All Tea Party Members need to learn how to effectively fight liberal opposition. The liberal left has been learning how to be successful for the past forty plus years, while the rest of us lived our lives and believed that voting on election day was enough to secure our freedoms. During that time, the left has worked incrementally and continously to remake this Country according to their socialist dreams.
Last year, conservatives finally began to awaken and fight back, but our tactics assume that our opponents live and play by the same moral values we have. The Tea Party Movement has been an amazing turn of events and it has provided opportunities for average Americans to become involved and educate themselves to a level never before seen. I can promise you that I’ve never seen anything like this movement in my thirty-plus years of paying attention to politics.
I freely admit that in the past year, I’ve learned more about our opposition than I ever dreamed possible. Frankly, I’ve learned more than I wanted to learn. I’ve been scared by all of the money involved and at times all of the connections between the far-left organizations have made them seem unbeatable.
I’ve been dismayed and even offended by all of the direct attacks on the Tea Party, partly because I’m a part of a Tea Party group and I know the reasons I got involved in no way resemble the accusations that have been hurled my way. I’ve taken it personal when those attacks were launched because I know all of the people who are involved in our local Tea Party and I know that like me their motives have been pure. Because we’ve raised all of our funds through BBQ’s and donations by members, I knew that we were not Astro-turfers as stated by Nancy Pelosi. I know people who go to church and are dedicated Second-Amendment defenders and I know those people are not “bitter clingers” as stated by our President.
The political world has of late seemed upside down. I was told the truth will set you free, but I’ve seen lies and distortions win the day. I’ve seen good honest people smeared and maligned while the guilty rise to greater and greater power. I’ve seen the bad rule while the good labored hard to rise above the smears and it has made me angry more often than I want.
I started TeaPartyConnect.com as a way to communicate with other Tea Party Members and to try to provide a place where interested visitors could learn, educate and help themselves become more effective at getting their message out. Slowly but surely over the past year, we’ve seen a turning of the tide, but it is often like trying to stop a speeding train. We take two steps forward and one step back. But we keep moving and we keep working and I know that eventually our values will win the day, for I’m still convinced that though we may lose a battle here and there, the truth will surely win the war.
However, we have been fighting a Medusa. We shine light on one head while twelve others are still hidden in the darkness. We cut one head off, such as ACORN and ten others take it’s place. Everytime we’ve felt we won a major battle such as the election of Scott Brown, the liberals play games with fairness and pass Health Care Reform in spite of the obvious objections of the populace. There is a theory that after November 2, liberals in power will throw everything including the kitchen sink at the wall to see what sticks.
What I didn’t realize until recently, is that we are fighting an enemy that has nothing to lose and we have been our own worst enemy in the fight. Our methods are based on our upbringing. We are polite and we are caring. We do not believe the ends justify the means. We do not like confrontation and we are willing to step back when someone gets in our face simply because we are nice. For the last forty years, whenever the liberals have gone after another piece of our freedoms, they’ve done so loudly, angrily and with a meanness of spirit with which we are wholly unaccustomed. When confronted with these “squeakly wheels” in our society, we’ve backed up and let them have their way.
We’ve backed up so far that now we find our backs against the wall with attacks coming from all sides. The NAACP passed a resolution this week condemning millions of honest, hardworking citizens for standing up for their freedoms. The President and the First Lady have condoned this attack and have themselves mocked and minimized these great patriots as being something less than pond scum. The leadership of the U.S. House Of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have been actively leading the charge every day taking more and more of our liberty and selling our Country to our real enemies one spending bill at a time.
And now we find ourselves at a crossroads. We cannot continue to back up from the opposition and we cannot fight them with our niceness. We have got to learn the tactics that have made our opponents so successful and turn those tactics against them. This process has already started as more and more Americans have learned about Saul Alinsky and his “Rules For Radicals” and now it is time to take it to the next level.
I’ve been reading what I believe to be the manual that will help Tea Party Groups and individual members take it to the next level. I read about a book I’d never heard of written by a guy whose name I didn’t recognize, but once I started researching him, I realized I’d seen the effects of his success without recognizing who made it happen. I am confident that if you read this book, you will be as amazed by his words as I was. But you’ll also be convicted by his words and you will recognize many of the mistakes made by our side; however, by the end of the book, you’ll be as convinced as I am that we can accelerate our successes if we just implement his strategies.
