It would be useful for everyone, liberal, libertarian, and conservative, to confront the issue of which they’d prefer:
1. A dictator with the right policies (welfare state, free market, or promotion of virtue) or
2. A democracy with the wrong policies (free market and traditional values for the liberal, welfare state and traditional values for the libertarian, welfare state for the conservative).
We can up the ante in either case by specifying whether the dictator or democracy uses heavy oppression to maintain itself, e.g. executing 100 political opponents per year (which a democracy is capable of doing, just like a dictatorship).
I think conservatives would have no trouble picking (1), and liberals would have a strong preference for (1) but be ashamed to admit it and so would pick (2). I don’t know about libertarians.
Steve Teles talked about a good idea in a conference here last weekend: the idea of going on one’s opponent’s issue ground in politics and beating him on his own terms. His paper was on Compassionate Conservatism. Here are perhaps other examples. The paradigm is:
“Liberals say X helps Y, but X actually hurts them.”
1. X = Immigration, Y = Mexican-Americans
2. X= the minimum wage, Y = poor people
3. X= easy divorce laws, Y = women
4. X= low penalties for crime, Y = blacks
5. X= unions, Y = workers
We need a good name for this tactic. It is not the same as Co-Opting, really, or Issue Stealing
I have read people saying that election fraud has trivial importance in the United States, so the Republicans’ desire for investigations and for identity to be verified for voting is unjustified. Here’s clear evidence against that. Note, too, the behavior of US Attorney John McKay, who was later fired.Click here to read more