How to understand monetary policy basics

I often talk about why monetary policy is so important, and why Keynesian economists have it so wrong on monetary policy, especially compared to the classical economists.  Monetary policy is of greater importance than fiscal policy when it comes to the economy, in particular with respect to inflation and growth or recession. The impact of monetary decision making, made by unelected bureaucrats, must not be understated - it's huge. But the discussion tends to be a bit too esoteric for a lot of people. The idea of understanding monetary policy.

To help with understanding here is a good video that explains the basics, in under 5 minutes. 

How to change the mind of a liberal

Do you ever get the feeling that President Obama has got this hyper-triangulation thing going on? He's shifting the country drastically leftward, yet talking to middle class as if he were a centrist. He's taking over banks and car companies but saying he doesn't want to be in those businesses. He's after cap and trade or something similar and CAFE standards but claiming to be on the side of American business and wanting GM to recover. He's beholden to the UAW but cap and trade and CAFE will prevent the automakers from recovering properly. He was against military tribunals for Gitmo detainees before he was for them. He talks fiscal sanity but is fiscally insane. Listening to him speak, who would know where he stands on abortion?

The list goes on and on. He's all over the map, but with a steady drift leftwards. Why is that? He wants the leftward drift and he's getting it. So is he some sort of political mad genius? An idiot-savant? Or is he just flailing around from problem to problem without real solutions and grasping for whatever life preservers are handy?

I think the answer is both. He doesn't know what he's doing as far as running the country goes, but he's politically astute enough to try to take every opportunity and turn it into a shift leftward. It's not so much hyper-triangulation as Dick Morris suggests, but rather hyper Rahm-Emmanuel-ism; never letting any issue, crisis or otherwise, go to waste.

The problem with that is that ideology ends up governing every solution and common sense gets elbowed out of the equation and the results will just get weirder and weirder. If you think Government Motors is surprising, by 2012 it might be the tamest thing to come out of the Obama administration. The beauty of conservatism is that common sense is the basis of every solution.

Revisiting what Rush said - 'I hope he fails', I do too. It is separate and distinct from I hope the country fails. I hope he fails to foist his neo-socialist policies on the country. Maybe enough Democrats will show some spine on health care to prevent it from happening, maybe not. But the real measure of his failure or success will not be determined by President Obama in the next four years.

Ultimately Obama will fail to execute his radical agenda. Enough conservative grassroots momentum will trigger changes in 2010. That momentum will carry through to 2012 and Obama will be a one term President. Then, any radical thing he's implemented will have the chance to be reversed. Any damage he does during his tenure need not be permanent if conservatives and enough moderates realize the implications of how he's jeopardizing the nation's future and act.

How can I be so sure he will fail? Honestly I can't. But the evidence, while painfully slowly, is beginning to mount that people are getting nervous about his agenda. His popularity will inevitably decline.

HOW TO CHANGE THE MIND OF A LIBERAL

But you can ensure that Obama's damage is contained. You have to become involved. You can't wait for the GOP or conservative pundits to do this for you - there's no time. Not everyone can attend a Tea Party, but if you can do so. More importantly, if every conservative were to convert a non conservative voter, we'd own the electoral map. Of course that's easier said than done, so I've included a recipe for you to follow. Don't worry, there's no Kool Aid involved.

1) Find a moderate or non-radical Democrat friend.

2) Determine what issue matters most to them.

3) School yourself on that issue and the details of both the liberal and conservative position.

4) Discuss, in a friendly, non-confrontational but convincing manner the advantages of the conservative position and the disadvantages of the liberal position.

5) Be prepared to back up your points with facts and ready to require them to cite their sources. You aren't looking to humiliate them though just enlighten them. If they can't cite a source, ask them why they believe it. If they can, ask them to question the source by checking out some other sources.

6) Be patient. The acceptance does not come overnight in most cases.

Remember unlike the left that wants to badger and ridicule people into agreement, we want them to come willingly and enlightened into the fold. You are here to persuade them that they can come to a clearer world view. You want them to come to you for more detail, or with questions. When that happens, you have opened a door for them to walk through.

I know that seems like a lot of effort, but the country's future is worth it. And compared to the effort of radical liberals/progressives/socialists/Alinsky-ites it's nothing. You don't need to paint your face, wear a pink wig - unless you really, really want to do that. You don't need to shout silly pre-programmed slogans or assault anyone. DON'T.

