Ace of Spades HQ

May 10, 2010

The Framing Of The Debate (tmi3rd)
— Open Blogger

We're starting to see a coalescing of the narrative from the Left in terms of what they perceive our intentions to be. The narrative seems to be not so much a downsizing of government, but an elimination of government altogether- in short, to paint the right as anarchists.

Obviously, that isn't the case- quite the contrary, the clear story from the commenters here and at other blogs shows a deep devotion to the Constitution and the rule of law.

So what is pushing all this? I'd noticed it recently from lefty postings on Facebook- the attempts to defend socialism- particularly in regards to the health care debate- by asking whether conservatives like having roads, emergency services, and so forth. That argument is, of course, comparing apples to oranges, and utterly ridiculous.

Instapundit has some links up to various blogs, talking about that very same thing. The attempt is, again, to define conservatives as anarchists. The corollary, by extension, is even more interesting- it notes the Left's absolute and unquestioning trust in their government, along with the predictable hatred and distrust of any other point of view.

It does bring up an interesting point, and not necessarily a dishonest question from the Left- what is the conservative stance on government's role?

The answer, as I believe it, is defined very specifically in the Constitution, and is something that it appears many Americans understand- to the chagrin of many in Congress, all of whom are having to reassert their allegiance to something- either the rule of law (in conservative districts) or to what makes them feel better (in statist districts).

It's going to be very important over the next few months- leading up to the midterms- and in the next two and a half years- leading up to the next presidential election- to define the conservative belief of the role of government as part of the sales pitch to get statists out of power.

What do you think? It obviously doesn't matter what I specifically think, but more about what we can define.

Have at it!

Posted by: Open Blogger at 11:03 PM | Comments (45)
Post contains 356 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Limit government, don't limit success.

Balance of powers ...

More of a "if you don't work (and can) you don't eat" attitude, instead of the nanny state.

Posted by: bill at May 11, 2010 04:21 AM (X/Ydd)

2

This is related to Monty's post from Sunday.

Posted by: Touché Turtle at May 11, 2010 04:29 AM (IKwYb)

3 The biggest issue should be getting rid of all the criminals. The corrupt Chicago machine just moved into the White House, as if it wasn't bad enough already. Philosophical discussion is a distraction.

We know our government is mostly bought and paid for. Illinois has a mobbed up Democrat running for governor, and few seem to much care. The idea of limiting government is to limit the corruption.

Investigate ... Incarcerate ...

Posted by: bill at May 11, 2010 04:33 AM (X/Ydd)

4
In order for the left to defend their love of Greece-like government, the left must act out of deception. The left's adoration of failed economics, high tax rates, and huge entitlements have forced then to compare those of us who are against such lunacy as "racist anti-government" types.

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at May 11, 2010 04:34 AM (0fzsA)

5 I'd noticed it recently from lefty postings on Facebook- the attempts to defend socialism- particularly in regards to the health care debate- by asking whether conservatives like having roads, emergency services, and so forth.

The trolls have been doing that for years. They do not seem to understand what the "social" in socialism means. Roads, police, fire, etc benefit all of the population. Socialism only benefits the indolent.

Posted by: Vic at May 11, 2010 04:35 AM (6taRI)

6
The Left always takes it to the macro.

When we oppose foolish govt spending, they say we're against all taxes and all govt spending.

When we want laws enacted or laws enforced, they call us hypocrites for wanting 'big' govt.

Posted by: Touché Turtle at May 11, 2010 04:41 AM (IKwYb)

7 There are 3 possibilities: No government, limited government and unlimited government. Conservatives believe in the most moderate of those options. Socialists and anarchists are the extremists.

Posted by: Pablo at May 11, 2010 04:41 AM (yTndK)

8 Government is supposed to be divided into levels, with the higher levels only handling the things that the lower levels can't effectively control. The lowest level of government, the individual citizen, should have the most power and freedom, because he should be able to accomplish most things on his own. Things are screwed up because the higher levels of government are assuming the responsibilities of the lower levels in an effort to look caring and get votes (and amass power). Conservatives should be attempting to reverse this trend.