Hubert Leon “Bill” Richardson founded Gun Owners of America (GOA) in 1975 and served as a California state senator from 1966-1988. Bill Richardson has written several books including “Slightly To The Right” and “What Makes You Think We Read The Bills“, but the book I want to tell you about is “Confrontational Politics.”
In the book, Richardson makes the persuasive case that we are too often prepared to give up ground to the liberal left simply because we’d rather avoid confrontation with them. He believes that our Judeo-Christian upbringing has taught all of us to turn the other cheek rather than fight for what is right. He reminds us that even Christ got angry enough to run the money-changers out of the temple and that Christ faced down Satan more than once and he did so without compromising His principles. Richardson makes it clear that he believes it is our duty to step up and be willing to confront the liberal left and their lies and deceptions and stand firm in our convictions.
I could quote a hundred passages from the book because every page was an eye-opener for me. I believe my second read of the book will yield even more gems. I’ve already begun to modify my tactics and I’m beginning to feel more confident in my approach. For too long, I’ve struggled with how to react to situations, but this book is a roadmap for defeating the liberal left using their own tactics but without compromising personal values and morals.
This book should be required reading for every Tea Party Member in every Tea Party Group. I cannot recommend this book any stronger. If I could purchase and give away a million copies of this book I would do it in an instant. However, since I’m still a long way from my first million, I’ll have to be satisfied with providing you with the links to some sources where you can purchase the book for yourself. It’s a bit hard to find, but GET THIS BOOK! Even if you have to buy a used copy of the book, DO IT. DO IT TODAY. Here’s a few sources I found on the internet:
http://www.keenzo.com/showproduct.asp?ID=4039539
http://www.borders.com/online/store/TitleDetail?sku=0915463768
http://www.amazon.com/Confrontational-Politics-How-Practice-Principle/dp/0915463768
http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&_trksid=p3907.m570.l1313&_nkw=confrontational+politics&_sacat=See-All-Categories
Keep trying until you locate a copy and get it ordered. It will change your outlook, it will change how you see the fight, and most of all it will give you permission to stand your ground and defend Freedom for everyone.
In my research on this book, prior to my purchase, I found that Chapter 3 of the book had previously been published on the Internet. I’m going to reprint that chapter below. Hopefully, after reading this one chapter, you’ll be fired up enough to get a copy for yourself. I promise you that in a very short period of time, the pages will be dog-eared and well-worn.
The Liberal’s Compromise: I win, You Lose…Then You Lose Some More….
Chapter 3, from the book Confrontational Politics: How to Practice the Politics of Principle
by H.L. Richardson
What occurs when these contradictory ideologies come into contact with one another, when those believing in traditional American concepts of limited government are assaulted by some new socialist program advanced by the Liberals? Traditionalists, attempting to preserve the status quo, invariably react negatively, predictably. Humanists act – offering programs of socialized revision, expect disruptive change, in fact, look forward to reaction.
It’s important to know how each side views the confrontation – as a positive or a negative? Who gains, who loses? Traditional Americans dislike conflict and withdraw from it as a matter of habit and training. On the other hand, the humanist looks upon confrontation as a necessity, a positive ingredient in advancing humanistic programs. They expect confrontation, plan for it and anticipate the predictable, negative reaction from their opposition, often using the reaction to further promote their cause. Conflict, therefore, is expected, welcomed, analyzed and then used to advance their goals.
Momentum is obviously on the side of the aggressors since they have the tactical advantage of initiating the attack. Before their intended opposition even knows a clash will occur, they’ve had the opportunity to plan strategy, organize support, select the field of battle, choose the appropriate time to launch the new program and frame the issue in such a manner as to put their program in the best light. (More on framing the issue in the next chapter.) They know opposition will be forthcoming, since their plans are usually expensive, assaultive to the constitution and enlarge the bureaucracy, all three an anathema to the traditionalist.
Controlling the initiative, the humanist knows that, how a program is presented, often predetermines the outcome. Propaganda-wise, they wrap the socialist “idea” in a semantic blanket of sophistry, warm cuddly humanitarianism, designed to put the opposition on the defensive. Without question, the aggressor has the immediate advantage.