Once you've completed that effort, come back and share your comments here on your successes and failures. This can be a learning experience for all of us on how to best change the mind of a liberal. I'd also like to keep 'score' on the success rate of people who try it.

How To Defeat Alinksy Rules- Part 2

As I previously wrote,

What are Alinsky's Rules for Radicals? Why are they important? How can they be countered? Liberals, radicals and progressives use these rules against conservatives and mainstream America on a daily basis, without people being aware of how they are being manipulated by it. The left has a co-ordinated approach to political activism. By simply conforming to these rules, intentionally for many, subconsciously by others, liberals and socialists are working from a game plan that is effective simply because of its relentlessness. A ceaseless unresting effort that works by wearing down resistance and winning the little battles of attrition.

I also wrote ideas for countering each of these rules. This continues that thread, picking up at Alinsky's Rule 7.

One overarching point to consider, is that while the left has several advantages over conservatives, we still have one important advantage. The left has to move people from an inert position to a position of change on any given issue. Tradition, cultural norms and morals are spread across time for a reason - they work. The truth of reality is on our side. But so is the fact that people's comfort level is typically with tradition. Our job is easier - it is to convince people not to move rather than to move. That sounds like complacency but it is not. What it means is that we have to work hard to convince people that traditional values are still our best bet, we simply have the proof of history on our side.

Name one society that allowed homosexual marriage throughout history and reached what could be considered a dynasty. There's...well...none. Res ipsa loquitor. Rome declined steadily as what built the empire was forgotten. We simply need to remind people that this was the case and we risk the same fate here and now, and every day we don't remember the lessons of history.

Continuing in the battle for hearts and minds with Alinsky's rules.

Rule 7: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time....

This is quite true. Alinsky, while being a radical socialist, did have some accurate insights. And this was one of them. People don't want the drudgery of ceaseless, redundant effort. The left has the entertainment industry - movies, concerts, comedians. Those are inherently interesting and fun. What does the right have? NASCAR, country music...not much else in terms of entertainment. Entertainment is important.

While NASCAR and country music are something, they aren't categories that generate the same number of new converts, particularly among the youth. Winning hearts and minds is a big deal. Keeping up enthusiasm among the hearts and minds requires constant effort. People get bored easily, and particularly so in today's fast-paced entertainment and media environment. The right needs new tactics. Sports in general is an untapped area of fun and crowds for example.

Of course the left has education and the news media all but sewn up. Those need to be countered too. Particularly the education aspect - events related to education and tactics related to educational influence are highly important touch points.

What else is needed is a parallel industry for music, for movies, for television. Not just Fox. And without it, you risk having any message being drowned out not only by sheer volume from the left, but also by the glitz and inherent entertainment appeal.

You want Proof the left does this? Here's part 1 of 43,769.

The entertainment industry provides an opportunity to tie a message to fun. Directly, and yet often surreptitiously. The right cannot afford to leave that advantage solely to the left.

Nonsensible's Counter - The interesting thing about this rule is that Alinsky recommends changing tactics to keep the fight interesting. Obviously the counter to that would be to force the liberals to keep the tactic the same so that the momentum dies a natural death. But how do you keep an opponent's tactic from changing? Tricky. Firstly you have to recognize the change in tactics for what it is. What looks like something that's moved on could be something that has the same root goal as the original tactic but has not yet been identified as such.

Alternatively, instead of changing tactics, the militants could change people, by attracting a new set of people and engaging them in a tried and true tactic, it looks like a fresh tactic, or a tactic that continually works. So the counter to the changing tactic has to be twofold; (1) force the radicals back to the original tactic and (2) prevent them from attracting new recruits to support the tactic as the original cast dissipates from natural attrition.

Recognize a tactic change. Prevent the new tactic from succeeding as early as possible by marginalizing it. The left does this constantly - look how they under-reported and marginalized the Tea Parties. Outwork your opponent when there's a tactic change - a change in tactics is an opportunity to take advantage of because it means a tactic isn't working. If you can push them back to an older tactic you can paint the radicals as using the same old tired approach and they don't have any new ideas.

Conversely, another approach would be to change your own tactics more frequently than your opponent. This will keep them off guard, and on the defensive. A reactive combatant is less prone to make progress than a pro-active combatant.

Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose.

This rule is critical, perhaps most critical. It ties all of the other rules together into one fundamental concept of battle. More simply put - stay on the offensive and never let up. It's a variation of a theme espoused in The Shawshank Redemption: "Get busy living or get busy dying."

In this case it's get busy winning, or get busy losing.