Conservatives need to start using the "Power to the people" chant to watch lefty heads explode.

Posted by: Grimaldi at May 11, 2010 04:42 AM (k2C7n)

9 I see the Left's fundamental belief as there are large segments of our society that are incapable of functioning without help; i.e minorities, women, children, elderly... pretty much anyone who is not a white male. They will always fight attempts to remove the help they are convinced they need.

This is what's missing from the Tea Parties' message of the need for smaller government. We need to be communicating that our ideals are based on a belief in the capability of others. Seeing others as capable it is consistent that we would hold those same people accountable. As an example: we see Mexican's as perfectly capable of the behaviors necessary to come here legally and that they are capable of learning English once they are here.

Posted by: John Mac at May 11, 2010 04:43 AM (y0uYr)

10
It's pretty simple: Conservatives want the least-worst government possible.

The govt has a role. It is necessary to provide security and to enforce laws upholding contracts.

Posted by: Touché Turtle at May 11, 2010 04:46 AM (IKwYb)

I keep hearing "anti-government." It's the new mantra. Beck has been riffing on it a bit, they say it on MSNBC, Gibbs says it, they say it EVERYWHERE.

I think it interesting that a bunch of people who are saying that they are FOR THE CONSTITUTION are labeled as "anti-government."

Puh-leeze.

Don't Tread On Me.

Posted by: blaster at May 11, 2010 04:48 AM (SdFa6)

12 I think it interesting that a bunch of people who are saying that they are FOR THE CONSTITUTION are labeled as "anti-government."

What gets me is the MFM labeling people who believe the Constitution should be interpreted "as written" as extremists.

Posted by: Vic at May 11, 2010 05:03 AM (6taRI)

13 There's an enormous difference between paying for infrastructure, and paying for someone else's health care and other social payoffs.

The fact that idiot liberals can't seem to distinguish the difference speaks volumes about their willful ignorance.

Posted by: Unclefacts, AoSHQ Professional Debate Team at May 11, 2010 05:08 AM (erIg9)

14 Most conservatives want to re-establish some degree of Constitutional federalism. Effective decisions are best made at the lowest possible level, i.e. the individual or family is best able to make decisions about their health care. Whether or not to build a new hospital or school in a city or town is a decision best made at the local level. A state should govern its public school system. Regulating immigration should be a federal responsibility. Of course, if a local or state government violates the Constitutional rights of its citizens, the feds have to step in and protect those rights. And the Feds have the responsibility to protect the nation from its enemies.

Posted by: Reiver at May 11, 2010 05:10 AM (Aqb74)

15
Deliberate Disinformation.

Same as them saying we're against immigration when what we're against is illegal residents. They know exactly what they're doing.

Posted by: Touché Turtle at May 11, 2010 05:11 AM (IKwYb)

This is what's missing from the Tea Parties' message of the need for smaller government. We need to be communicating that our ideals are based on a belief in the capability of others. Seeing others as capable it is consistent that we would hold those same people accountable.

I like that. "Don't tread on me and stay out of my way".

Give us some breathing room and watch what we can do.

Posted by: Mama AJ at May 11, 2010 05:12 AM (XdlcF)

17
And on the subject of building infrastructure, yes it's great that we pay taxes so govt can build roads, schools, reservoirs, etc.

But it's not great when govt puts tolls on that road to pay for ridiculous pensions and jobs for the family of political hacks.

Posted by: Touché Turtle at May 11, 2010 05:17 AM (IKwYb)

18 Thre's no government like no government, and when we're ready for it, that's what we'll have. Until then, any step in the right direction is fine, and if we ever decide that we need a little government, we can stop there. But unless conservatives have libertarians to make them look like moderates instead of the wild-eyed radicals the Left wants to paint them as, they aren't going to get anywhere.

Posted by: Jeffrey Quick at May 11, 2010 05:24 AM (g9neE)

19 Should have added to #16 that conservatives support "government" as long as it is limited government. Oh, yeah. And ethical government. What's going on in DC under the Obama/Pelosi Regime is neither.

Posted by: Reiver at May 11, 2010 05:24 AM (Aqb74)

20 My opinion, FWIW: everything we need to know about government, we can get from the Preamble to the Constitution. The rest is just how it happens.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Six things. And that's it. That's all that the federal government should be concerned with.

"form a more perfect Union" - done when it was ratified, since it replaced the Articles of Confederation.

"establish Justice" & "ensure domestic Tranquility" - set up government's judicial and law enforcement apparatus.

"provide for the common defence" - military capabilities. (Also, secure the borders, but everybody seems to ignore that part.)

"promote the general Welfare" - general, not individual. This would be roads, ports (air & sea), hospitals, other infrastructure, etc.

"secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" - after the first five are taken care of, keep the government out of the way.

It all seems so simple.

Posted by: Bomber at May 11, 2010 05:33 AM (d88g9)

21 This dovetails with another theme I've recently seen (though I'm sure it's also not new): Conservatives/Libertarians are unable to run a government properly because they're too calculating and cynical. In other words, conservatives fail because they lack faith in the fundamental goodness of government.

Which goes a long way toward explaining how the left often governs: Always hope for the best. Never assume or plan for a negative outcome, lest ye be branded a heretic. Wishful thinking isn't an error of judgement- it's a requirement to participate.

When people imbue government with pseudo-religious powers the human instincts toward religious behavior inevitably start to take over. Unfortunately, in this case they most ardent adherents are contemptuous of traditional religions and therefore lack the perspective to understand what they're doing. So, unlike many of the world's established religions, they're unrestrained by the centuries of self-examination and hard experience about how dangerous zealotry can be.

Posted by: Bryan C at May 11, 2010 05:36 AM (T3KlW)

22 Hard to do justice to the question on another time-pressed day - Cliff's Notes version: Everything government does should be construed under the maxim to "do only that which is minimally necessary and preserve the right to free action wherever possible." Government's primary responsibility is to keep order in the literal and classic sense - defend us from foreign enemies and crime at home. Next comes courts of law which are seen as a) predictable and stable b) impartial and c) fair - in that order. Our present system has elevated fairness above the first two to the point that our government is now one of men, not laws - who you know and who you are is more important than what you actually do, because the rules change constantly depending on what some judge or bureaucrat claims is "fair." Regulation falls in the previous category under the same standards. My preference is to avoid preemptive regulation where possible - forbidding private action only comes where there is a genuine compelling interest. In the economic realm, this means defer to the free-market wherever possible. The more you keep government out of economics, the less opportunities for corruption exist. Lobbyists won't bother bribing you unless you have goodies to hand out. Infrastructure comes next - roads, safety services, information dissemination, etc... Once again, at the minimum necessary deferring to freedom where there's any balancing of interests. Wish I had more time to think about this one but that'll have to wait for another day. Good job "punching up" the narrative shift and good topic in response.

Posted by: societyis2blame at May 11, 2010 05:42 AM (7ZyYf)

23 A government big enough to do everything for you, is big enough to do everything to you.

Posted by: damian at May 11, 2010 05:43 AM (4WbTI)

24 The Left's anarchist representation is more intrinsically perceptual than most might expect. The collapse of the great socialist savior, the Soviet Union, and the expanse of capitalism through China, India and the other communist states, hit them tremendously hard. Europe's socialist collapse is now utterly terrifying. It's uncovered what I've felt was the true drive for the majority of statists: the utter fear of uncertainty and the desire to embrace hierarchy in a hopeless effort to control and tame it. Subsequently, we're seeing the projection of their fear onto the nomadicism of the tea partiers, an analog to Rome's characterization of the brutish, "uncivilized" barbarian hordes. In the end, their very misrepresentation of the threat and polarization of the nomadic other will make their failure inevitable. By their framing of society's evolution as one of rigidity, incapable of adopting the majority's government restraint and reduction demands, they will force an all-or-nothing existential process that will almost certainly conclude poorly for the statists.

