I just got an email from the Republican Party about the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee trying to divide Republicans from activists. The strategy is a real concern. The Republican challenge? How to respond to the concerns of activists without alienating them. Let’s be honest, many of the activists that are becoming engaged at this time have been alienated by both Republicans and Democrats. They are closer to the Republicans in their "Leave Me Alone" approach to government, but they don’t believe Republicans take them seriously. It is very easy to turn them off, and Republicans, in their attempt to curry the favor with the media and intelligentsia, are quick to diss the activists who would, on the natural, support them.
There is a way to deal with their issues without alienating them, and it is important that Republicans learn these ways. The activists are not hicks, they are not rubes, they are not unintelligent, no matter how much Democrats and the media wish to cast them in that light. They are natural allies of Republicans, if Republicans treat them with respect and dignity. Consultants will tell candidates to ignore or deny their concerns, to curry favor with the media and intelligentsia. That will only rile the activists, turn them off, and leave them out of a political process in which they are absolutely critical to a Republican victory. Addressing their concerns incorrectly can bring down media hell on any candidate. These are my suggestions on the questions brought up by the DSCC:
1. Do you believe Obama is a US citizen? There are a lot of activists who question his citizenship. The response of the Obama people has been to assert his citizenship, and hide his birth certificate. Why? This is my suggested response when asked the question. "Obama should just make his birth certificate public, and put this whole debate to rest. Here is my birth certificate. Where is his?" Just stick to that. The candidate is not agreeing with the birthers, nor is the candidate denying their point, which is a good one, why isn’t he making his birth certificate public.
2. Do you think the 10th Amendment bars Congress from issuing regulations like minimum health care standards? The question of the limits of federal power is an important one. Congress and the Supreme Court have routinely ignored the constitutional balance struck by our founding fathers between the federal government and the states. How to respond to this question? "The 10th Amendment says very specifically that powers not expressly granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people. That is an important principle that needs to be preserved. I will follow that principle in making my decisions based on the limits stated in the Constitution." Who can argue with someone following the Constitution? That is what the activists want to hear, and it is hard to argue with. What would a Democrat say to that? We shouldn’t follow the Constitution? We should ignore it? We do think the First Amendment is important. The 10th is just as important.
3. Do you think programs like Social Security and Medicare represent socialism and shouldn’t have been created in the first place? Here is the response "The problem of Social Security and Medicare is that they place our senior citizens at the mercy of politicians. Look at Obamacare. Politicians were going to hurt seniors to enact a single payer system. Why is that right? Why should our seniors be at the mercy of Washington politicians? Our Social Security and Medicare systems should be set up to maximize freedom, and minimize the dependence of seniors on politicians. Whether that is through tax credits, or defined benefit programs that protect seniors, or other methods of protecting seniors from the whims of politicians, we need to have a serious discussion before the politicians in Washington really hurt our seniors." The problem of government run systems, whether you call them socialist or not, is that they leave the recipients of benefits at the mercy of politicians. Stick to the language of government run, like the post office, or the DMV, emphasize individual freedom, and people will get it.
4. Do you think Obama is a socialist? Ok, yes, so he is, but you will be ridiculed if you say that. So stick to the language of a government run system. Yes, a government run system is socialism by definition. But if you use the "government run" language, people get it. Once again, emphasize individualism, freedom, the "leave me alone" standard, and minimum government intervention, and you win the debate. "Obama thinks government will solve all your problems, and I just don’t think that is right."
5. Do you think America should return to a gold standard? These are the words "I agree with those economists who believe that our money should be stable and strong. When the federal government tries to finance its big programs with borrowing, it simply increases inflation and hurts the middle class. We need a monetary policy that protects the middle class." Indeed the gold standard protects the middle class, but most of the media doesn’t get it. It doesn’t help to get into a debate with a reporter, questioner, or opponent who is economically dense. Stick to the "solid foundation" rhetoric, and no one can argue with you.
The most important thing is to make the activists understand that you respect them. Democrats will call them extremists. There is no need for Republicans, by words or actions, to call them extremists as well. Keeping them happy does not require that you engage in an argument with those who wish to cast the opinions in the least favorable light. Look for words and actions that give activists respect, but that don’t engage in the argument on the Democrats’ turf. The biggest issue is respect. Once activists believe that a candidate respects them, they will fight for that candidate no matter what.