The 'Neocon' perspective post-3rd debateSubmitted by rubirosa on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 09:24
I was on the phone with my 'neocon' friend yesterday for about 2 hours and we got into it about Ron Paul. By the way, we need to stop calling them 'neocons' or we'll just alienate them even more. We have to reach out to them.
Anyway, I thought I should share with you where most 'neocons' heads are right now (if he's any indication) because I think it highlights what are next priorities should be. If we don't make it a priority to change their minds, this is NOT going to end well. Anyway, here were my takeaways:
1) He agrees RP did better this 3rd debate than in the 2nd, but doesn't see how RP won the spat with Santorum. He says I'm so biased because I think Ron won it.
2) He says he agrees with RP 90% of the time, but on Iran, he's scared that RP simply doesn't have a realistic view on the matter (since he says Ahmadinejad is insane, could join forces with China if we left the region unchecked and could even start WWIII if he had a nuclear weapon). If such a situation were to happen, he's not confident RP would make the tough decisions necessary to go to war. He says he's liking Perry's tough-talk on these matters, but doesn't see that from RP.
3) He says he doesn't think RP has the necessary leadership ability to run the country because for most of his career, he's had very little support for any of his initiatives (although I pointed out to him that's been changing recently). Nonetheless, he doesn't think he could unite Congress and 'get things done' (whatever that means). Basically, Brett Baier's first question from the debate.
4) He complains that RP hasn't come out in favor of the Fairtax, which he believes is the single best policy out there that could turn everything around for the better by attracting investment from overseas etc. He wonders why RP hasn't come out with any detailed plans (like the Fairtax) which take on tax matters. He feels that RP talks very little about taxes. This is the only reason he's supporting Herman Cain right now.
5) He says ending the Fed is important, but isn't the most realistic thing to focus on right now and argues that we would only really need to replace Bernanke with someone who's willing to just sit there and do nothing for a couple of years.
6) He doesn't like our tactic of threatening to run RP as a 3rd-party candidate because he says that will set back the Conservative movement a decade or more by allowing the country to fault us for every bad thing that happens as a result of splitting the vote and handing Obama over a second term on a silver platter.
7) He thinks that no matter who the Republican nominee is, we have to get behind that person because it'll be disastrous if we don't. Even if it's Perry, he says we need to get Obama out of office and we can't risk the chance of handing Obama a second term.
It's important that we treat these concerns with respect because they are the legitimate worries of a lot of Republicans right now about Ron Paul and the election in 2012 in general.
I believe that we need to pay close attention and address these concerns one by one, like this were a debate match and we had to rebut every point made by the other side.
We're at a point in the movement where EVERYONE knows who Ron Paul is and that's not the problem anymore.
Now, we're at a point where we have to PERSUADE and win hearts and minds.
In order to do this, I had some ideas about how to address the neocon perspective in a way that they can understand.
If I'm being honest with myself, I do think RP does come off as very PHILOSOPHICAL about most issues.
He needs to be more REALISTIC in the style of his speech and how to take on matters as they are. This is kind of like the difference between theory and practice. In theory, it should work like 'this' but in practice, we have to acknowledge 'this.'
Don't get me wrong, we need to always aspire to the ideals of the Constitution, but we also have to acknowledge how far away from them we are right now, create realistic steps to getting back to where we need to be, and not just repeat the ideals of how things should be.
RP has done this before when he's laid out his detailed plan of what steps need to be taken to get us back on track, where he talks about 'transitioning' etc. etc. etc.
He needs to do this A LOT MORE and SO DO WE.
I'm not sure how we can start PERSUADING more, other than having conversation with other Republicans and reaching out, but I feel that this is definitely what we need to do.
For example, we need to take head on and PUT TO REST ONCE AND FOR ALL the following issues:
1) The IRAN Question and 'what if' scenarios involving world players like China and the possibility of WWIII (and try not to snicker or downplay the possibility when you talk about it, or that will turn them off).
2) How to best address TAX measures. Fairtax or no? If no, why? We can't just say we're for repealing the federal income tax without specifying HOW we will then fund the government.
3) DRUGS even. How about discussing other countries that have legalized and the DETAILED ramifications thereof.
Those are my thoughts. What do you guys think?