Even More on Messages

Yesterday I questioned the validity and necessity of "messages" in a presidential campaign, and suggested that Hillary Clinton not even bother to have one.  I'm sure I was right about her, first because I'm convinced that she has none and would be damaged by tossing out something that could be challenged and, second because her rationale for running -- she just "wants" to be president -- would not lend itself to messaging very well.

But when we get to the Republican side, I admit that I feel a bit differently.  After all, conservatives have a message that can be crafted, that sums up, as I did write, our philosophy of government, our view of the role of government in the USA, and the role of the USA in the world.

There is a message to be presented there.  Though it may vary among the 7,665 candidates for the Republican nomination, there is enough definable there that someone who can articulate such a message, and defend it in the face of bizarre, Stephanopoulian challenges from the leftist press, can get the nation's voters on the side of such a candidate.

Should we, though, project a message?

I believe so.  I believe so, because whether we want to or not, conservatives will have a message associated with us.  It's simply a matter of whether it is going to be our version of it, or something written in the redolent bowels of the Democratic National Committee and its affiliates at the national networks and major newspapers.  We need to seize the day.

How do we craft that message?

It should not be that hard.  Having conceded that "messaging" should refer to the philosophical elements noted above, it remains simply to present it clearly and definitively, and for one or more of the candidates -- all of whom can see this blog --to decide to adopt it and promulgate it.

Fortunately I have, among the regular readers of this site, one who responded to yesterday's piece with an excellent presentation of how that concept of government and role of the USA would be implemented.  Since I couldn't have done it better myself, I will offer you this version of what he wrote as a core message, in the form of a pledge for any of the Republican candidates who choose to adopt it:

I, [candidate name], want everyone who works for a living and does their best to succeed.  As President, I will help that along by promoting:
   (1) A rational tax structure that doesn't penalize you for working 
   (2) A regulatory structure that doesn't harass you for trying to run your business, nor discourage you from creating jobs.
   (3) A foreign policy that strives for free trade and a level playing field with our trading partners, and helps our friends in freedom-loving democracies while challenging totalitarian states to reform
   (4) A defense policy that prevents our enemies from harming us or our allies.
If you are willing to work for what you want to have in life, you are a part of my constituency regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual preference.  If, however, you expect me to use the Federal government to steal from other people to give you free stuff, look elsewhere.       

Ronald Reagan's greatness lay in the fact that he had unalterable principles that he never wavered from.  If confronted with choices, he would reliably default to his core principles as his starting point and rationale.

Would that we could look up to a president with the firm conviction in what the USA and its government can and should do.

Copyright 2015 by Robert Sutton
 Like what you read here?  There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist."