Me Among The Lefties
Recently, PJMedia’s Poohbah Roger Simon (not everyone knows that his first name is Poohbah by the way) wrote an excellent post called “Preaching to the Choir,” about how difficult it is to reach the opposing side with reasoned argument. The recent shock and awe expressed on the left by the serious challenge to Obamacare in the Supreme Court shows how true that is, how deaf the left is to conservative opinion. Lefties were seriously taken aback by jurist questions that would have been commonplace to them if they’d only listened to responsible voices on the right.
Recently, I was interviewed, as I occasionally am, by my friends at WorldStreams radio (you can listen at the link). WorldStreams’ Dari and Said strike me as charming and delightful people of good will, but if they were any further to the left they’d be in orbit. Most of my conversation with Said dealt with novel writing and other non-political matters this time out, but toward the end there were some telling exchanges. At one point, for instance, I mentioned that I had done some videos for Glenn Beck’s GBTV. Said started storming about Glenn — how horrible he was; a poison on the airwaves. I immediately started storming back, saying, “You’ve never seen Glenn Beck! You liberals know who you hate, but you don’t actually know what they believe!” Or words to that effect — I don’t remember exactly. In any case, the exchange proved Roger’s point: how you gonna reach the opposition if they’ve convinced themselves you’re evil without even listening to you?
That said, Said also asked me how I would build compromises between liberals and conservatives. I told him I would first ask: “What are the major problems we’re facing?” I believe many of them would agree about that. Then I would ask: “How can we fix those problems without jeopardizing individual liberty? What creative solutions can we come up with that don’t involve expanding the government?” I’ll bet I could get somewhere — assuming none of the people in the room was a politician!
“You’ve never seen Glenn Beck! You liberals know who you hate, but you don’t actually know what they believe!”
I’ve seen Beck and read him. Said is absolutely right.
Nice demonstration of Klavan’s points, Patriot: According to you, Said still doesn’t have to have his own easily obtainable informed opinion of Beck to be “right”, because you claim to have done his groundwork for him! And most importantly, “Therefore, shut up about it, Klavan!”
Right, notice he carefully avoided listing even a single specific thing he hated about Beck. If you’re going to say things about how poisonous and horrible a man is, you really should have a clue about that man’s positions.
For instance, when Keith Olberman states unequivocally that “…everyone is a little racist…”, Keith is really speaking for himself. Olberman is a little racist, so he assumes everyone else is, too.
Keith also lists public figures as “Terrible People” without giving any supporting rationality. If he does mention a reason, it’s a statement taken out of context.
See how easy that was? Obviously, whether or not you agree with me, you can’t say I’m uninformed.
“Said started storming about Glenn — how horrible he was; a poison on the airwaves.” – Said
“Said is absolutely right.” – You
Glenn Beck is a truly decent human being. He is a Libertarian, and he does not hide that fact. He constantly speaks of the Constitution and freedom. Is he always right? No. Does he sometimes go way out onto the fringes? Yes, because he is a Libertarian. He is Far-Right. (Conservatives are not Far-Right; Libertarians are.)
Does this give Said or you call to call Beck horrible? To call him a poison? Maybe so. After all, we on the Right consider the totalitarians on the Left to be horrible, to be poisons to the body politic. My point is, do not complain, now, when you hear the same from our side. Know that you do it, too.
One last note: I think we can agree that totalitarianism is bad and that freedom is good, right? It’s just that maybe we disagree on the meaning of those words, and who stands for which, hmm?
“How can we solve problems without expanding government?” So your approach would be to insist that liberals give up their most deeply-held principles and start thinking like conservatives? Liberals could just as easily ask conservatives to solve problems without *shrinking* government.
Nobody’s interested in working together or compromising. Everybody wants to win. Good luck with that.
You’re right, Bugs, that a lot of people just want to win. If you want to convince people, you have to try to talk to them rationally, anyway.
We don’t have the luxury to behave like children anymore. Constitutional Conservatives have to educate themselves on issues – history, economics, and the Constitution. That last bit means reading the Declaration of Independence and understanding WHY each line of that document was written.
If you don’t understand those things, if you don’t understand WHY the Federalist Papers were written, then you can’t argue with people FOR the Constitution.
“Liberals could just as easily ask conservatives to solve problems without *shrinking* government.”
What?!? Are you saying that Liberals (like you) think that government is the end, rather than the means? That the goal is to have a big government, even if we have found another way to solve the problem? Really? (Well, maybe that is exactly how they/you think.)
What exactly is wrong with trying to solve the problem with a smaller government or no government involvement whatsoever? Are we really supposed to keep all the bureaucracy and regulations, even after they are clearly no longer necessary? How inane is that? Are you honestly purporting that lots of bureaucracy and regulations is a good thing? Really? Really?!?
Wow, just… wow. o-O
Bugs – One side will win, in order to make a more perfect union. The other will be ‘gone with the wind’.
1) Glenn Beck: He is typically correct about what is going on, as he has enough people in, “the know” telling him. Unfortunately, he gave the Left way too much shananfoolery to blast him with, such has his Lederhosen routine. He painted himself as a Baffoon.
2) When 2 sides disagree, but basically want the same thing, then compromise is possible. For example: If you and I both want Limited Government but you want a Government so small that the Republic falls apart, we can come to a compromise. However, at this time, we are disagreeing about 2 completely different philosophies. Socialism/Communism with Government run everything versus a Constitutional Republic with Capitalism. That is kind of like trying to compromise on whether or not to kill someone: I.E. You may want the person dead, I do not want the person dead, so there is no compromise on that. We can’t “1/2 kill” the person. He is either going to live or die.
Don’t *make* the other guy *admit* that *he’s wrong*.
*Let* the other guy *realize* that *he agrees with you*.
That means no anger, no confrontation. No scoring points off the other guy. Find the smallest bit of daylight and pursue it. Salesmen don’t sell anything if they strike the customer as unpleasant and pushy. Remember that to some extent you’re selling you beliefs.