Preaching to the Choir
At PJ Media we preach to the choir quite a bit.
It’s not our fault for the most part. It’s the way of the world these days. The Left talks to the Left and the Right talks to the Right.
Sure we have some internal differences (gay marriage is one area), but PJM writers and readers largely agree on the big issues of the economy (stop spending), size of government (less is more), and, mostly anyway, on foreign policy (be strong).
The vast majority of people reading this article will vote for Romney, some grumpily, some not.
In sum, we’re preaching to the choir, albeit a somewhat fractious one.
So we’re not changing anyone’s mind — or hardly anyone. At best we’re giving people arguments and nuggets of information with which to regale their liberal friends at the water cooler, ammunition for a possible conversion or two. We’re also deepening our readers’ understanding of the issues and, we hope, entertaining them a bit.
Nothing wrong with any of that but, alas, it doesn’t move the meter much. And in this election year — universally acknowledged the most important since the invention of the secret ballot or maybe since drawing straws — we’d like to do better than that.
The question is how. Should we engage liberals in respectful discussion? Back in the early days of PJ Media, we attempted to do just that. It didn’t last long. Neither side “worked or played well with others,” as it used to say on our grammar school report cards, though I like to think it was the libs that were the more dysfunctional.
What you see now in mainstream media is a form of faux opposition installed for appearance’s sake or, even more, entertainment value (like Bob Beckel on Fox or, let’s be honest, David Brooks in the New York Times).
We don’t have any faux opposition on PJM, not that we want that. What we really want is a way to get our message out to the other side so that they actually read and consider it.
I think there is not much hope of changing minds quickly because of the insular nature of groupthink. We cannot get rid of groupthink but we should be merciless in exposing it and challenging it. One way of challenging leftist groupthink is to frame arguments in terms of evolutionary dynamics. Is the world full? Are we running out of resources? The idea we are headed off a cliff is too linear. For example world population may increase because of advances in agriculture, access to clean water and improvements in healthcare. Arguing morality probably will not work but countering with scientific reasoning will be hard to dismiss. I’d say most political, social and environmental ‘problems’ can be analyzed this way.
The ‘problem’ with Leftists is their own false sense of self-worth. Becomming a Leftist is an easy choice – especially for the young – because it entails so little thought and accrues so many rewards without any undue effort. “Leftism” and its ideological bretheren Socialism/Communism are founded on heightened emotional conclusions to highly abstract premises, all leading down the same road to personal fulfillment based on desires for the world to operate in accordance with our “wouldn’t it be great if” desires. The personal sense of grandeur and self-importance afforded by adopting the Leftist premises and worldview (how the world should work because it makes us feel good about ourselves to claim it can and should be so) is the easy, effortless ticket to self aggrandizement, perfect for any generation raised to believe in instant gratification and a boundless sense of entitlement.
The impending trillion dollar student loan bubble (now non-dischargable through bankruptcy or any other mechanism other than perpetual debt-servitude) and the imploding jobs market will shake this generation to its very core. Reality has a way of doing that and reality is the only true enemy of Leftism, Socialism and Communism.
TO paraphrase Bill Whittle: “Unearned Moral Superiority”
Ah! Nothing more satisfying than the emotional sugar rush of false Liberal piety!
Yessir! quick, easy and none of the calories of Reality!
Good place to post my second successful technique. (First one is down at #101, EXAMPLE.)
This technique is:
IMPROMPTU WORKSHOP.
My lefty friend kept insisting that “Hillary just wants to do good! Hillary wants to help people!” Well, one day there were a bunch of us sitting around and it came up again. This lefty friend is poor because she’s an artist; a couple other lefty friends who were there are rich because they’re in real estate. I went over to Real Estate Guy and told him to open his wallet. I took out some money, stuffed some of it into my pocket, and gave the rest to Artist Girl.
“There! I did good! I’m helping people! Vote for me!” I pointed out that of course I needed a little for myself to keep doing all this wonderful work.
There were grumblings all around. When I gave the money back, I asked what it would be like if I were the IRS and I could levy bank accounts and throw you in jail if you didn’t want to play.
