Reaching Out For Nothing
Sometimes you have to wonder if people actually listen to their own rhetoric. Surely if they would just say out loud what they intend to write down, the very words would make them laugh so hysterically that putting pen to paper with such commentary would no longer be an option.
An oft-used line that is growing tiresome to me is that “Conservatives need to reach out”. This is usually offered by someone who has just, in a previous paragraph, branded a Conservative as a racist, homophobe, xenophobe, or insert-your-phobe.
So great. The problem with those racist hate-mongers is that they aren’t reaching out to us.
Huh?
Now, as part of the conservative movement, I can say without any shadow of a doubt that efforts to “reach out” to various groups are an ongoing effort. To my dismay, sometimes those efforts are so insultingly pander prone that the fact the group being “reached out to” isn’t recognizing them is in some ways understandable.
As a whole however, I find it disingenuous for any group to claim that the Conservative movement does not speak to them. Conservatism speaks to everyone. It is an ideology that at its very core attempts to elevate the individual, the smallest minority possible.
Conservatives shouldn’t have to specifically “reach out” to this group or that in order for our message to be heard and understood. The message shouldn’t have to be tweaked and twisted depending on who is being talked to as if it wasn’t of universal worth.
Indeed, I would contend that most who claim they aren’t being “reached out to” simply have no desire to actually hear the readily available arguments. They just love an excuse.
This was recently illustrated to me in the comments section of a local blog whose readership would tend to be of a liberal democrat persuasion and of a particular “group” often making the lack of outreach argument.
In answering a post, I used the phrase, “The government does not create opportunity.”
Someone responded to me that they didn’t understand what that phrase meant. They wondered if it was some sort of “tea party mantra” and whether I could explain it using no “blanket statements”.
I proceeded to offer my thanks for the question and invite the previous poster to join me in a conversation that could shed some light on the true beliefs of the Conservative movement. I outlined my desires to start very simplistic and build some common ground from which we could base the more complicated parts of the discussion.
I mentioned how all people essentially have the same desires for a good job, a nice home, food on the table, educational opportunities, quality healthcare, etc. I said that while the end result is the same, the primary difference between Liberals and Conservatives is what role each believes government plays in achieving those shared desires.
I then gave a brief description of what Liberals believe and what Conservatives believe before inviting the poster to educate me on their basic philosophy regarding the two.
Albeit from a different poster, the response I received to my “reaching out” was not an establishment of a contrary viewpoint. It wasn’t even just a counter to my own. The response I received simply criticized the fact that I had used one sentence to describe Liberals and two sentences to describe Conservatives.
Really? That’s it? If only my word counter had been on the point I was making would have come across differently?
I have received no other responses.
What I take from this one isolated example among many is that while Conservatives can kill themselves trying to “reach out” to various groups, one must wonder if the time spent is actually worthwhile.
Does the other side really wish to engage in a rational discussion or are the complaints about not being talked to really just a pre-programmed response to avoid recognizing the dialogue that is taking place all around them?
Great article!
To me, “Reaching Out” is akin to politicians saying that Republicans need to “reach across the aisle”.
What the other side wants is for us to submit to their beliefs – which is usually a litany of grievances in which “fairness” is required.
The desires you speak of (a good job, a nice home, food on the table, educational opportunities, quality healthcare, etc.) are seen as something that has to be earned by conservatives and as entitlements to the left.
What we must remember is that in the name of “reaching out” we should never negotiate away our core beliefs. Nor should we allow politicians to do so either by “crossing the aisle”.
Thanks Dennis.
That is indeed a whole other side to this discussion.
To Liberals, the definition of bi-partisanship or “reaching across the aisle” always seems to mean that Republicans vote with Democrats. Far too often, Republicans fall for the TARP…er, trap… and end up compromising away their beliefs.
It’s sort of like high school peer pressure with democrats successfully playing the role of the “popular” kid who you’ll just do anything to become friends with…even if you know your parents won’t like it.
Nice assessment of the the desires…earned vs entitled. Great point.