Connect with us

Opinions

Top 5 conservative stereotypes and how to break them down

Published

on

Top 5 conservative stereotypes and how to break them down

First, before recognizing some old chestnuts passed around about conservatives and conservatism, we should ask ourselves whether we want to be spending any time on disavowing others of their presumptions.

The truth is, stereotypes can be hard to break down. But to expand our base, we need to be attractive to people of various backgrounds. And if they are coming from a place of ignorance, rather than ideological bias and malice, there is no reason to ignore an opportunity to tell our own story in our words, rather than someone else’s.

  1. Conservatives are Republicans (and vice versa)

Progressives, independents, and even conservatives themselves use frequently use these words interchangeably, but of course, they are not an equivalent. However, for hardcore ideological opponents, playing that card has a distinct advantage of being able to blame conservative movement as a whole for the mistakes made by the party. Similarly, the Republican party is associated with particular ideological tropes, regardless of the policies it actually implements.

What to do?

First, start by example and use the political party affiliation, and the ideological movement appropriately.  Don’t give your opponents any excuses to take advantage of ambiguities; be clear with people who don’t know the difference.

Second, of course, it’s best to push the Republican party towards more conservative positions. But that won’t always be easy or quick.

Third, distinguish what you, as a conservative stand for, versus current policies implemented by the Republican president, top officials in Congress, and the party platform. Some individual party members will inevitably be more conservative than others. Use them as examples of what you would like the party to become, but remember that as a whole, the party can only be judged for its policies at the current juncture. Positions and policies are different; if you are active in the party, you may sometimes be part of public policies you disagree with. This gets confusing, even for other conservatives, so….

Make individualism a top priority. That way, whether you choose to identify yourself based on your ideological position, party affiliation (which may not be Republican! – New York has a Conservative Party, Iowa has the Federalists, etc), you will teach everyone around you to engage with your on the basis of your own views as opposed to something abstract.

  1. Republican Party is for old white rich men

I got news for you – if you define a party by its top leadership and donors, all parties are parties of old white rich men, because those are the people who have had the experience and the success to be in the leadership positions. This may change over time, as people of diverse backgrounds have become more visible and successful, but just look at most of the top Democrats. They are practically indistinguishable from top Republican donors.

Admittedly, it is harder to disassociate Republicanism from this stereotype thanks to the rise of alt-right, so called “white nationalists” (there is actually no such thing), and the terrible PR by the progressives which GOP has never quite dismantled. Though many of these folks have been working class, the stereotype remains intact.

The question is then: how to promote the reality of a diverse, inclusive party where people of all backgrounds are welcome as long as they share substantive common principles… all without playing the identity politics which has brought ruin to the progressives and helped perpetuate this stereotype in 2016?

Once again, refocusing on empowering the individual can help disspell the overall impressions. Yes, the visuals may be important in PR – simply because expectations and reality are not always the same, and during elections, every bit matters.

But don’t do sacrifice principles to diversity.

Instead, showcase talented, hardworking people of all backgrounds who contribute to the movement in substantive ways. And don’t be too lazy, or scared to reach out to groups you may have a lot in common with but which have been the “traditional” base of the progressives.

If you don’t start making the effort to reach out to different communities and working with them, there is no reason or incentive for them to reexamine the status quo.

  1. Conservatives live in the past

The idea that the Constitution is a living document that, like a crystal ball, can be sued for whatever is the immediate need, has been debated to death in law school classes around the country.

And the traditional “look” of bow-tie wearing conservatives droning on monotonously in dusty think tank rooms has not helped matters.

To some extent, this is simply bad PR. Giving voice to younger Conservatives may well shatter this image.

A campaign showcasing conservatives principles in action in the 21st century is certainly doable.

However, we need to balance perceptions of why “conservative” positions are relevant to today with the underlying argument that the present cannot exist without the bedrock of the past.

The principles articulated by the Founding Fathers have led directly to present successes. Failure to stick to them or misinterpretations were at the core of our social and political problems.

That is the core of the battle that we have been losing. The progressives have the advantage of allowing anachronisms to shape the past to their liking.  They can read modern feminist or intersectionalist conundra into early colonies, while also claiming that contemporary identity politics are somehow any different from those dehumanizing and mistaken notions of identity.

Focusing on how continuity and evolution can and has avoided the damage of revolutionary approach to improving society needs to find a wider audience. Take it out of the box, dust it off, bring it to the young audiences around the country. Don’t wait for public school unionized school teachers and college professors to move in.

  1. Conservatives favor policies that most people don’t support.

Small government and social conservative policies have borne out the brunt of this attack.

In case of abortion, current trends actually have moved in the opposite directions. Most people do not actually wish for abortions to proliferate. The issue here, however, is the tendency for people, w hether they are  progressive or conservative, to focus on the data they like and to dismiss the inconvenient studies.

Saying that abortion, in fact, is not a popular response, for instance, will not change the minds of hardcore ideologues.

But should opinion polls be the brunt of the argument? Perhaps better policies that address deeply emotional issues no amount of data can fully resolve is the answer.

To win on social conservatism, such as pro-life positions, conservatives should be seen not merely as the best advocates for unborn babies and intact families, but specifically, as better advocates for women. (And separately, in a non-alt-right way, for men, as well!)

Speaking more frequently about women’s health issues, advocating vocally not just against Planned Parenthood, but for the many much better options for women. and

Conservatives should be  at the forefront of communal support for single parents can transform the image of the conservative approach and bring in many hesitant women into the fold.

As far as small government is concerned, the ACA repeal debacle has to some extent revealed that the progressives may have a point.

Much of the country has moved away from small government principles, and individual fiscal responsibility… as the groups that represent them, be they conservative think tanks or public officials, likewise embraced big government/big spending policies.

Advocating for tax cuts to boost economy is not sufficient. If conservatives want a return to popular support for limited government, they need to focus on cutting spending for entitlement programs, as well as eliminating duplicative, inefficient expenditures and corporate cronyism from the defense budget. Same goes towards weaning off sectors off the economy from agricultural and others subsidies.

In short, the answer here is eliminating hypocrisy and focusing on educating the public as to better options.

  1. The Moral Majority are All Hypocrites

Thanks to the widespread coverage of sex scandals, corporate cronyism, and investigations associated with various Trump associates and their security and business improprieties, progressives are making an increasingly colorable argument that conservatives talk the talk but can’t walk the walk.

There is only thing to be said here: the Republican Party needs to clean up that act, and conservatives need to stop confusing winning elections with accepting the inexcusable.

Politicians may not be beacons of moral behavior, but there is also no reason to accept  as paragons for emulation embarrassments who ultimately end up costing more than they win.

The answer, of course, is not to stay home and sulk when awful candidates end up nominating, but to throw our weight early and often behind better people, encourage them to run, and coax finicky donors into supporting the kind of people who can govern. A smart strategy can win an election for an inexperienced or uncharismatic candidate. But there is no substitute for energetic, thoughtful, and incorruptible governance.

Finally, discreditation of character and morality and substitution of electoral votes for principles and a strategic approach is already backfiring.

Republican party  numbers are shrinking. Independents are increasingly disgusted with both parties.  Electoral participation where candidates have earned opprobrium is significantly  less.

And people who place personal gain over public trust, national security, or service to the country do not inspire; they increase cynicism and fear.

Letting political hacks and apparatchiks take the lead in politics has been a mistake.Time for individuals with ideas and skills to step to the forefront in many ways: run for office, support good campaigns (support is what ultimately makes them winnable), write article, educate the public, register voters, work with children and teenagers… serve the country.

Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security lawyer, based in New York. I can send something longer, but then it would go into all the other things I've been involved in and might be too long!

Continue Reading
Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Don McCullen

    January 11, 2018 at 4:42 pm

    Never sit out elections. If you have the write-in blank or third parties. USE THEM!!! Make voting a protest movement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinions

Woman, thou art silenced

Published

on

I am old enough to remember the days when being a feminist meant supporting equal rights for men and women. I also remember the moment I realized that I was no longer allowed to call myself a feminist, when I had officially been banned from the club.

I am a Christian and a conservative: feminist no-no’s. Yes, I am a woman, but I think and I say all of the wrong things.

Woman, thou art silenced.

“What a pathetic way of thinking. How arrogant of Progressives to think that my hopes and dreams mirror their hopes and dreams. What an absolute bore….”

– A.E. Samaan

Being a feminist is no longer about equality for men and women. Nowadays, any woman calling herself a feminist must desire to topple “the patriarchy,” whatever that means.

She must castigate capitalism despite historical facts: capitalism, after all, is what enabled women to go to work outside of the home, start their own businesses, and achieve financial independence from men.