I also asked if anyone in the game was “generous.” Real Estate Guy was *forced* to give up his money, and my act of “generosity” was done entirely on someone else’s dime. Good time to point out that Americans are extraordinarily generous and could probably be more so if they were left to their own spending/donation decisions.
Lefty artist was converted eventually. Lefty Real Estate Guys happen to be gay and living well in one of the few areas of the country where real estate is hot and profitable, so they haven’t been mugged by reality or hurt by the exorbitant taxes they pay. Good news is the leading mayoral candidate in our city (San Diego) is a gay Republican. Identity politics trumps ideology! I bet they vote for him.
I love it!
I never expected PJ Media and other conservative sites to change minds in any meaningful epiphanal or Gestaltian way. As Mr. Simon says, liberals drink at the fountains of liberalism, and conservatives at conservative sources.
However, while unfortunate, I don’t see it as any form of failure. What we get from PJ Media and others, is a discussion of events and ideas presented in a non-hostile, conservative environment relatively free of liberal “noise” (as opposed to thoughtful rebuttal, something impossible in the MSM).
This allows us to pool our collective intelligence to look at the strengths and weaknesses of both our arguments on an issue and those presented by the liberal media. We don’t really need counterarguments presented here. As opposed to insular Kossacks or HuffPosters, who have to make an effort to hear anything meaningful which challenges their viewpoint, conservatives are hard pressed to NOT get the liberal view. By osmosis, we get the liberal view from casual exposure to TV, internet, movies, education, etc., whether we want to hear them or not. And they are always presented uncritically or with weak opposition.
Another thing that full-fledged conservative sites provide is perhaps the only alternative arguments for the “hot button” issues Mr. Simon referred to, such as abortion, affirmative action, gay marriage, etc. Many people, including conservatives, are cowed by the repression of these subjects by the MSM. They may simply be going along with the liberal position out of fear of being labeled a neo-nazi or idiot by the liberal establishment. By being able to engage in discussion on these subjects in a less hostile forum, a person who’s being swayed by social factors may have the opportunity to make decisions based on reason, not emotion.
No need for navel-gazing at this point. There’s still a lot that can be accomplished by preaching to the choir.
What he said.
I wholeheartedly agree with Tom T.
Good comment. And you are right that conservatives are exposed to leftist arguments all the time, without having to look, unlike leftists who can stay in the cacoon forever if they wish. I always considered that an advantage to the right, since we are constantly aware how our arguments can be countered or distorted, it makes us more careful. but leftists, never hearing any counter to their arguments, tend to get careless and complacent, and then get blindsided, like in the Obamacare court case. A good example was that dems were shocked when they lost in 2004 and 2008, while most repubs were well aware that they were in trouble in 2006 and 2008.
Another value here. Conservatism is not uniform. There is still ongoing tension between traditional conservatives and libertarian conservatives. This site gives us a chance to have that argument without being distracted by inane leftists, or making them aware of these differences.
Another value, we can practice arguments here that we can then use in other forums where leftists will be present, and we can make those arguments without being banned from the forum.
If I was a leftist, I would want to go here to hone my arguments, since if they can survive here they must be strong. And unlike leftist forums I doubt that any moderator here would ban an otherwise civil leftist, merely for being a leftist, unlike what routinely happens to respectful conservatives in leftist forums.
I agree that science education and thinking in terms of real world facts are essential to breaking through the Left-Right stalemate. I have many blogs on education reform, and here is the link to most of them: http://clarespark.com/2012/05/03/index-to-blogs-on-education-reform/. But the science question is a culture war problem, and I take issue with both “sides” in this titanic debate here: http://clarespark.com/2010/01/02/jottings-on-the-culture-wars-both-sides-are-wrong/. Highly recommended for an original view of the fight that Roger Simon addresses. In my view, the entire problem needs to be reconfigured. Are we enlightened, or are we doing some kind of parody of enlightenment?
Somebody forgot to talk about “Kindness To Animals”! We worry about everything else in this “Vast Right Wing” universe!