Posted by: Hatless Hessian at May 11, 2010 05:47 AM (7r7wy)

25 I first heard the roads argument put across years ago by George Lakoff, one of the dimmest bulbs the left has ever managed to produce (this includes Sean Penn). There's an interview with Dennis Prager that is a must-hear: everything about the vapid left in 30 minutes.

Posted by: Dave at May 11, 2010 05:50 AM (PFjNT)

26 A couple of things:

1. There is a distinct and irreconcilable difference between the people who see government as a necessary evil we must tolerate to protect us from invaders and each other and those who see government as a "force for good" to provide "social justice."

2. The roads and emergency services arguments can be losers for the right unless we frame it properly:

a. The Interstate Highway System was a defense initiative to cover an infrastructure shortfall recognized during the emergence of the nuclear cold war. There is no reason, in this day and age of Smartpass, why every mile of this road does not collect tolls. Of course knowing that any such fees would be sucked into the general fund to be squandered elsewhere forces me to oppose any such scheme.

b. If a political subdivision is incapable of maintaining the tax base needed to provide emergency services and the roads to deliver those services, then is it really a functioning political subdivision? Is it right that taxpayer money is redistributed at the federal level to prop-up basic services in these municipalities so they can squander what taxes they do collect on non-functioning schools, morally hazardous welfare programs, and feeding the democrat political machine/organized labor beast?

Posted by: MikeO at May 11, 2010 06:01 AM (lBmZl)

27 Progressive arguments are like kryptonite to actual knowledge. The more you listen, the less you know.

Posted by: damian at May 11, 2010 06:05 AM (4WbTI)

28 The counter question works best: If government is good for healthcare...why not for restaurants or hair salons?

Posted by: sexypig at May 11, 2010 06:22 AM (SVb22)

29 The author writes, "It's going to be very important over the next few months- leading up to the midterms- and in the next two and a half years- leading up to the next presidential election- to define the conservative belief of the role of government as part of the sales pitch to get statists out of power." True enough but, as far as the "anarchist/anti-government accusations" aspect goes...I'd say that it is JUST AS IMPORTANT to develop and repeat, repeat, repeat a narrative of "holding the mirror up to the Democrats" themselves (i.e. as this is projection/transferrence on their part) and show American voters, "just who are these people to make such accusations?!"

Posted by: Czar of Defenestration at May 11, 2010 06:58 AM (HkWWz)

30 We're starting to see a coalescing of the narrative from the Left in terms of what they perceive our intentions to be. The narrative seems to be not so much a downsizing of government, but an elimination of government altogether- in short, to paint the right as anarchists.

What's pushing this? I hope this is a rhetorical question, cuz if it ain't ...

It isn't about the philosophy of Leviathan government vs. constitutional federalism, nor does it have anything to do with any other -ism.

To find the answer, one must think like a corporate Leftist. A CL like David Axelrod. David checks the polling of traditional Dem constituencies, reviews focus groups results, counts tickets. At the moment, the Lefties are bleeding votes everywhere, some blocs more than others. So where's the arterial rupture of the day? Follow the meme.

Which Dem voting blocs are most frightened of "anarchy"?

(1) Women. Specifically - single women with children.
(2) Retirees Specifically - those dependent on SS and Medicare (uh oh).
3) Public sector union members.

For the Dems, it's the votes, stupid. And money. And power. One can afford to be a philosopher-king after winning the election.

Posted by: mrp at May 11, 2010 07:18 AM (HjPtV)

31 I haven't read a fictional book since high school. I am strictly non-fiction. Currently I am reading a book pertaining to the Five Points neighborhood in my home town of NYC.

