Here’s what I think is going on in Harper’s brain. Most voters, he has reasoned, are not ideological or even political. They barely pay attention, even when there’s an election on. You can’t reason with them, can’t persuade them, can’t change their minds. All you can do is win.
The closest thing to a political philosophy in most voters’ minds is whatever they are familiar with. That is, other things being equal, they tend to prefer the status quo, whatever it is, to the unknown. This confers a huge advantage on incumbency.
(...)
Harper isn’t interested in persuading the public to come round to his point of view, or in behaving in a principled or ideologically consistent fashion. All he wants to do is win. (The Coyne thesis.) How does he reconcile that with his long-run ideological ambition (the Wells version)? Because as long as he goes on winning, by whatever means, he becomes the status quo. So whatever he does imprints itself upon the public’s reptilian brain as the natural order of things. He doesn’t win by persuading. He persuades people by winning.
As long as on balance he’s making progress — even if it’s two steps forward, one step back — then he achieves his goal. Not by convincing the public it’s the right thing to do. Not by changing minds. Just by being there.
There are many lessons here for pro-lifers.
If we win, we become familiar.
If we become familiar, we become less scary.
If we become less scary, we are more likely to be able to advance our agenda.
And by "win" I don't necessarily mean by winning in electoral politics, although that's important too.
We need to engage in many small, winnable campaigns in the private sector.
We also need to do more outreach.
If we are not scary, people will not be scared of us. Just tell what we know and say what we think in a calm and cool manner.
That is how we win.