Its all in messaging. The left appeals to emotional social responses. “We want to help the poor” If you don’t agree with their social policies, you hate poor people. These messages are crammed down everyones throats until it becomes the lefts social dogma. Those who question these ideas are smeared relentlessly, many somewhat reasonable people on the left are afraid to look deeper because if they try to quote Breitbart, or Jonah Goldberg, they are immediately falsely invalidated by the left’s smear machine. To this day I have liberal friends who still believe that Andrew Breitbart selectively edited that video with Shirley Sherrod, so when you bring up any point using him as a reference, they immediately close down and ignore what you say. Most run of the mill liberals are not completely unreasonable, they are just ill informed. The Left has controlled the message for so long, that trying to break through that wall of messaging is like storming the gates of Troy. The fact is though, tat slowly but surely, the truth is getting out. More and more the MSM is being forced to confront their own bias, and lies. Its not something that happens over night, its going to be a process of slowly ingraining ourselves into the culture. The Left didnt take over culture all at once. It was a process. The good thing is that the right is picking up on this game and is starting to push back. Look at where we are compared to where we were 10 years ago. The world is different. The best sign of this is how much more shrill and angry the left has become.
When they had control of the media, education, and film industry everything was much lighter. The messages were subtle. Now as they see their influence waning, they have become much more bitter and agressive. They see their strangle hold weakening, and are becoming desperate. This is good. The more shrill and hateful they become, the more they alienate themselves from the masses, and the more people will start reading PJM, The DC, and Breitbart. We need to keep pushing, keep filling in the blanks and creating our own spaces. It may not seem like it, but I think we are slowly winning this war. The thrashing and fighting by the MSM and the Hollywood Elites is proof positive we are doing the right thing.
I agree with Jacob. It’s unfortunate that it seems more of an incessant Left vs. Right battle instead of “Can’t we all just get along?” But PJ Media’s greatest service is to act as a counter-balance to a Lefty press that seems more interested in propaganda than truth (fact). When Nancy Pelosi says “unemployment creates jobs”, when Obama says “we have to spend more to get out of debt” and the press doesn’t bat an eye, PJ has to set up and cry “b.s!”. If anything, I’d like to see you get more adversarial — with cameras — and keep hounding these people after they make such outrageous statements instead of letting things die. And who are these “reporters” and “editors” on the Left who aren’t doing their jobs, questioning everything? Why are they sanctioning the insanity? Get in their faces and ask them to defend themselves.
I used to sit on the sidelines with all the other bobbleheads. Then Pelosi made her famous “pass this bill” statement, and I realized I had been asleep too long, and that there was a real effort on the Left to stifle the freedoms our Founders gave with their brilliant documents, and to “transform” the greatest economic and political system ever devised into something out of “1984″. So I started viewing the opinions on this site to educate myself (which, again, the press is supposed to do).
Sorry, Roger, not the response you were looking for. I vote for more adversary, not less.
“Most run of the mill liberals are not completely unreasonable, they are just ill informed. The Left has controlled the message for so long, that trying to break through that wall of messaging is like storming the gates of Troy.”
Yes, the “enemy” is the Media. The MSM. (And the Schools and Universities.)
The Media is what Breitbart focused on … and he did a spectacular job of it, bless his soul. And he used their own tactics against them, jiu jitsu style. He Alinsky’d them right back. It was good. That must be continued.
I don’t know what can be done about the Schools and Universities … unless more conservative kids want to become teachers and professors … and then it will take many years to change things.
What can be done about the schools is: have lots of kids and send them to conservative schools. The two oldest of my eight are majoring in economics at George Mason. We’ve also spent the time making sure our kids understand the issues of our time. When they get to high school, we not only expect them to keep their traditional values, but also to defend their ideas against everyone else there.
So I guess that’s one answer, Roger: demographics.
High school classes in Personal Finance and Econ 101 — very basic of course — would probably create a generation of Republican voters overnight.
Maybe volunteer to start teaching them as high school electives or summer courses.
