Controlling Charity

If we want a successful 2016 election, the key is to start influencing people NOW. Look at 2015. Stretched out before us are 12 months for breaking through, surprising those we know with a fresh perspective. No rushing. No need to get pushy. We have all the time in the world.

To maximize that time, we at The Party Of Choice simplify politics into two camps: Choice versus Control. Selling Conservatism as Choice (which it is) while exposing Liberalism as Control (which it is), we help people “get it” more easily—all while establishing our side as the good guys. This focuses listeners. It engages them. Trust me, it works better than just harping on the latest news stories (though these are fun, too).

For a taste of Choice versus Control, observe a common topic: Raising taxes on rich people. Arising in various forms, this issue provides openings for many good lines of reasoning. I share one below. You won’t use all the points—I generally stop with #3, maybe tossing in #5 for good measure—but it’s nice to have a few extras handy:

Question: Suppose the rich gave everything they earned to the poor. Would we still raise their taxes? Answer: Of course not.
So, we only raise their taxes because we disapprove of how much they give to charity, or where they give it. By raising taxes on the rich, we actually control the charity of others.
What can be more power hungry than controlling someone’s charity? Suppose I forced you to triple your charitable giving, and not to charities you currently support. No, I’ll make you support charities run by people who back my campaign. Does controlling the charity of others still sound okay?
And remember, the poor in America are wealthy compared to most of the world. So what if America's poor were told they must give greatly to other nations, but can’t even choose which nations benefit? Does controlling the charity of others still sound okay?
Unless we are willing to enter a church, and at donation time, grab the checkbooks from people next to us and write out their donations to other churches, then we have no right demanding one group ensure the lifestyle of others.
Worse yet, if we vote for politicians who promise to do this, then we’re controlling the charity of others through the power of government. We’re actually forcing them to live as we want just because we have more votes.
Suppose a group of men corner a businesswoman and “vote” themselves the contents of her purse. Is that any different? Their superior numbers and power allow them to control her charity. But does renaming stealing “voting” change what it really is? Would it even matter if they gave her money to someone in need?

Notice the effect of pitting Choice against Control. “We’re controlling their charity. We’re controlling them with votes.” Now the argument is clarified, drawing a simple line between our liberty and the Left’s oppression. Now they’re the bad guys. Now we have the upper hand, and we consistently will when using Choice versus Control.

Want a great 2016? Then let’s change hearts and minds in 2015. Let’s not wait helplessly for a perfect candidate or party. Let’s start with a perfect message—liberty—changing the political landscape itself. Let’s start with Choice. Expose Control. Simplify! Keep in mind, changing one heart can change dozens, as each one we touch will influence many we never could.

But we mustn’t wait. Waiting now means panicking and badgering later. So let’s get equipped, get talking, and get other Conservatives doing the same. Just imagine if Conservatives everywhere used 2015 for moving the needle of public opinion. Imagine if schools, workplaces, and communities were flooded with Conservatives drawing lines between Choice and Control.

I imagine 2016 would be a cakewalk.

Controlling Charity

You need to be a member of Arapahoe Tea Party to add comments!