I think the real story here is liberals' general lack of ability to identify preemptive framing when they see it. It's one of the pillars of conservative communication strategy, and it's virtually undetectable to most liberals. The rely on it to such an extent that it's become a pretty useful heuristic to assume that any conservative political accusation is actually a confession.
As a strategic discipline, they attack where they are weak, and they force their position at the earliest possible moment in the contest. Cognitively, this makes it harder for an adversary with superior credibility on an issue to exploit what should be a basic advantage. "Wait, the first thing Trump said was that Opponent X is corrupt and then Opponent X just copycats Trump, and calls him corrupt instead? I'm skeptical." Yes, of course Trump is corrupt, and what Trump said about Opponent X was probably a highly-exaggerated distortion of something vastly less grave than Trump's own vulnerabilities. And yet, strategically, it's effective because of how our brains work.
If you think that conservative talkers must be stupid for focusing on gun deaths in blue cities rather than gun deaths in red states--or any of the other issues that seem to betray hypocrisy--try adjusting your assumption from "they must be stupid" to "they must be stupid like a fox."
It's a way better starting point to assume they are talking the way they are talking for a reason.
I'm surprised that Republicans haven't picked up on (and Democrats haven't pointed out) that the overall cost to society of dealing with crime is dramatically reduced if the goal is focused on rehabilitation to get the criminals to become productive members of society rather than retribution and punishment. As you point out, incarceration and punishment is seldom a deterrent or behavior influencer.
I think the real story here is liberals' general lack of ability to identify preemptive framing when they see it. It's one of the pillars of conservative communication strategy, and it's virtually undetectable to most liberals. The rely on it to such an extent that it's become a pretty useful heuristic to assume that any conservative political accusation is actually a confession.
As a strategic discipline, they attack where they are weak, and they force their position at the earliest possible moment in the contest. Cognitively, this makes it harder for an adversary with superior credibility on an issue to exploit what should be a basic advantage. "Wait, the first thing Trump said was that Opponent X is corrupt and then Opponent X just copycats Trump, and calls him corrupt instead? I'm skeptical." Yes, of course Trump is corrupt, and what Trump said about Opponent X was probably a highly-exaggerated distortion of something vastly less grave than Trump's own vulnerabilities. And yet, strategically, it's effective because of how our brains work.
If you think that conservative talkers must be stupid for focusing on gun deaths in blue cities rather than gun deaths in red states--or any of the other issues that seem to betray hypocrisy--try adjusting your assumption from "they must be stupid" to "they must be stupid like a fox."
It's a way better starting point to assume they are talking the way they are talking for a reason.
I'm surprised that Republicans haven't picked up on (and Democrats haven't pointed out) that the overall cost to society of dealing with crime is dramatically reduced if the goal is focused on rehabilitation to get the criminals to become productive members of society rather than retribution and punishment. As you point out, incarceration and punishment is seldom a deterrent or behavior influencer.