I hate to break it to you, but our son’s Econ class (in a top 12 public H.S. in the L.A. area) included watching anti-WalMart propaganda films.
Jim,
If you raised him right, he spoke up.
She’s absolutely right.
As far as what PM can do — well, cover the schools more. I speak to a lot of groups, and the message that resonates most but is grasped least is what’s happening to kids in schools — the spread of emotional coercion disguised as education or “empathy” programming.
And take the threat of the Left even more seriously. These folks don’t want to debate. They take over civic and political institutions. That is a modus operandi.
Regarding the schools, parents need to be more involved. Find out who’s teaching the kids, where they stand politically (not hard to do without violating “rights”). I had Spanish teachers in high school who would take class time to rail against the U.S. and capitalism while gladly taking their paychecks. And if you disagreed with them, you’d get an “F” for the day. Amazing I got through it all. What in hell were they doing preaching politics in a language class? Maybe cameras are needed. Maybe teach the kids to be alert to these antics, and report it. Maybe we need to get the government out of the education business altogether.
Kids need to learn that conservatism is the ultimate anti-establishment philosophy. Voting for the left is voting for the establishment and everything it embodies: coercion, abuse of rights, exploitation of minorities and the oppressed, and so forth.
If we could help them understand that we would go far in helping the next generation to correct the abuses of the previous ones. They’re ready and willing to stand up to authority. Give them some intellectual ammo and watch as they shoot down their teachers’ shallow arguments.
So, maybe a spin-off website aimed at teens and 20-somethings if you can pull it off. Catching their attention has always been the hard part.
The liberals love the “all or nothing” gotcha argument. For a group so committed to “gray” in personal behavior, when it comes to politics it’s “black or white”.
If you oppose affirmative action, you want Blacks as slaves; if you oppose gay marriage, you want to beat up gays; if you want welfare reform, you want people living on the streets; if you want Medicare reform, you want to kill off granny; if you oppose Obamacare, you want people to have no healthcare. The list goes on…
And Limbaugh and Hannity fall right into that trap. They refer to the unconstitutional national socialist Obummercare as “Healthcare” or simply “Health”. And the thinking on the left is that if we don’t have that specific piece of law, people don’t have healthcare, indeed, that without it we’ll all fall ill the next day and die a horrible lingering death.
They refer to income extortion as “progressive income tax”, when it’s really regressive — penalizing as it does most the people who give more people more of what they “neeeeed” and want (i.e. those with the highest incomes), and thus causing politico-economic regression back to the days when thuggery was the rule before the USA was founded.
Jacob: Very insightful and accurate. You have managed to articulate what many are seeing happening but which some, like myself would not have been able to elucidate so clearly. (It is a God-given gift.)
Yes, I see the left begrudgingly being forced to defend their twisted ideologies and subjective rants about the “rights” of every pervert and criminal in society.
At one time no one dared challenge their vicious tirades and convenient labelling of any one who disagreed with them, but society is tiring of the bullying and manipulation.
Give ‘em all the “Alinsky treatment”…mercilessly mock their beliefs and throw facts at them at the same time…whether it be “global warming”…”green energy”….Obamacare….more and more deficit spending and so called Federal “job creation”…if we can treat their entire belief paradigm ad preposterous…which it is..and treat it as such…and make them see that…then we have a shot at converting them…but always know at least 10% more than they do…which should be comparatively easy given how fundamentally ignorant most of them are anyway
Commission patriotic art, music, literature.
Patriotic kids literature to counteract Occupista teachers in LAUSD.
Make a movie about medal of honor winner, Michael Patrick Murphy. I have purchased copies of the book and taken them to HS libraries — in particlar Catholic High Schools because Murphy was a practicing Catholic.
Forget about committed leftists.
We need to focus on the large group of apolitical folks who just believe what “they” say.
And to be honest, PJMedia’s role is to support its readers as they reach out to their neighbors – by giving us clear, entertaining, well-reasoned pieces we can link to friends after their brains have been cracked open.
So: How do readers prepare the ground for a link to PJMedia?
