I believe strong arguments from both sides result in better  policy and governance for the American people. Extremism and the lack of an ability for sound debate and argumentation is leading to party fragmentation and disillusionment in the GOP. The tea-party movement and talking heads are causing serious problems for the party by bringing the extremism and not their A game, counter arguments on the issues. In all the half-assed, ill-thought efforts to attack the Obama administration, the blow hards are blowing the party apart. The GOP and conservative movement need  new leaders and spokesmen  who are willing to embrace and address the specific challenges of the issues, not dismiss them in sweeping generalizations as elitist, socialist, or the usual rhetoric.

The problem, is that the spokesmen for the conservative party have become too extreme.  These media monsters have over-saturated the market and in a competitive effort to increase ratings, they have floated away from the party with their extremist rhetoric reached the breaking point.The talking heads refuse to engage in real debate on the issues, (discussions amongst those who agree does not qualify) and instead seem hell bent on focusing on generating new nomenclature and buzz language for those who will swallow and recite it without question. They are huffing, puffing and blowing many, intelligent conservatives away from the party.  Personally, I have a hard time determining who to turn to now, when I wish to hear from sound conservative minds.

We do not live in a world of one way communication anymore. This is the information age and the era of engagement, discussion and social media. Society has inevitably realized that they can comment, blog and participate in the conversation and challenge an argument. News media outlets have lost much of their power and seek to get it back. The evolution of controlling/distorting a message has come to faking engagement via censoring dissent or discussing with an agreeable panel, which only succeeds in  making the problem more prominent. The talking heads have had a dismissive attitude towards confrontation or counter-points on the issues and the masses, many of whom have rediscovered and reconnected with their voice, are disgruntled with what is presented.

The problem with the conservative response to Obama’s policies is that it amounts to a media blitz of tantrums. The issues are not being addressed with sensible, point and counter point argumentation. The opposing view point and message is so riddled with emotional rhetoric and weightless arguments that have no substance, that many of us, in the middle, and even the reasonable right are forced to shift to the logic of the left. Every time I hear a reference to Kenya, communism, conspiracy, socialist agenda, Hitler and the Nazis, I know a bad argument is being presented.

Save the sweeping generalizations for the conclusion, after and only after you connect the dots with evidence and specific criticisms else you risk losing credibility.

The sub-text of racist, fear mongering, xenophobic viewpoints are off topic to say the least. The Kenya conspiracy theory, is obviously racially motivated and back-firing. The nazi thing is weak sauce as well. I fail to see the connection between truly, the greatest and most absolutely evil force the world has ever seen and say, nationalizing healthcare. This is called a false analogy. You take a small aspect and try to imply the entire thing. For example, Hitler gave very loud, emotional, fervent, almost angry speeches much like certain radio talk show hosts I can think of. This too is a false analogy and in my example, I am trying to associate the speaking styles of  radio shock jocks with Hitler in hopes of transferring an image of evil. This trick is made most obvious when Hitler and the Nazis are used in the comparison to associate with a negative. Further more the right needs to legitimize the the implication that Obama is evil or is the Antichrist with a little more evidence than what is being presented.

This arguing style forces people to decide between a sound argument and an angry voice. It is not considered a contribution to national debate when an argument, logically presented with acknowledgement to the pin-point, dividing line of disagreement,  is confronted by a media blitz of vague, emotional appeals for hate, fear and aggression. This doesn’t demonstrate strength, intelligence or many of the values of the party. It paints a picture of the Republican party and conservative movement as a big, dumb, angry bully trying to cheat to win. It’s like watching Pop-eye play rope a dope with Pluto. Just by playing the part it leaves the voters to view  the opposition as Pop-Eye,  and who do you think they’ll want to root for? The Obama administration doesn’t need to eat their spinach. Seriously, watch Pop-Eye and think Limbaugh or  Glen Beck.

This shouldn’t be the face of the conservative party but if the blow-hards continue to speak without discretion, the party will continue to fragment. I recently watched the sixth and seventh season of The West Wing and admired the integrity of the candidates from both parties to keep a clean campaign and national spotlight on the issues and specific points where they differ. That is how politics is supposed to be. I think we’ve all had enough of the bull.

P.S.

I’m further confused as to who represents the GOP viewpoint as party members disassociate themselves from the traditional faces of conservationism. Please send me some good links to articles and content that might convince someone with a reading level and education beyond the 5th grade.