“The Rope To Hang Themselves” and Other Non-Liberal Strategies

In the spirit of the devil's advocate and in response to those who've read my blogs and asked, "Why don't you put some of this thinking into what's wrong with Liberals," I've some insights to share.

First, Liberals, and that includes most Democrats, are limited strategists. Okay, it's a generalization. But stick with me. On the whole, they lack adequate comprehension of the scheming side of human behavior. They are thus unable to circumvent continued sneak attacks. Shock is then followed by indignation after which comes accusations - ones the "other side," as we'll refer to them here, know are largely true and could care less.

I've spent my career observing how "the other side thinks" and crafting arguments on that basis. No one wins, for example, stamping their feet and insisting something is not "fair" if, for the other side, fairness is not the objective. Democrats and Liberals in general have improved in detecting how the other side thinks, but they are unskilled in managing events from that point. They are poor purveyors of how language, myths, metaphors and stories are used against them. They fail to truly notice, too, how their political "wells are poisoned," so they are helpless to stop it.

Take, for example, the total eclipse of the media into a machine for the usurpation of America to Conservativism. Yet, Democrats are still allowing the Liberal media myth to live on. The data and even casual observation don't support it. And, to add insult to injury, the ideas of The New York Times' best editorial writers are usually available only for a fee. Now there's a case of Liberals undermining Liberals.

And then there is the issue of Liberal provocation. I mean individuals who say what they think in ways that invite attention - that don't seem "whiny" or obscene but rather acerbic, dexterous, witty and confrontational. While no one needs a Liberal Coulter type selling books on the back of others' adversities, where are the adamant Liberal provocateurs? They don't have to be callous. They simply need to call events as they should be seen. Where are the Liberal pit bulls pointing out the lack of post-service rewards for veterans (Anti-military, ungrateful Republicanism), the Medicare D plan debacle as a possible step one in undermining the elderly while pocketing billions for pharmaceuticals (Elderly bamboozling), and the hundreds of thousands of children trapped in inadequate foster care and dying from abuse and neglect (Child Heartless Conservativism), the cavalier sending of poor kids to war (Elitism and discrimination) and tampering with election process (Anti-American criminality). Where are all the take-no-prisoner Liberals shooting some reality checks over the Republican bow on these kinds of issues and getting media attention? Are these vantage points and descriptors any less sane than the absurdity being promulgated by provocative rhetoric from that side? Is it that Democrats are too tame or too reasonable to take such stands or have they simply not seen that these offenses are real and significant and need to be positioned as such? Is it that there are no vociferous Liberals who can construct messages the opposition will never forget without reliance on vulgarity and personal attacks -- ones mainstream America will listen to and Republicans will need to respond to defensively instead of handily taking the offense?

John Murtha came the closest. He surprised the Republicans, which is no small feat; he stood firm under verbal fire urging an end to the war. He surprised and undermined with the power of his own credibility. And, unlike much we read from Liberals and Democrats, he provided more than shock and indignation. He proposed a solution.

Being predictable is the kiss of death in nearly all endeavors. The Republicans know that Democrats won't fight dirty. They prefer the higher ground. That's admirable and how it should be. But being totally predictable makes them manageable. They seem to think that fighting tough is fighting dirty and they aren't the same - not if you have versatility and political skill.

LIBERALS AND DEMOCRATS NEED AMONG THEM SOME OUTSPOKEN PEOPLE WITH INTUITION AND INSIGHT - WIZARDS OF THE STRATEGIC CRAFT -- ONES WHO KNOW HOW TO READ THE TEA LEAVES - SEE THE ONSLAUGHT COMING, CRAFT THE AGENDA, COMMUNICATE DEFTLY, IDENTIFY DISCONNECTS BETWEEN WHAT'S BEING SAID AND DONE, KNOW HOW TO GIVE THE OTHER GUY THE SLIP AND BEAT THEM TO THE PUNCH, WHO KNOW HOW TO SHAPE THE DEBATE, PROTECT AND UNPOISON THE WELLS AND OCCASIONALLY GIVE THE OPPOSITION THE ROPE TO HANG THEMSELVES.

Strategy in isolation of the facts is useless. It must be dictated by the times and the nature of the opposition. Certainly Robert Kennedy has further helped reveal their spots but his efforts and other key messages aren't getting traction. Giving back in kind - in this case being unpredictable, tough, strategic and provocative without sacrificing values - is far better than staying the same old course. As SunTzu advised, victory may be produced out of the enemy's own tactics if you're wise enough to "force him to reveal himself" and turn what you see to advantage.