Furthermore, to be a 21st Century feminist, a woman must worship the god of intersectionality. For those who do not yet know, intersectionality is basically a rating system for women based on their victimhood status and membership in a “marginalized” group(s).

In practice, intersectionality is a de facto, apartheid caste system for women.

Finally, for a woman to be a feminist, she must relinquish all her knowledge of biological reality, her human integrity and her sense of womanhood to men who believe themselves to be women. No longer can she recognize the uniqueness of the female sex or acknowledge the physical experiences she has in her own body.

She must carefully watch her words. Even the word “vagina” is now deemed exclusionary, not inclusive; some “women” don’t have lady bits. She must balance a tight rope of conformity, and she must be oh-so careful not to offend any men who think they are chicks.

The toxic marriage of the intersectional hierarchy with the inclusion of “trans  women” (men) as real women has created a bizarre, regressive, injurious phenomenon that many women have been unprepared with which to grapple. Women who have (rightfully) spoken out against men being considered women and, thus, gaining entry into women-only spaces, have been chastised and shunned, often publicly.

Woman, thou art silenced.

In December 2017, Quebec’s largest feminist organization elected its new president: a “trans-woman” (a man) named Gabrielle Bouchard. To reiterate, a man is now the president of a women’s organization.

A man now holds a position that was reserved specifically for a woman. 

The Federation des Femmes du Quebec represents around 300 feminist groups and approximately 700 individual members.

Bouchard’s election has generated dismay and concern. The media, however, has remained strangely quiet on these concerns, a phenomenon Campagne-Quebec Vie’s president, Georges Buscemi, refers to as “an awkward silence.”

Buscemi believes “most Quebecers agree with him, and that’s why local media are ‘tiptoeing’ around the event” (lifesitenews). “It’s kind of a polite and embarrassed silence… I think everybody thinks, ‘This is ridiculous, but we can’t say it,’” he continued.

Commenting on the media silence regarding concerns surrounding Bouchard’s election, feminist writer Denise Bombardier stated, “We are all prisoners of a terrible political correctness since it forbids us to express any doubt about the validity of such a reality.”

Woman, though art silenced.

Gabrielle Bouchard, who ran for the presidency unopposed, has stated that his mission as head of the Federation des Femmes du Quebec is “about not leaving anyone behind” and fighting “for a more inclusive interpretation of womanhood,”(ctvnews).

Although claiming to represent all women, Bouchard is quick to attach derogatory labels to any women, especially feminists, who have expressed concerns regarding his ability to lead a women’s advocacy organization (as a man), and has claimed that these women are guilty of “trickle-down feminism.”

His feminist detractors, Gabrielle Bouchard accuses, are transphobic and sexist, and at least one online publication has branded these women “bigots.”

Bouchard told The Canadian Press, “They are saying we’ll tolerate trans women as long as they are not in a position of power.” Criticism, he complained, “presumes the identity barriers I face, the risk of violence I face, the risk of unemployment and not finding housing are illegitimate and not based in sexism.

Rather than on women, Bouchard’s focus is clearly on himself.

All the barriers I face are actually based in sexism. They also happen to be based in transphobia. I am living at the intersection of trans identity and being a woman, and it creates a marginalization that some women don’t face,” (emphasis mine).

Woman, thou art silenced.

Still, Canadian women have reason to be wary.

In 2013, Bouchard was the coordinator of peer support and trans advocacy for the 2110 Centre for Gender Advocacy. In an interview that year, Gabrielle Bouchard stated, “I don’t want to be an activist for whatever identity I have, because I’ve been transitioning for long enough to know that [my identity swings] from one month to another, one year to another, (emphasis mine). 

[To date, Bouchard has not stated whether he plans on identifying as a man during part of his tenure as president.]

When asked what types of support were needed in the trans community, Bouchard responded, “If I had to say one thing, [it would be that] we need the right to choose. And if I want to be radical, I would say that we need people to leave us the frack alone and stop caring if I have facial hair or not, a penis or not, boobs or not.”

According to feminist writer Denise Bombardier, there are greater issues, more pressing concerns surrounding Gabrielle Bouchard. In a December article, Bombardier wrote, “No debate can be held on what should be called a transgender offensive to explode the reality of both sexes to impose a breathtaking vision where there is no longer man or woman.” 