We do this by exposing, challenging, and critiquing the techniques of politically correct manipulation that are deployed. This involves maintaining a running meta-commentary about any conversation/media exposure we share with uncommitted friends.
Typical meta-commentary statements:
“You/he did not answer my question about actual evidence – instead you/he shifted the conversation to the emotional plane. Do you think that we should decide public policy based on emotional pleading? What about the feelings of those on the other side of the issue?”
“While you/she claim to support diversity, you are implying any disagreement with politically correct opinion is unacceptable. So you are intolerant towards the majority opinion.”
“You/he claim special treatment because you’re a victim – but that refers to a static, politicized list of special interest groups, not to any real suffering by you. And the rest of us certainly have done nothing to you – you/she urge us to feel guilty as part of a political manipulation.”
“You/she use the popularity of the politically correct opinion to promote that opinion. But media repetition doesn’t make something true, or moral – and it’s not how we decide things in America.”
- – - – - – - – - – - – -
Notice that these statements are PRIMARILY directed NOT at the leftie source you’re arguing with – but to the apolitical Sheeple who are listening, trying to decide which opinion is “safe”.
Notice also that it doesn’t really involve defense of any position – which prevents you from being labeled as a “chauvinist” or “hater”. You can even say something like:
“I’m less concerned with the issue than I am with how the public debate is being distorted. You’d be surprised at how nuanced my opinion can be – but political correctness is shutting down open discussion.”
This running commentary will get some of these people to question what they are being told. You can then send them relevant items from PJMedia.
I find that Klavan and Whittle are excellent in addressing the “how do we decide things in America?” issue – which cuts to the core of PC manipulation.
Except for the contemptuous use of the term “sheeple,” I agree with this. Committed leftists are not and should not be the targets of efforts to persuade. It’s at the margins where progress is made.
It is also true that he who sets the terms and vocabulary of debate has an advantage in the debate. E.g., one can debate the issue of racism in terms of “racial justice versus injustice,” or one can debate it in terms of “individualism versus collectivism.” To the extent PJM and other alternative media can help set the debate terms, that’s a good thing.
Yeah, contempt doesn’t go over well when you’re trying to talk to people who disagree. You let them be the nasty ones, keep responding politely. If someone engages in a civil discussion, go with that person (ignoring the others) until he can’t resist the “slam”. Then say something like “I’ve been enjoying this discussion; I’m going to look into your point about ancient Northern European vs Greek same-sex relationships (pulled-out-of-orifice example). But when you respond to my comment with snark, it tells me you don’t have a real argument against the data indicating that kids in same-sex relationships are statistically more likely to have poor outcomes than traditional marriages.”
I think you’re missing the point, however, Roger. You don’t need to present all points of view, and I seriously doubt you’re only preaching the to choir. I see advertising for liberal causes on the ads that run next to your articles all the time on here. Just now I saw one calling on me to counter Scott Walker’s out of state millions by sending the Unions in whichever dairy state it is some money. I’ve seen ads for Alan Grayson, even Obama. My guess is this site gets considerable traffic from lefties; they just don’t believe anything they read here, because they know *their* facts are better than ours. When they want to read something they agree with, they go to Daily Kos or HuffPo.
I’d take a page out of Rush’s playbook: “I don’t need equal time; I *am* equal time!” and leave it at that. Just do what you do, be honest about it, have debates (gay marriage is a good one, frankly, and I’ve admired the way the site has stood aside and not taken an editorial stance on the issue, near as I can tell), and let the chips fall where they may.
You’re doing fine.
Don’t avoid the gray areas where the messaging (cf. #2 Jacob) is an easier argument for the opposition. Confront those arguments, and don’t be defensive or ignore the difficulty of the problems. Consider the Tragedy of the Commons: conservation and conservative both have the same linguistic root. How is it not conservative to want to preserve a human-friendly environment? (It is.) But is the answer to create a bureaucracy and a morass of unenforceable laws, or to find a simple, enforceable solution? Consider Parkinson’s Law: the more government bureaucracy metastasizes, the less effective it becomes at intruding into our lives, except for the part where it taxes us to death. Consider the way the tax code and government regulations favor established, big business and stifle innovation and entrepreneurship: whose idea is “too big to fail,” and how can creative destruction be made more palatable?
