Persuasion, Marketing, and Mark Shannon on "Ron Paulies"

Oklahoma City talk show host Mark Shannon has had enough of the "Ron Paulies" - read below for his post today.

Black-Pauled

When I woke up Wednesday morning, I had nothing I felt strong enough to write about, (as you may have noticed,) so rather than forcing something, I just left it blank.

Nothing like a couple hours on the air to remedy that problem.

Here's the long and short of it: I've had it with the "Paulies." Those people who claim to be supporters of Ron Paul and the Constitution, but who have no common sense, understanding of how to present themselves or represent their candidate or their beliefs.

Never mind that I happen to be the guy who does the show, the "Paulies" have managed to alienate the host of one of the only call-in shows in the city that actually deals with political topics. They've also managed to do it to every major talk show host in the country from Beck to Limbaugh to Hannity.

They get screened out from the national shows most of the time, and now have managed to be annoying enough that they will be screened out or dumped by the digital time-delay we utilize normally for profanity.

Regardless of your political positions, if you are going to win in politics, which is a "people" business, you've got to be able to communicate with and work with all kinds of people.

"Paulies" don't get it. They think they've got the only "CONSTITUTIONAL" position on every issue, and are just sure the light will all come on for the rest of us ("not really") conservatives in this country.

They heckled Tom Coburn at the Republican State convention, a real TURN OFF. They will talk you into a corner ranting about the FEDERAL RESERVE and how taxation is slavery and one or two other of their limited points, another TURN OFF.

Call your internet radio stations with the other fringe members and have a ball sounding brilliant to each other because no one else wants to listen to you.

If he has any connection to these guys, Randy Brogdon, candidate for Governor, would do well to distance himself from these guys, because he's going to have enough difficulties to overcome trying to defeat a very popular Mary Fallin without having these immature and political novices representing him in any way.

Good job guys. You've slit your own throat.....again.

Although I theoretically line up with quite a few of the positions the "Ron Paulies" hold, I must confess, I agree with Mark on much of what he said. Let me elaborate, by paragraph.

Regardless of your political positions, if you are going to win in politics, which is a "people" business, you've got to be able to communicate with and work with all kinds of people.

This is key. One of the major downfalls for the "Ron Paulies" is their nearly across-the-board inability to communicate with those who do not agree with them. Far too often, they resort to name-calling, which leads to absolutely nowhere.

Politics is the art of persuading opponents to your line of thinking, and it demands the ability to articulate your positions clearly, and in a non-insulting manner. It requires debate, but it must be rational, logical, and courteous.

Sometimes, people won't agree with you 100% of the times. Okay, very rarely, if ever, will someone agree with you 100% of the time. However, you must be able to put aside your differences, and work towards achieving a common goal, despite your lack of total philosophical unity. If the "Ron Paulies" truly wish to accomplish something, they must learn this valuable lesson.

"Paulies" don't get it. They think they've got the only "CONSTITUTIONAL" position on every issue, and are just sure the light will all come on for the rest of us ("not really") conservatives in this country.

This is something that has bothered me in regards to supporters of Ron Paul (as well as other libertarians; the RPs are just the most prominent). It's almost as if they are the only ones who can interpret the Constitution - and heaven forbid if you question them! They tend to have this almost arrogant attitude about it; 'We're Constitutional conservatives, and since you don't agree with us, you're big-government liberal establishment socialists!!!!!!'

They heckled Tom Coburn at the Republican State convention, a real TURN OFF. They will talk you into a corner ranting about the FEDERAL RESERVE and how taxation is slavery and one or two other of their limited points, another TURN OFF.

I definitely agree in regards to Tom Coburn. Sen. Coburn, albeit making a mistake in my eyes regarding the TARP vote, has been the conservative's best friend for years (would the RPs have rather had Kirk Humphreys or Brad Carson?). Some people, in their quest for philosophical purity, would 'throw the baby out with the bathwater', and completely disregard any good Dr. Coburn has done, and continues to do. As I said previously, we'll never agree with someone 100% of the time - we must be able to lay aside those differences, and still work for a common goal (smaller, more limited government, et cetera).

On the other issue: sometimes, in order to persuade a person to your side, you find something that you both agree on, and work from there, rather than starting with something that seems 'extreme' or 'radical' to the normal person. For instance, instead of beginning by ranting about the Federal Reserve, how about discussing wasteful government spending, intrusion into the private sector, or even policies that lead to inflation. Those topics are more mainstream, but are still related in a general way to the Fed. The more varied your portfolio of issues, the more likely you can find an area of agreeance, and the more likely you can persuade someone to your line of thinking.

If he has any connection to these guys, Randy Brogdon, candidate for Governor, would do well to distance himself from these guys, because he's going to have enough difficulties to overcome trying to defeat a very popular Mary Fallin without having these immature and political novices representing him in any way.

Absolutely! To win in a election such as the Governor's race, Brogdon must be able to appeal to voters of all persuasions, not exclusively the libertarian, Ron Paul-ish type. While avoiding pandering, he must expand his outreach to Republicans who may not agree with him on some issues (i.e. non-fiscal conservatives or non-social conservatives) if he wishes to beat Mary Fallin. Belonging and appealing too much to one strict faction will not lead to victory for Randy Brogdon.

Good job guys. You've slit your own throat.....again.

This is a prime example of what I've just written about. Mark Shannon and the "Ron Paulies" probably agree on many issues, but the manner with which they've presented themselves has alienated a potential ally.

In addition to politics being the art of persuasion, it also demands marketing. If you can't persuade or market it in such a way as to appeal, you won't win many victories.

The Art of Persuasion

Max Borders at The Next Right has a very interesting post entitled "The Art of Persuasion No. 1: Emotional Wedges". Here's an excerpt from it:

But how does social change happen at the individual level? I’d argue, by in large, you have to invert the structure, i.e. reverse the process. In other words, you don’t start with big ideas for most people. You start with messages. Stark. Emotional. Once you resonate with someone emotionally, then you can begin to propose policies or offer big ideas. But the initial prick of emotion is the wedge-point upon which the rest gets built (even principles).

So, begin with emotional appeals. How do you get someone’s attention? Narratives, images, stories of real people with real feelings and vaguaries like ‘change’. Emotion. Consider the following two narratives:

- More than 140,000 people died in the bombing of Hiroshima during WW II.

- Elizabeth White is only three years old. Yesterday, her father held her wrist firmly against the kitchen table and hit her fingers one-by-one with a hammer.

Which one has more rational gravity? Okay. Which one has emotional gravity? Emotional gravity almost always wins.

The Left figured this out a long time ago. That’s why everything goes back to “the children.” Think of the global warming commercial with the kid on the train tracks—engine bearing down. Think of the piecemeal regulation and socialization of healthcare (they started with SCHIP, children’s Medicaid). How can you deny any child healthcare?

This is one area that the Left has definitely gotten down to an art. Ever wonder why it is that when the economy goes sour, the electorate tends to rush to the Democrats? It's not necessarily the ideas that the Left has; it's the marketing. They package it in a better box than the Republicans traditionally have.

It's a thought-provoking post. Here's the link to the whole thing again.