Specifically, Denise Bombardier pointed to a comment made by Gabrielle Bouchard during a public hearing (April 15, 2015): “It would be fun to abolish the sexes, but it is not something that will happen.”

Later during that same hearing, Bouchard also stated, “There are some guys who will give birth. So, to say ‘mother’ to automatically mean that it is the person who gave birth to a child, already there, that too, it is a step that must also be deconstructed because there are fathers who will give birth. To call it a maternity is to make it (sic)…”

“Maybe that parent, who is the person who is going to give birth, well, maybe he’ll have a beard there, or maybe have a big voice,” (emphasis mine).

Such statements from Bouchard appear to be fully in-line with a significant area of his advocacy: his goal is to open women’s shelters to “transgender women” (men).

In 2013, while serving as Centre 2110’s Peer Support and Advocacy coordinator, he claimed that the practice of identity/sex verification at women’s shelters is discriminatory. “In women’s shelters, if you don’t look the part, then questions are asked. These questions can be fundamentally discriminatory,” he said.

In August 2017, he stated “Most shelters refuse to even acknowledge that they have a problem with this, that there is strong transphobia amongst these organizations and that they need to move to stop that.” 

Perhaps worst of all is what Gabrielle Bouchard believes to be the root cause of the women’s shelter issue: myths that “trans women” make “cis women” (regular women) uncomfortable or that “trans women” may be unsafe additions to women’s shelters. These myths, Bouchard believes, must be debunked.

Here, what are presented as “myths” are no myths at all.

Women seeking refuge in shelters are often fleeing various kinds of abuse at the hands of men. Forcing traumatized women and children to share living quarters with biological males is both frightening and risky.

Still, Gabrielle Bouchard, who claims he will represent all women, is intent on victimizing and silencing the most vulnerable women in society.

This man insists on telling traumatized women that they must accept men into their shelter. This is the height of selfishness and idiocy.

Woman, thou art silenced.

But you don’t have to be…

 “It took me quite a long time to develop a voice, and now that I have it, I am not going to be silent.”

 – Madeleine Albright

Woman, be thou loud.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Hollywood is posturing, not repenting

Published

on

Hollywood is posturing not repenting

This whole #MeToo campaign is no different than the Red Ribbon campaign in the 1990’s. Hollywood has always been good at posturing, and actually not being a solution to any problem. If Hollywood or any entertainment industry machine in the world truly wants to clean up their act, they should look at themselves in the mirror and admit that they are flawed human beings, and throw some more men and women under the bus that hinder.

Never mind Harvey Weinstein or even Bill Cosby (who might have taught us certain moral scruples). How about Roman Polanski who raped then 13-year-old Samantha Gailey and is a fugitive from the law? At this rate, justice for Samantha will not prevail. It’s going to take God and God alone to finally rain down judgment on Polanski, I say right now he should get his affairs in order for that. Otherwise, another lost soul for Lucifer to claim. Kudos to Ben Shapiro for calling out these posturing punks, who just seek their personal interests still and still thumb their noses not only at God but middle America as well:

The Virtue-Signaling Anti-Virtue Crowd

https://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2018/01/10/the-virtuesignaling-antivirtue-crowd-n2432171Imagine it’s late 2011. The world just found out about Jerry Sandusky, former assistant Penn State football coach who would be convicted of repeatedly raping children in 2012. Penn State higher-ups, in an attempt to turn the focus of the scandal away from the school, decide to turn an annual banquet into a celebration of those fighting child rape. They call up head coach Joe Paterno. They call up President Graham Spanier. They call up athletic director Tim Curley. All of them give long, brave speeches about the evils of sexual exploitation of children resulting in rousing applause from all the Penn State boosters. All the attendees wear pins showing their solidarity with molestation victims. The event is nationally televised.

Kevin Swanson’s Generations podcasts on January 10 and 11 2017 dealt with the entertainment industry in America here and now.

The January 10 podcast focused on the movie based on the life of P.T. Barnum (“The Greatest Showman”) and truly valued family especially his own and showing that he was not just seeking suckers “born every minute.” Barnum might have had freaks of nature in his show but deep down, he valued them as any human being. That being created in the image of God. He wanted to provide entertainment to families especially with women and children in mind. Also, the program points out how the degeneration of entertainment actually began in the roaring 1920’s and depression 1930’s starting with Mae West and her sexual flaunting and even the pushing bounds of transgenderism and adultery in the hit records way back in the day.

