It seems fitting to discuss where conservatism could be going on the eve of Obama’s mid-term State of the Union Address. Before he takes center stage, and attempts to sell the public on his own agenda yet again is an excellent time to consider where conservatives want to go next. The November election has been touted as a resounding statement from the masses that they have lost faith in this administration, but Obama is now enjoying increased popularity. Perhaps it is because he attempted to make it clear to the public that he heard their message from the ballot box, or maybe it is an anomalous blip due to the tragedy in Tucson. Only time will tell.
Regardless the cause, the recent calls for toning down the rhetoric are something conservatives do need to consider, and not to appease the left. To clarify what was said here previously, this is not a matter of giving in, but choosing to take a step above the opposition. We need to ask ourselves the question: is it necessary to drag ourselves and our ideas into the mud to achieve our goals? More importantly, is it impossible for us to take the proverbial high ground, and stop using incendiary rhetoric to forward our cause? The answer to those questions should be a resounding “no.”
Here in Pennsylvania during the last election, we endured a gubernatorial campaign of falsehoods, mudslinging, and gimmickry. One candidate found it necessary to lie outright regularly in his campaign ads (nothing new under the sun), and regularly dodged hard questions about misuse of governmental funds. His supporters claimed that a largely unpopular and extremely costly infrastructure improvement program in the city of Pittsburgh wasn’t his fault. It had been concocted by his predecessors, and he had to take the money from the Federal Government in spite of any complaints against it. Then he complained about his opponent regularly asking for more funds from the State coffers for his department (a pittance in comparison), while failing to even acknowledge the work his opponent did to protect consumers with those funds. But what was arguably the fatal blow for his candidacy was when he decided to imply that his opponent would cut programs for seniors if elected – a bald-faced lie, since funding for those programs is secure, coming from our State lottery program.
Governor Tom Corbett (R-PA) ran a truthful campaign (the only complaints during media fact-checking were the possibility of people misunderstanding the context of various issues that couldn’t be explained fully in the time allowed for commercials.) He did not lower himself to heated rhetoric, fear tactics, or mudslinging. It was a clean campaign run purely on the issues, and the political history of both candidates. The people of Pennsylvania were spared an ugly political mud wrestling session, and the truth won out. It’s not sexy, didn’t get the media foaming at the mouth, but it did the job.
Corbett chose to disarm his opponent by not giving him ammunition in the first place. He chose not to lower himself to that level, and it paid off at the polls. It is true that the calls to tone down the rhetoric that we’re hearing smack of censorship. However, when those same calls come from our own side, it is not about silencing the message. It is about begging those in the spotlight to stop giving the opposition ammunition to use against us. If we can’t deliver our message without using that heated rhetoric (or worse, if the heated rantings are the sum total of our message), then we may as well do precisely what the Left is calling for – keep quiet. This is not the time for engaging in unnecessary heated debates, or incendiary commentaries. It is time to take responsibility for our own actions, own up to our mistakes, and move on to solve our problems. Glenn Beck hit on part of this message last week. He is right that we should not call for an absolute silencing of heated commentary. The Freedom of Speech we enjoy does not prohibit stupidity. However, that freedom does not absolve us from taking responsibility for our own words. On the contrary, it demands it. And that is what we need to do next. We need to consider our choices when it comes to voicing our opinions, hopefully make choices that do not give the opposition ammunition to use against us, but when we happen to do that, instead of just moving on, take responsibility for it. We all (hopefully) learned this from our parents before we even set foot in a classroom – if you do or say something wrong or hurtful, own up to it, apologize, and then move on. If we choose to use incendiary speech to express our views, we must stop crying foul when we’re called on it – we must own up to our actions. Remember, it’s not just about keeping the opposition at bay. We keep claiming that we’re the “family values” people. Teaching our children to “do as I say, not as I do” is not a family value conservatives should embrace.
Secured by