do.
And tactically, their intelligence may be superior. After all, they are the ones that control all 3 branches of government, not the Democrats or another progressive party. Yes, let's just say they cheated. OK. They're still in power. That was the whole point of elections. Why can't we catch them at it? When I say "catch", I mean bring it home to them and punish them for it. Because, somehow or the other, they are outplaying us at the game of politics.
The sooner that we realize the real problem and stop "misunderestimating" our opponents, the sooner we can develop a "strategery" that can win.
To change minds, you have to change the world-view. If both sides are agreed that a certain goal should be accomplished, but disagree about what the best way to do it is, compromise is possible. If there is disagreement about the goal, say one side wants the death penalty for heinous crimes, and the other doesn't, or one side wants to destroy a country utterly, and the other side does not want to be destroyed, there is far less room for minds to meet. The struggle will end only when one side gives up its goals.
So, then, how do we change minds? It's hard, actually. The only way I know is if the person starts to realize that his solutions to problems just do not work. Eventually, the cognitive dissonance may be enough to change his mind. I've actually seen this happen just once.
Probably, rather than trying to change minds, a better strategy would be to just figure out how to win elections. Despite a closely divided electorate and Diebold.
But the problem won't be solved if it is not faced. If, for instance, we go into the 2006 elections assuming that *'s unpopularity is automatically going to assure a Congressional sweep for Democrats, there is going to be considerable weeping into beers the next day. If, for instance, we nominate a polarizing figure like Hillary, Gore, or Kerry in 2008, there will be an excellent chance of 4 more years of Republican president.
Clark's da man. Clark should be our nominee. Whoo! have I gotten off subject. But I don't apologize. This is important.
|