P.T. Barnum The Greatest Showman | Generations

https://www.generations.org/programs/839A recent motion picture release, “The Greatest Showman” features the early history of P.T. Barnum.  Last year, the Barnum and Bailey Circus shut down after 146 years.  We take a look at the history of circuses, zoos, and wholesome entertainment in America.  Then, we look at how it degraded quickly in the 1920s and 1930s.  Here is an analysis for Christians on what constitutes good family entertainment.  Is amusement biblical?  Is entertainment a good use of your time?

Swanson tackles the 2018 Gloden Globe awards on the January 11 podcast and points out how shameless they are in elevating depravity especially when it comes with sexuality and nihilism, and how it could be the end of society as well know it. Plus Swanson deals with how Hollywood handles and agrees with Margaret Atwood’s novel “The Handmaid’s Tale.” The current TV series and streaming service Hulu won two Gloden Globes including for Best Television Series-Drama. It already has won eight Emmys awards at the respected ceremony last year. Swanson calls Hollywood a dystopia which was allowed to spiral out of control who shows no shame to mocking God and his law.

They just proving Proverbs 8:36, 14:12 and Romans 1:18-32 correct.

​​The Golden Globe Awards 2018

https://www.generations.org/programs/840This year’s Golden Globe Awards glorify the absolute lowest forms of sexuality and nihilism, while trashing Christians at the same time. Here’s another first, in that we have the first television program to receive major awards whose sole function is to caricaturize R.J. Rushdoony, Greg Bahnsen, and Gary North.   The mass culture is spinning out of control, now.  We also visit Teen TV offerings for 2018.  The WSJ calls it “darker than ever.”

Continue Reading

Healthcare

Please disregard all other interpretations of the President’s Tweet on CHIP

Published

on

Please disregard all other interpretations of the Presidents Tweet on CHIP

Reports are flying across mainstream media that Republicans in DC are “baffled” by the President’s Tweet this morning about Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). To be fair, there’s definitely room for misunderstanding.

Republicans are using CHIP funding as a negotiating tool to push forward a stopgap measure to keep the government funded. It’s a PR move; Republicans want to be able to say the Democrats voted against helping needy children if they oppose the stopgap measure.

There are three reasons the President would have Tweeted this:

  1. He isn’t aware that GOP leaders on Capitol Hill are using the 6-year extension as leverage to keep the government funded.
  2. He wants a government shutdown.
  3. He doesn’t believe they need to play that particular “chip” for a 30-day extension and would prefer they save it for a long-term government funding deal.

Most in the media and apparently a handful of Republicans on Capitol Hill are going with option 1:

Trump baffles GOP with tweet scrambling shutdown talks

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/369545-trump-baffles-gop-with-tweet-scrambling-shutdown-talksPresident Trump undermined his own party’s plan to avert a looming government shutdown on Thursday after tweeting that a key Democratic bargaining chip shouldn’t be attached to the funding package.

The 17-word tweet threw Capitol Hill into a state of confusion ahead of what is already expected to be a tight vote in the House on Thursday night. Republicans on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue were trying to decipher what exactly the president meant by declaring that a popular children’s health-care program should be part of a “long term solution” as opposed to a “30 Day, or short term, extension.”

A handful of pundits on both sides of the aisle are going with option 2. They’re taking into account past comments by the President saying a shutdown wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. Some conservatives support this idea. Most Democrats think it makes him evil (though they didn’t have the same reaction when the government was shut down during President Obama’s watch). They see the President as truly trying to undermine the process and force a shutdown.

The truth is option 3. He believes a 6-year extension on an extremely popular program is being wasted on a 30-day deal. He wants to save the “CHIP chip,” so to speak, for a long-term government funding deal that would extend beyond the election.

To some extent, he’s correct. The challenge is in logistics and uncertainty. Had the GOP pushed forward a 6-month CHIP funding extension as part of the deal with the understanding that a longer extension would be worked into the long-term funding plan, they’d be in better shape. In fact, making it a 6-month extension puts it in the spotlight ahead of the real push for a long-term plan. It would add a sense of urgency. Now, they’re wasting it to buy themselves another month. Unfortunately, the 6-year promise is already on the table. It would be difficult to pull it back now.

Once again, the media completely misses the point the President is trying to make and hopes others will fall for it. The sad thing is many Republicans in DC are among those falling for the media’s trickery. Just get the deal done and stop worrying about the President’s Twitter account.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.