Posted by: Chris R at May 11, 2010 08:15 AM (AO4qz)

32 I have seen troll after troll throw out that reductio ad absurdum bit of stupidity. You're right. They try to equate conservatives with anarchists. They appear to be covering for their fellow travellers. At every lefty public get together one tends to find broken windows, fires, rock throwing, etc. Most real lefties are to pussified to do violence, it is usually the anarchists 'joining in the fun'. They know if they try that at a conservative meet-up they'll either get arrested or turn up in a dumpster then next day.

Posted by: chuck in st paul at May 11, 2010 08:16 AM (adr25)

33 So the people that spent eight years arguing that dissent is the high form of patriotism are now calling anyone not in lock step with Obama anarchists?

That is rich...

In fairness though, if they are indeed finally conceding that statism is an inherent quality of liberalism, they might come around to understanding the political spectrum better...

Posted by: 18-1 at May 11, 2010 08:19 AM (7BU4a)

34 So, if a conservative home owner was trying to stop his house from burning down, would liberals ask why he is opposed to fireplaces, cooking, and a hot water heaters?

Posted by: 18-1 at May 11, 2010 08:22 AM (7BU4a)

When the statists are removed from power in '10 or '12, what have you accomplished really? The people who voted for socialism in 08 will still be with us and soon enough will again attempt to vote themselves an even larger piece of that which I am attempting to build for my family. this back and forth between socialists and anti-socialists has been with us for 70+ years, with the long term trend being to ever more socialism.

Are we screwed, or are we willing to say no, we choose a different path? Me, I've seen enough. Yes I will vote to remove the socialists, but doing so just buys us a bit more time. It doesn't solve the problem.

Posted by: Louis Tully at May 11, 2010 08:47 AM (jat5l)

36 So, if a conservative home owner was trying to stop his house from burning down, would liberals ask why he is opposed to fireplaces, cooking, and a hot water heaters?

Nice.

Posted by: damian at May 11, 2010 09:15 AM (4WbTI)

37 dangerous servant, fearful master etc.

Posted by: g. washington at May 11, 2010 09:46 AM (4WbTI)

38 as history has shown, anarchy almost always inevitably ends up with Communism. And I can't think of anyone on the right who wants that.

Posted by: fartbubble at May 11, 2010 10:44 AM (gAmQ1)

39 Why is this so hard? The Federal government has a very limited role--there's this thing called The Constitution. If you want Big Government, do it at the state level (if you can convince the voters/lemmings in your state).

Posted by: mockmook at May 11, 2010 03:44 PM (5ssRl)

40 IP = 117.28.77.143

Posted by: spammer at May 11, 2010 05:07 PM (QRaxZ)

41 IP = 58.20.148.241

Posted by: spammer at May 11, 2010 07:23 PM (W4eRH)

42 IP = 59.175.0.62

Posted by: spammer at May 11, 2010 07:47 PM (JP50C)

43 You see it on the lol sites too

http://alturl.com/t2h7

Posted by: Scott at May 12, 2010 01:25 AM (TqGYF)

44 blue led watch blue led watches watch pimp pimp watch

Posted by: dfcvbcb at May 18, 2010 08:53 PM (eU/Oa)

45 M2TS to iPad Converter provides iPad users with fastest conversion speed and highest output image and sound quality. It is the best solution to the iPad users who want to convert M2TS to iPad, besides M2TS, nearly all the video formats including general video and HD video are all supported by M2TS to iPad Converter.
This M2TS to iPad Converter can meet all the needs of iPad users, it can not only convert video and audio to iPad for enjoyment, but can also provides users with powerful edit functions. The adjust functions of M2TS to iPad allows users to adjust video brightness, saturation, and contrast. Trim functions help users cut video segments and crop functions M2TS to iPad Converter provides you can assistant iPad users to crop video playing area. Besides these, you can also preview video and merge multiple files into one with join funtion. Here also provides you with MTS to iPad.

Posted by: M2TS to iPad at November 22, 2010 04:28 AM (YiEOG)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

97kb generated in CPU 0.0438, elapsed 0.2454 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2146 seconds, 173 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.