DIANE WRITES:

One of the big shortcomings I’ve found in the conservative strategy is that we lose sight of the fact that everyone sees through their own filter. If we want to reach liberals and leftists with truth, we have to tell them in a language they understand. Somehow, we keep trying to tell them in the way that WE understand, but they don’t have the kind of sensors that can hear the message in that language. 

It’s almost like a family, with homeschooled children who learn in different ways. Some are audio, some are visual, some are tactile, etc. We need to approach the liberals and leftists with a method that can be detected by their sensors. We need to study how they talk to each other, and learn their language so we can communicate with them and help them assimilate facts. 

But when we try to do this, sometimes we run into another problem. OUR OWN side will criticize us for speaking to the left in a way that can be received, because it is NOT the way that Conservatives want to hear or deliver the information. 

What do you think?

Laura writes:

That’s interesting. Can you think of an example of talking to them in their own language?

Diane replies:

Sure. You know how the libs are trying to eliminate incandescent bulbs and replace with compact flourescent to reduce global warming? 

So we show a commercial with the incandescent bulb. Cut to the trash can. Incandescent bulbs go into the trash. The happy, smiling family reads, eats, and does counted cross stitch by fluorescent light. Show the energy bill with savings of $0.10 per month. Happy, smiling family, saving the earth and saving money. Cut back to the waste can. Flourescent bulbs going in the trash. The adorable child looks up into the parent’s eyes. “You said this bulb would last until I’m old enough to drive. I’m not even in first grade!” The pile of dead CFLs grows. Now cut to the landfill, a few years from now. Carcasses of CFLs are everywhere, and there is no activity at the dump. No seagulls, no heavy equipment. There’s a sign next to the landfill. Zoom in. The sign has a skull and crossbones. The text on the sign says the landfill has become a toxic waste site due to all the CFLs dumped in the trash. Zoom out to show the dump from the air. The area around the dump for miles is blighted. Everything is dead. 

While zooming back in to show the dead grass, dead trees, dried ground, you hear the voiceover. “We did it for the earth, and we did it for our children. But BIG FLOURESCENT hasn’t told the truth. Over the past 10 years, the manufacturers of flourescent bulbs have made $X in profit (or X% profit, whichever makes them sound more like villians). The earth has been polluted with XX tons of (name the poison . . . mercury?) from discarded CFLs. But there’s more . . .. 

It’s all about emotion with the libs and leftists. If you give them facts, you have to put them in the cloak of feeling and emotion, or they can’t understand it. You have to stand on the same side and see it like they see it. They hate smokestacks, toxic waste, and big business. They identify with the family that lost a job, pollution, and baby chicks. 

Talk to them from their point of view. We know, as conservatives, that CFL legislation is a bad idea. We know that the libs did not consider the disadvantages of CFLs, not the least of which is that while they are considered hazardous waste, there is no easy way to dispose of them properly, economically, ecologically. All we need is facts. They need a sad story.

Laura writes:

What you’re saying is, conservatives must take over the emotional experiences industry. We must coat everything, as David Brooks would say, in “moral and psychological meaning.” The problem is we don’t own the airways. They do. This is one more argument in favor of dividing America into two. Then we can maintain sanity and traditional values with the sort of appeal to emotion you describe. It now seems too late in the day to recapture Hollywood. We need to abandon it and start from scratch.

                                               — Comments —

Mabel LeBeau writes:

Seriously, the argument about using compact fluorescent lightbulbs was a take on a topic from the air and discusses it as a ‘conservatives’ or a ‘liberal’ policy. The argument is solid. Research and technology exists showing incandescent lightbulbs are hotter and use 3-4 times the amount of energy than comparable flourescent fixtures. But fluorescence uses mercury gas which is hazardous and must be disposed of differently than buried in landfills. Mercury can be properly recycled, but is it? In my town, recycling is 30%, according several sources, and actually, I thought this figure was closer to 75%. In my house, it’s closer to 80%. And, our town is pretty good compared to the recycling efforts of the city across the river.The argument for gradually phasing out incandescent bulbs is sound, but predicates on proper disposal. Like the healthcare industry and drug companies setting prices, the cost that is paid by the ultimate consumer may or may not be negotiable. Suggesting that monetary cost to the consumer is the ultimate reason for policy is shortsighted, however this issue, the costs must be addressed when there is monopoly involved. As another example of ‘costs’ consider that 10-15 years ago new home construction was required to be fitted with toilets that used a certain smaller tank size that allowed years before. So, the toilet wasn’t flushed the first time, then a second flushing might be required to what benefit, but over the long run, most toilet usage didn’t require two flushings.

Please follow and like us: