Decline of Legitimate Political Discourse

Personal attacks are a sure sign that the opposition has nothing of meaning left to say

Prescott, AZ August 1, 2024… Factions have always been a component of political discourse in America, perhaps a cultish worship factor has always been a part of the landscape, but we have seen a dramatic shift from political factions to personality cults; and with that, policy debate has given way to personal attacks often rooted in misinformation, disinformation and misrepresentation by omission. These are the tools of the PSYOP special operator and narcissists, egomaniacs, and megalomaniacs; and, the grist of their propaganda mill and the reprobate mind that seeks power at any cost.

Once the words of personal attack pass your lips, whether you are the candidate or a surrogate, the self-inflicted damage is done. TIP: voters reject [emphasis added] personal attacks and vitriolic hyperbole. Moreover, voters hate misrepresentation by omission, and when it is discovered that the promoter of mis-messaging was unethical and dishonest in the attack, it diminishes their political credibility. But the matter goes deeper than that to the rhetorical question, is it worth the total destruction of a primary opponent who might otherwise serve the constituency well in another role? There are too few individuals who are willing to serve in public office because of the personal attacks, many opt out to protect their family, their business, and even themselves.

Be wary, the ends do not justify the means…

While incorrectly attributed to Sun Tsu, the quote is still a siren song to anyone in the political arena. When you go scorched earth at a person without just cause of a defective character, you have already lost a significant voting block.

“An evil enemy will burn his own nation to the ground to rule over the ashes.”

The 11th Commandment —think President Ronald Reagan— from days gone by seems to have been brushed aside, sacrificing meaningful policy debates. It is one thing to hold individuals accountable for their voting record or policy position statements; it is quite another to use extreme-left Alinsky tactics to marginalize, even assassinate, competitors’ character in the public square with inaccurate and false claims.

The essential question that is missing in the political discourse, does the candidate act ethically, is missing in many encounters. Do they make false claims, and create strawman arguments that can neither be proven nor disproven? With the proliferation of bloggers and podcasters, opinion now overshadows news and fact, and it becomes difficult to locate the truth in the pool of deception. While exercising their First Amendment right to free speech, many bloggers, like their cousins “the fake news media,” often forget the responsibility that goes with the right. What’s that you ask? The responsibility is to be complete and accurate, do the research, go to original source material, and present both sides of the analysis.

History behind the call for civility…

California's liberal Republicans including George Christopher leveled attacks on Ronald Reagan for his conservative positions. Reagan popularized the eleventh commandment created by California Republican Party chairman Gaylord Parkinson. In his 1990 autobiography An American Life, Reagan attributed the rule to Parkinson, explaining its origin, and claimed to have followed it, writing, "The personal attacks against me during the primary finally became so heavy that the state Republican chairman, Gaylord Parkinson, postulated what he called the Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. It's a rule I followed during that campaign and have ever since.” Parkinson used the phrase as common ground to prevent a split in the party.¹ Today, we endure such a split.

NOTE: If you watch Democrats, they rarely step out of line. It took full-blown dementia on a worldwide stage for any democrat to begin openly calling for Biden to exit. Make no mistake, I am not advocating for blind following, but it is noteworthy when considering the Cult Effect.

The struggle session mentality is poisonous…

There are signs of an emerging “struggle session” mentality in American political discourse, and that is not good. Struggle sessions, also called denunciation rallies, were violent public spectacles in Maoist China where people accused of being "class enemies" were publicly humiliated, accused, beaten, and tortured, sometimes to death, often by people with whom they were close. Could that happen in America? Consider the cult-like activities that are a part of some political campaigns.

If county-level political organizations —I’m speaking to Republicans here— are to be effective, the PCs must be on their guard to spot policy vs personality attacks. Even the candidate one supports must be critically examined by their supporters to prevent the establishment of a cult mentality. When divisive players enter the arena, you can spot them with a discerning eye, take note of their words, and be watchful of their actions. The rhetorical question ought to be asked, what is the objective of the action?

Take, for example, the 2023 “campaign” to call on all Arizona Legislative District Republican committees to censure their Members of the House of Representatives for voting to remove a member for a serious ethics violation after the House Ethics Committee found that the Member had indeed lied to leadership and to their body of colleagues. Aside from the absurd pursuit, consider for a moment, what was the purpose, and you will discover the nefarious agenda. The purpose was to sow the seeds of division and to weaken the Republican caucus. And many people fell for it.

It is no secret that the extreme left has targeted Arizona to flip the Legislature from Republican to Democrat control. But who are their infiltrators and operatives? Are they hiding in plain sight? The headline reads, “Democrat Super PAC Has Out-Of-State Billionaires Investing Heavily To Flip Arizona’s Legislature Blue.” But with all of the money available, it still takes people to infiltrate and execute the mission.

“A major Democrat super political action committee, the PAC for America’s Future, is investing heavily in Arizona this election year. PAC for America’s Future is not only the largest PAC in Arizona; it is a top donor to the Democratic Party.”

The censure campaign offers a unique opportunity to examine the components of divisional operatives and what their agenda is all about. They may start off as well-meaning, supercharged leaders but quickly co-opt their followers to engage in Alinsky tactics designed to undermine the cohesion needed for a strong political party fabric. This is perhaps a side-effect of the rise of the populist movement, energetic people who want to do something for change, but that is the fuel needed for the operative to be successful.

Meaningful political discourse should examine voting records…

We should not avoid the examination of an individual’s voting record, but in a discerning and respectful manner test that record for reasoning. All too often we re-elect individuals who have not served our interests well, but that is a legitimate pursuit and a policy matter, not a personal attack. A candidate can be a nice guy, but a horrible public servant. It is also true that one vote is not the entirety of a record.

When examining an individual’s voting record, we also have to take the time to understand the matter that is in question. Misrepresentation by omission is a common tactic that should be corrected in the moment. Passionate discussions rooted in a complete and accurate understanding of the subject matter are necessary. Debate can turn on a single word, for example, there is a significant difference between “National Popular Vote” (NPV) and the “National Popular Vote Compact.” Leaving out the word “Compact” changes the discussion significantly and demonstrates the point.