I learned about this book via Eric Garland on Twitter. He is a strategic forecaster, per his bio, and I learn a lot from his tweets. 

 

I find this book fascinating and essential reading for those of us more on the Left politically. 

 

George Lakoff lays out nicely the Conservative strategy and how best to handle those awkward family discussions that can sometimes become heated. I never know what to do myself in those moments beside walking away and it is time to engage with our own talking points and reframe the conversation. It is also disturbing the rise of control of media via Conservatives. 

 

He repeats his points a lot, and gives some great examples so you can understand that Conservative family member. 

 

My takeaways are : 

- understanding our values 

- reframing the conversations

- and having our own talking points : Stronger America, Broad Prosperity, Better Future, Effective Government, and Mutual Responsibility

 

A worthwhile read. 

“She’s busy.” Have you ever said that of someone when explaining why that person is not available to assist with a cause? Has someone said it of you? I freely admit (though I am chagrined to have to do so) that it has certainly been said of me. John Horst in Community Conservatives and the Future: The Secret to Winning the Hearts and Minds of the Next Conservative Generation helps to explain the danger of such excuses for those who regard themselves as “conservatives.” Horst shows, through sound reasoning and common sense (which admittedly is not all that “common”), why it is important for people to participate in their community causes and how doing so will be required if those on the conservative side of the political spectrum are to get noticed and win future elections.

 

I found Horst’s approach to current political and societal issues refreshing and easy to follow. At the outset, he explains the history of traditional American thought: that the most significant unit of society is the individual in whom liberties exist by nature, as opposed to the “state” which exists first and foremost to secure those individual rights. That concept behind the American experiment is the quintessential difference between America and any other nation of any other time. Horst then reasons that conservatives, who embrace that philosophy, must take their message, by way of example, to their local communities. They must show up to do the work that must be done. It is not enough to “be busy” raising families and building businesses and paying taxes. Those who show up to devote time and energy to resolve community problems are those who will earn the right to be heard.

 

With that background, John Horst in Community Conservatives and the Future: The Secret to Winning the Hearts and Minds of the Next Conservative Generation, examines a wide variety of issues: racism, multiculturalism, the use of a common language, issues of morality and the language used to discuss them, the connection between social and fiscal conservative thinking, the moral issues behind economic issues, the fundamentals of money and inflation, debt, taxation, the freedom to succeed—and to fail, the free market, organized labor, immigration, civil liberties, privacy, the environment, and so much more. Horst brings his varied background knowledge and expertise to his writing and approaches issues with an eye toward identifying practical solutions to local problems. He avoids sounding preachy but, rather, seeks to find common ground. Indeed, he successfully manages to identify issues common to both The Occupy Wallstreet crowd and the Teaparty crowd. (No small feat, that!) Prepare to look at this work with an open eye. Whether you peg yourself on the political right or left, Horst will challenge at least some of what you think and you are sure to learn something along the way. 

 

Also posted at www.Oathtaker.com and on GoodReads, added to Google+ review groups, tweeted and cover pinned.

I'd give it 3.5 stars if I could, but I'll round down. The author makes some very interesting points about how poor conservatives who traditionally would have been democrats have taken up the battle cry of the republicans to the tune of an anti-abortion culture war despite the fact that their economic interests are being destroyed by the ones they continue to vote into office. Frank calls them martyrs because of it, and tries to understand why they do it. Instead, he spends most of the book making the same point over and over again. It was an interesting point for the first 100 pages, but the next 150 dragged on. I took to skimming over the last 75 or so.

Books of political outrage have a short shelf life because whatever outrage the author is enraged about is quickly eclipsed by the next outrage. Thomas Frank was outraged by the re-election of George W. Bush in 2004. What saves this book from being another here-and-gone current events polemic is that Frank tries to understand how the mid-west went from being the radical base of left-wing candidates like Eugene V. Debs and William Jennings Bryant to being solidly Republican.

Like many Democrats Frank believes that big-business Republicans have hoodwinked farmers and working-class citizens into voting against their own self-interest with empty rhetoric about religion and patriotism. Of course wealthy Democrats are in theory also voting against their self-interest when they vote for increased taxes on themselves to fund social programs for the poor, but that is a entirely different matter.

I know, this was published in 2004, so why am I only getting to it now? Well...I am getting to it...The basic question behind What’s the Matter with Kansas, that frames the introduction, is this liberal astonishment: how can anyone who’s ever worked for someone else vote Republican? But the problem with the liberals is, they can ask a question like this with a straight face. To explain this situation, Frank says, maybe they were pushed by Bill Clinton and his patently insincere concern and his contempt for anyone who was not Ivy League. I think he’s onto something here, but again, this is still just the rhetorical veneer. Maybe regular people see through a lot of the BS and posturing, and know these guys are doing nothing for them in Washington.So the key, Frank says, is that cultural anger is marshalled by the Repubs, to achieve economic ends. That basically, modern ultra-conservatism is a propaganda move on the part of corporations and their cronies in government, to distract their constituents from the real issues, and wave the red sheet in front of the bull. These hot-button issues have little or nothing to do with the interests and goals of the corporations — but then again, they have little or nothing to do with the economic needs or interests of the people, either. They’re just the bloody shirt, all over again. Will historians be able to show that the Repubs have ever been about anything else? When Richard John discussed the telegraph monopolists and their opponents, he said Tammany Hall used the anti-monopoly issue as a way of mobilizing people and gaining supporters, even though the politicians really were only interested in power — and that people realized this. Puck Magazine published editorial cartoons with regular folks standing between the Tammany politicos and the spider of Jay Gould’s monopoly, with nowhere to turn. So how widespread was this understanding that the “issues” of the day were merely opportunities for politicians to differentiate themselves from each other?“Because some artist decides to shock the hicks by dunking Jesus in urine, the entire planet must remake itself along the lines preferred by the Republican Party, U.S.A.” Almost makes you wonder whether the shock-artists aren’t part of the machine? “You vote to stop abortion and you receive a roll-back in capital gains taxes.” Beautifully put. Kansas food deserts. What? See post here...So his thesis about class is that the Repubs have redefined it, so that class is not based on economic or even power differences, but on “authenticity.” John Kerry’s wealth makes him an elitist because he’s a snob, and George W. Bush’s wealth doesn’t register, because he doesn’t like French wine. It’s pathetic that people are taken in by this, but equally sad that anyone would attempt to defend John Kerry. Really? Is that all we have to choose from? And isn’t that our real problem?All claims from the right, Frank says, arise from a sense (or at least a pose) of victimhood. Okay, but don’t all claims in American politics arise from a sense of victimhood? Isn’t this what Heather Cox Richardson and Patricia Limerick were talking about? Are all these political fights really about seeing who gets to wear the label of the “true victims of America?” One of the points of these cultural battles, Frank says, is that they can never be won. The leaders have chosen causes that are lost, because they’re the gift that keeps on giving. If there’s a chance of winning, then you have a whole different type of energy. This is the lesson of the 2008 election — “Hope” and “Change” will hurt Obama in the long run. The conservative machine is much smarter. Their objective is not to win, but to continue to mobilize outrage. After all, the politicians who fail to deliver can be cast aside and replaced by others. This isn’t a program for the benefit of politicians, it’s a program for the corporations. Frank suggests comparing the rhetoric of the rabid conservatives with 1930s communist writer Mike Gold’s language, which might be fun to do at some point. The difference, he suggests, is that once you drain the economics out of these arguments, you have very little explanatory power left. But why should that be a problem? The game isn’t about explanation, it’s about anger.