"Do Conservatives Deserve to Lose?" by Oliver DeMille

Published: Mon, 01/07/13

"Empowering Ordinary Citizens to Make an Extraordinary Difference"

Do Conservatives Deserve to Lose?

(The difference between how Liberals and Conservatives deal with the media is destroying freedom. )

The Left and Right approach politics very differently.

The Left carefully encourages relationships with people of different groups and proactively seeks out new members, while the Right expects people to just accept "the obvious truth" and join them.

The Right tries to convince others using evidence and argumentation (see Fox News), while the Left seeks to engage the heart, emotions and relationships (see MSNBC).

The result of this difference is that in the entire modern era since World War I, we have been governed mostly from the Left.

The only significant exceptions were two Republican presidents who appealed to the heart, emotions and connection with the voters.

Eisenhower was a beloved war hero, Ronald Reagan a former actor who knew how to communicate with the masses, and both were able to speak to the people in heartfelt emotional language.

The Good Ole' Days

During the century before World War I, the people elected mainly conservative presidents--in an era of written news where ideas and issues ruled.

But in the electronic age voters prefer the "feelings" approach. Modern voters want a president who connects with them, one they feel would deeply, truly care about them and reach out to help them personally if he knew them.

But conservatives have a bigger problem.

A House Divided

Not only do they struggle to connect with the voters because they seem stuck in their head and intellectual arguments, they also have a bad habit of not even connecting with each other.

In short, there is a major obstacle conservatives need to overcome if they want to start winning most major elections.

Put simply, those on the Right need to be more unified.

The far Left has long known that beating conservatives is easy.

All you have to do is watch for any conservative who really begins to be effective, and then quickly follow the Alinsky rule: "target, isolate, ridicule, remove."

Whenever potential conservative leaders arise, the Left targets them. It ridicules, tears them down, and attacks their credibility.

The Right does this to leaders of the Left too, but there is a huge difference in how this happens.

The Right tears down Democratic candidates or liberal thinkers, but the Left keeps a close eye on this and quickly rallies behind any left-wing person who is getting attacked by the Right.

The Left basically assumes that if the Right is attacking the person, he or she must be on the good side. This unity is extremely powerful, and it is the reason few liberals are worried about conservatism leading the 21^st century.

In contrast, when the Left targets someone on the Right, many conservatives seek to distance themselves from the individual under attack.

Many on the Right are so afraid of looking bad that they refuse to stand behind other conservatives under assault.

There are, of course, exceptions to this pattern, and those who stand behind others on the same side are the true conservative leaders.

But they are in the minority.

Tea Party vs. Occupy

For example, when the Tea Party gathered huge crowds of regular citizens to stand up against government overspending, far too many conservatives found minor differences between the Tea Partiers and their own views and used this as an excuse to distance themselves.

In contrast, nearly all liberals publically supported the Wall Street Occupiers. Many on the Left disagreed with the Occupy movement on various topics, but they still gave strong public support.

After the 2012 election, Mitt Romney faced ongoing attacks by a number of liberal pundits; but amazingly he also received a lot of attacks from conservatives, including former supporters.

Dole, McCain and Palin endured the same thing. In contrast, the last three losing Democratic candidates for president were strongly supported by most liberals and eventually two of them were made Secretaries of State and the other the head of the Democratic Committee by President Obama and other Democratic leaders.

When a college girl was ridiculed by the Right for making a liberal comment, President Obama called her to express his support.

President Bush stayed away from such "controversial" things. Indeed, liberals frequently use controversy to further their goals, while conservatives too often just shy away from such opportunities.

Crisis Management

Most conservatives want to avoid crises, while liberals see crisis as the best way to promote their views.

As a result, liberals win more than conservatives.

There are many other examples of this difference between how liberals and conservatives treat people on their own "side."

Of course, some conservatives are loyal to each other and some liberals attack their own, but on the whole the Left is much more unified than the Right.

For the staunch conservatives reading this: say what you want about liberals, but they stick together.

If conservatives were as loyal, they'd run the country. Literally.

This lack of conservative unity is rooted at least partly in fear of the media.

Where there's smoke, there's fire

The mainstream media generally has a left-leaning bias, and many conservatives want to avoid criticism at all costs.

But if you haven't been criticized, you probably aren't making much of a difference--especially in a field as important as freedom.

Just consider the alternative. What would happen if every time a conservative was targeted and ridiculed by the media, the response was a huge outpouring of strong, vocal support from all conservatives, independents and freedom-loving people?

The Left does it. Why don't conservatives do it more often?

If they did, more people would muster the courage to speak out boldly for freedom, and we'd put forth very different candidates and elect very different national leaders.

Moreover, a lot more regular people would listen to the freedom message.

The Left wins more often because it is more unified.

How obvious is this? If we are divided while the other side is unified, we will surely fail.

The Definition of Insanity

Conservatives are losing the battle for America, and to turn this around they must stop trying to impress the mainstream media. It will never work anyway, and the more they try, the more splintered they become.

In the process of attempting to avoid criticism, the Right is losing battle after battle to the more unified Left.

The way this works is shockingly sad, and it bears repeating:

· The Left attacks someone on the Right, precisely because his or her ideas have merit.

· The elite media joins the attacks.

· Then (once the person promoting the new idea is targeted and ridiculed by the Left and the mainstream media), others on the Right do an amazing thing--they distance themselves or join in the attacks!

As long as this is the way conservatives do things, they deserve to keep losing.

And lose they will.

The Right may win a few elections, mostly in strongly conservative states, but overall the decades ahead will go to the side that is most unified and loyal.

If conservatives become better at this than liberals, they'll lead. If not, they won't.

Loyalty and unity are the first keys to success and leadership. Those who don't understand this are destined to fail.

Click here to view our newsletter archive >>

*****

Insider Scoop:

Upcoming book: LeaderShift

Our own Oliver DeMille has teamed with entrepreneur and leadership guru Orrin Woodward to author an upcoming book - and you're among the very first to hear about it!

The manuscript was picked up in Spring of 2012 by top publishing house Grand Central Publishing (an imprint of Hachette, the second largest publisher in the world), who fast-tracked it to release less than 1 year later on 4/16/13.

The book is called LeaderShift. It's a business fable about elite executive David Mercer, who's become a successful turnaround specialist for failing corporations by applying his understanding of The Five Laws of Decline.

He's met his goals in life, and now sees that the freedom and opportunity that afforded him success will largely be unavailable to his loved ones of the rising generations. So he starts to apply his gifts to now determine how to effect a "turnaround" for the declining United States.

Mercer assembles a team of colleagues and gets some help from an surprising, otherworldly, source. The dialectical discussion and principles that are bandied about in the fictional narrative are hopefully going to become a part of the national dialogue.

It's really quite a departure from Oliver's non-fiction style, although the flavor will be familiar. His publisher is thrilled about the book, and they will launch on 4/16/13.

More information to follow in upcoming communiques. Watch for it!

*******************