The term "conservatism" today implies regimentation, order, hammering down every nail standing up, conformity, intolerance of individual thinking, and the state is your friend.
The term "conservatism" today implies regimentation, order, hammering down every nail standing up, conformity, intolerance of individual thinking, and the state is your friend.
God willing we "Paleos" may soon be able to drop the loathsome prefix and put a true conservative face back on the Republican Party.
I think he told the Iowans at the straw poll that he wasn't for corn subsidies.
Precisely.
A good campaign would have anticipated the issue and would have had an honest but nuanced reply at the ready.
A campaign is not a Political Science lecture.
A good response could have been something along the lines of:
"It is not the Federal Government's job to tell Farmers what crops to grow, and that is exactly what a subsidy does - it locks farmers into raising those crops which attract the highest subsidies out of someone else's pocket. It is unfair to the farmer and to the person whose pocket is being picked for the subsidy, and it is NOT one of the Federal Government's Constitutionally defined duties. I do favor lower taxes which do not penalize farmers for being successful."
A good response could have been something along the lines of:
"It is not the Federal Government's job to tell Farmers what crops to grow, and that is exactly what a subsidy does - it locks farmers into raising those crops which attract the highest subsidies out of someone else's pocket. It is unfair to the farmer and to the person whose pocket is being picked for the subsidy, and it is NOT one of the Federal Government's Constitutionally defined duties. I do favor lower taxes which do not penalize farmers for being successful."
You're a great "straight man".
That's sounds right out of Ron's (political science) play book.
Try this one on for size for a "contendah":
"I do not believe corn based ethanol is a good economic answer to the energy crisis (big Huckabee smile) but if I were your Congressman, I would most certainly forward your wishes to the floor in the form of a bill. (Another big Huckabee smile).
It really depends on what you are trying to accomplish. There is a difference between a political answer and an honest answer. Ron Paul is what he is, and I am what I am. The reason I like him, and was a supporter long before this campaign was even hinted at, is that willingness to stand on principle and tell it the way it is.
Farm subsidies are not a favor to the farmer. It is nothing more than welfare farming. That suckers can't, or don't, get it is why they are suckers and will remain chattels. As long as you play to their ignorance they will remain ignorant. Of course one can't put is so bluntly, but you can only go so far and remain true to your principles.
I'm trying to draw the distinction between a schoolmarm approach and an honest but non hectoring approach.
Point granted, and you are most correct - in that making someone wrong is not going to win their support - in most cases it'll just make'em stubborn.
I think buckeye has a point too - in that you could phrase eliminating subsidies as a positive - which I was trying to do.
I know though, realistically, that eliminating farm subsidies in the "Farm Belt" is about as popular as a Skunk at a Square Dance. However, all the subsidies do is reward farmers for an inefficient use of their time and land. I know farmers do not like to change crops, but if over production exists then, failing subsidies, they are forced to learn a new crop - or more than one.