Nonsensible's Counter - Keep the pressure on. Get busy attacking or get busy defending. You can be proactive or reactive. Which do you think is better? Conservatives are more likely to be imbued with entrepreneurial spirit. We should have a higher aptitude to be proactive. The battle between left and right is part of a war that can only be won through attrition if you are on the offensive. If you aren't attacking, you are losing. So attack. Do this through volume of attacks and talking points and through specific laser-like guided missile attacks that knee-cap an opponent's main argument points.

Keep finding the issues that can drive your message. If there are no issues of the day that are relevant, create them. Create them by using your ideas for the country to be highlighted as issues.

Lastly, tie up all the events possible - every event from a garage sale, to a bake sale to a town hall meeting is an event. Own as many events as possible. Every event is a medium for your message.

Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself.

When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.

Nonsensible's Counter - Boycotts, threats, falsely exaggerated protests are all not as bad as they sound. This is a psychological ploy. Or psychological warfare. Do boycotts really work? Do disruptions really work? I urge you to follow the logic of a tried and true principle;

We don't negotiate with terrorists.

Nonsensible's Counter - So, don't cave. Be prepared to weather every storm. A boycott, as Alinsky's rule #7 itself indicates, will pass. Be prepared to counter the claims, but be steeled enough to ignore them.

Rule 10: "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative."

In other words, if you push the other side far enough to create a negative (e.g. violent reaction), you will score points with public sympathy.

Nonsensible's Counter - Fight fire with water. Douse the argument with a cold splash of facts. Cite credible sources and avoid the histrionics the other side is using and hoping for you to respond with. Their histrionics are contrived, yours is apt to be emotional and blunderous. But remember, all politics is theater. So one important thing to remember though, by being rationale and calm, you don't want to come across as cold. You want to come across as personable and someone to whom the audience can relate.

John Stossel does this very well.

Point their argument out for what it is - melodramatic tripe. If they cite facts ask them to provide references for the facts. Don't allow them to side-step the question with a dismissal. Make them answer it. But be empathetic not confrontational.

Rule 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)

Nonsensible's Counter - Three easy points.

(1) Have a solution to the issue being discussed.

(2) Know and be able to refute the opponent's solution.

(3) Be able to sell your own ideas as the right solution, with relatable, tangible facts.

This denies the radical credibility and wins the issue for you. Essentially many of these come down to simple debating class principles. You want to win on points. Switching to a boxing metaphor, a knockout would be nice, but an effective counter-punching technique will give you the chance to find that knockout opportunity. In fact, you might not even need the knockout.

Rule 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

By doing this the radical attempts to marginalize key figures in the opposition by isolating these figures and making them unpalatable, thereby seperating leadership from the conservative base. This either wins converts or at least neutralizes the ability to mobilize around a countering viewpoint.

Let's see this in action;

And again;

And again;

Nonsensible's Counter - These personalizations must be pointed out for what they are - the attempt to avoid real debate on issues by demonizing legitimate viewpoints that at the very least should be debated on their own merits.

If liberals can't stand up to real debate on their ideas or ours, then their ideas must lack credibility beyond ridicule and derision. Demand factual debate. Challenge them to discuss and when they refuse they will rightly be portrayed as afraid, unprepared or intellectually incapable of honest debate.

Two quick examples;

Al Gore denies there is debate. Why? Because he isn't prepared.

Janeane Garafolo can't back up her claims of racism.

RE: Her point on Bush spending - it's small potatoes compared to Obama. Besides, it's a diversionary tactic. Clearly she's violated Alinsky's Rules and gone into areas where she has no clue about what she's saying.

So there you have it. Some ideas on how to fight the Alinsky doctrines. I hope somebody was taking notes.

How To Defeat Alinsky Rules - Part 2 (coming soon)

Previously I posted How To Defeat Alinsky Rules Part I. I haven't forgotten about Part 2. It's coming soon:

May 18th.

(Shameless self promotion).

How To Defeat Alinsky Rules - Part I

What are Alinsky's Rules for Radicals? Why are they important? How can they be countered?

Liberals, radicals and progressives use these rules against conservatives and mainstream America on a daily basis, without people being aware of how they are being manipulated by it. The left has a co-ordinated approach to political activism. By simply conforming to these rules, intentionally for many, subconsciously by others, liberals and socialists are working from a game plan that is effective simply because of its relentlessness. A ceaseless unresting effort that works by wearing down resistance and winning the little battles of attrition.