Once the conflict is engaged, the Leftists anticipate the opposition’s response and judge their effectiveness accordingly. The issue is pursued until the Conservative resistance becomes formidable and an overall negative result could occur. At that time, a dialectic, backward step is in order. A strategic retreat, giving up some ground.
The Liberal then offers a compromise, a partial solution is presented. Half, instead of the whole loaf, is offered. The Left suddenly creates the aura of appearing reasonable, moderating their request. Leftist dialectics is nothing more than planned retreat, a tactic used to confuse and throw the opposition off-guard. Lenin called it an important tool in accomplishing overall goals.
He used the analogy of a man driving a nail with a hammer, the backward stroke being just as important as the forward thrust of hitting of the nail. Ask for much more than expected and then, when the opposition builds, give in a little, play the good guy willing to concede. Switch from bad guy to good guy, be conciliatory, be sweetness and light, offer “compromise.” Initiate the conflict then strategically back off.
Consider the bandit who sticks a gun in your ribs and demands your wallet then, with a kindly smile, says, “Shucks, I don’t really need these.” As he hands you your credit cards, he adds, “Aw, heck, I don’t need these either.” With that, he returns the children’s snapshots and the wallet itself – minus the cash, of course. Later, you couldn’t help telling the police he wasn’t such a bad guy after all.
Most Americans will accept compromise in order to avoid a continuation of the confrontation. When the Left backs off, a sigh of relief is usually heard from the traditionalist. In fact, the weakest and least informed on left-wing tactics often dictate the terms of how much is lost, since the timid are the ones usually intimidated and most willing to see the hostilities end. In hopes of maintaining some of the status quo, this weakest link usually decides the amount abdicated and justifies acceptance with a begrudging, “We can live with that.”
So, can the lamb live with the lion? He can – until the lion becomes hungry again and there are no more lambs left.
The humanists accept the “compromise,” having gained some ground, not all that they ultimately wanted, but more than they had before the confrontation began. Once the “compromise” takes place, the status quo side happily retires from the fight, slightly disgruntled over the loss of territory but relieved that the conflict is over.
The camel’s nose is under the tent.
The Left, with more recruits in their ranks and a foothold gained, patiently await the opportune time to start anew with more demands for more territory. This has been referred to as the “salami” technique, one slice at a time until the whole loaf is consumed. This is the way socialism has been infused within the body politic of America, one slice at a time, forward then backward motion. Lenin stated it best, “We advance through retreat.”
It’s unfortunate that there is only one definition for the word “compromise,” there should be another: One for defining the many physical compromises we all make as a matter of daily living and, compromising of principle. Let me give you an example of the differences between the two. My wife and I decide to rent a video movie. She wanted a love-‘em-up and I want a shoot-‘em-up. Instead, to make us both happy, we rent a comedy. We both “compromised” our first desire and settled on a video we both could enjoy. No principle was involved, just a physical giving-in, each watering down a personal choice in order to maintain family harmony. All of us do this daily – especially if we want to stay married.
Compare this with a compromise of principle. I support the Second Amendment, believing all law-abiding Americans have a right to own firearms. The Left believes in the confiscation of all firearms, especially handguns. What compromise can there be between us? Any infringement on this right is a loss to Americans. As you can see, there is no “physical” ground where either of us can repair. By definition, compromise is a settlement of differences with mutual concessions being made by both parties; this is how the dictionary defines the word. Both sides give up something.
This is not how the Leftists “compromise.” They will ask for 100 percent, then give in a little on their outlandish demands when opposition becomes formidable. They may call it compromise but what are they giving up? Absolutely nothing! In order to implement their humanist agenda, are they sacrificing anything? Are they relinquishing control or perhaps abandoning some other established bureaucracy in order to negotiate in good faith? Never. They relinquish nothing while insisting we compromise away a piece of our freedom.
When we object, they have the unmitigated gall to say we’re not reasonable. When we strenuously resist, they call us names – extreme, right wing, ultra-conservative and worse. Unfortunately, we react angrily instead of calmly insisting they put something on the table. When the socialists promote more socialized medicine, does anyone stand up and ask, “In exchange for more control of medicine, what are you Liberals willing to give up – the Environmental Protection Agency? OSHA? Welfare? What are they willing to concede?
Such a question is rarely, if ever, posed by the Conservative. No one seems to think of it. When we give in to them, even an inch, we’re not compromising; we’re abdicating our rights and our honor. When our legislators do likewise, they are abdicating our rights at our expense.
We must stop using the term compromise when confronting the Left. It should not be a part of our vocabulary when dealing with the Left unless we humorously ask the question, “What are you putting on the table in exchange – HUD? – BATFE? – NEA?
We must put the picture in proper perspective. We’re not out to rewrite our United States Constitution, abandon our freedoms or force our ideas on anyone…but they are. We Americans like the way our forefathers put this nation together. We are, by definition, protectors of the status quo. And why not? It’s well worth maintaining. When you think about it, all we ask is to have the same rights and privileges that our fathers and grandfathers had and to have the same constitutional protections they enjoyed.
The problem is that this position is a defensive one, while the advantage favors those advocating change. The Left takes the time to draft the issue in the best terms, estimate the level of opposition and pick an advantageous time to launch their plan of action. They certainly have nothing to lose. For should they fail, they are no worse off than when they started. When they obtain only a small portion of what was originally wanted, they are still ahead of the game.
Just think of all the socialist program they have implemented – one step at a time. They advocate, we defend, and confrontation ensues. Then, the traditionalist is asked to “compromise.” In order to see the hostilities end, we concede a little. Later, we concede a little more until all is gone.
There can be no compromises with the Left. We are ideologically at opposite ends of the spectrum with no arbitration possible. Either they win or we do. They will run the government or we will. That’s the only choice open to either of us. They know it – shouldn’t we?
The time has come for us to start asking for the abolishment of certain governmental agencies. Then, if we must, “compromise” and see only half of them disappear …this year. Before this can be accomplished, we need effective control of the legislative process.
The average American tends to see the participants in all these leftist “causes” as well-meaning folks trying to do some good. They see each cause as disjointed efforts with no central theme or network linking them together. Only when viewed as an overall movement to centralize and expand government does it make sense and the puzzle fits together. The various causes may appear to have nothing in common. Why would macho labor unions back candidates who are pro-gay? What can be the tie between the pro-abortionists and the anti-gun movement – what causes seem to be further apart?
Again, their agendas for people-control are identical. Both advocate more government and support similar candidates for office. The preponderance of their leadership are, for all intents and purposes, ideological soul mates, social reformers, hard-leftists of the first order – invariably imbued with situational ethics and humanist ideals. They are out to change America by demanding more and settling for less – one piece at a time.
Excerpted from the book Confrontational Politics: How to Practice the Politics of Principle, by Senator H.L. (Bill) Richardson (Ottawa, IL: Jameson Books, 2009).
Related Posts:
Email To A Friend
Print This Article
Loading ...
Great Article “TheGuru”! I enjoyed it very much and I think you have convinced me that I should try to find and buy the book “Confrontational Politics.” I like you, feel that we must find a way to confront the liberal left. We can no longer sit by and continue to be silent like we’ve been most of our lives. Now is not the time for that or we will be overtaken from every side. That’s exactly how we have gotten to the point that we are at in America right now. Through apathy. I believe those days are a thing of the past. If we are to save America, the Country that we have been so blessed to have, then we are going to have to wake up and be willing to fight for it, just as our forefathers did.
[...] [...]
[...] [...]
We still have about thirty copies of this book, donated to us by Larry Pratt, (of GOA). I'm relatively sure you could republish if you're finding it difficult to obtain. Perhaps we could even 'E-book' it for you. Given permission by Larry of course.
In Common Cause, keep up the good work.
Martin Hedington: Gun Owners of South Africa; Black Gun Owners of South Africa. http://www.gunownerssa.org; http://www.bgoasa.co.za; http://www.staysafeinsa.co.za
Thank you for publishing this. I attended "Gun Owners of California" Sam Paredes' seminar "Confrontational Politics" and it has helped me understand the liberals approach and how to fight them. They justify lying for a means to an end. And their sneaky tactics are to ask for that extra mile of ground expecting to stop when we have had enough…meanwhile they took miles and we are happy we stopped them. We lost ground.
No Compromise!
[...] West Charisma Carpenter Charli Baltimore Charlies [...]
[...] Dymond Diane Kruger Dido Diora [...]