Comment: We have to be realistic here.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I don't have to (see in situ)

We have to be realistic here.

We have to be realistic here. Politicians are in the business of persuasion. Without persuasive skills that requires tailoring, they fail as someone that can advance ANY cause. So, it's not that he thinks he needs to tailor. It's pretty much a requirement for the job. RP's message was persuasive, but it only managed to convert a small segment of the population and even he did some tailoring to his message. RP is very empathic, so he was pretty good at it IMO.

We also need to realize that Rand has given his philosophical views before in other interviews and these views are too expansive to speak about in the limited time space he gets on air. Considering the time limit, he must choose arguments with the greatest persuasive power. Often that involves using arguments OTHER than the philosophical arguments. Let´s face it, if philosophical arguments were the best arguments in any given situation, no neocon would exist today. But they do exist. The neocons have already shot down the philosophical arguments. Reiterating the same arguments they have shot down is not a winning strategy. You need to weaken their position on the edges first. It takes time before people are receptive to the philosophical argument and most of the time it was achieved through a gateway argument.

Not to say that I like everything Rand does. But we need to keep a clear head here, attempting to keep bias (for or against) at bay. People often forget that it wasn´t the initial philosophy that won them over. Each of us had some back story to how we came to embrace the freedom movement. Some of us were even neocons. And from those stories, it was always the stuff around the philosophy that managed to convince in the end, not the philosophy itself (examples like the failed drug war, the honesty of RP, etc.).