Porkov, I agree with your viewpoint, but please excuse my ignorance of Parkinson’s Law. I will definitely look it up, as it so precisely sums up government bureaucracy. Another point that I would like to add is a small lesson I learned in training for a job I used to do, and that is, do not point out something that is wrong without having a suggestion of how to fix it. I try and apply that principal to most things. If I don’t have a suggestion, it usually means I’m not that well versed in the problem. I think a good grasp of history would help the debate tremendously and pointing out that we have a long history to point to in the implementation of Leftist ideology, which is tyrannical to its core, might have some impact. You seem to have something to offer in that respect.
“What we have here is a failure to communicate!”
There is no reaching the hardcore Liberal/Leftist. Anyone who can equate OWS with the TEA Party is either brainwashed to the point of stupidity or a hardcore activist.
What we need to reach is what I call the “squishy middle”. The so called “independent voters” who constantly swing elections. With a little bit of common sense and a few facts, they can be swayed to consider our argument.
As for dealing with the Left, there is only the Ann Coulter, Andrew Breitbart, “Rules for Radical Conservatives” way. Hit back, hard and often. Don’t let their narrative remain unchallenged. Call them on the actual history of their movement and the millions of dead it has brought. Weather it is the millions of Africans killed by disintrest and the DDT ban or the 100 million+ victims of National Socialism and Communism, don’t let them have a free ride! Call them out on the “selective outrage” that is the media machine, most recently unleashed on George Zimmerman. Remind them of Contessa Brewer, and the black man with a rifle in Phoenix. Or Katie Couric and Mayor Bloomberg discussing the Times Square bomber as “someone against healthcare” rather than the Islamist terrorist it turned out to be. Don’t be afraid to be called “racist”, “bigotted”, and other such throw away names. Remind them of their failures in their policy towards Blacks! Remind them of the KKK/Democrat connections, Robert Byrd and the rest. Remind them of Jim Crow, Wallace, and the rest of the Democrats who fought against civil rights. Don’t let them pawn off the OWS madness as “a few bad apples”. Give them nothing! They have NOTHING on which to stand but their assertions and half truths.
PJM columnists would be more effective if they eschew the “He said. She said.” aspects of political maneuvering and, instead, analyze the basic policy differences by showing what the data say. Be more empirical.
John Lott’s work on crime rates in relation to expansive gun laws is a good example of the kind of presentation that PJM could use more of. David Goldman’s data-driven columns is another example.
The left has been attempting to peel off conservatives by blaming the financial establishment for the current economic collapse. They attribute the financial world’s freewheeling, anything-goes philosophy to lack of appropriate regulation, inappropriate deregulation, and an extreme free-market — that is, conservative — ideology.
The right can peel off liberals by going after the academic bubble, which is shot-through and through with extreme unworkable left-wingism. This academic establishment has misled their graduates about the worth of a college education in non-STEM disciplines. Graduates know that to get their degrees they were forced to collaborate with a silly and nasty point of view — an extremely liberal point of view — that awarded honors and grades on an affirmative action basis rather than strictly by merit. Instead of being welcomed into the life of the mind, students were forced to survive in classrooms used to indoctrinate and politicize. Graduates also know that getting their college credentials has not really taught them anything useful or real, in fact not taught them much of anything at all.
Much of extreme leftwing political thought is based on a reaction to abusive authority, a reaction which all too easily morphs into an attack on all authority — good, bad, or indifferent. There are few types of authority more absolute than that of a tenured professor in the classroom. Conservatives should launch a long series of campaign-type commercials against these campus tyrants, revealing how they abuse their power and stamp out independent thinking. Show how these left-wingers would be at a loss in real-world jobs outside the university and how they despise skills that would be useful outside the classroom. These left-wingers have in effect spent their entire adult lives in school (Hey, there’s a slogan) and deep inside despise themselves for being afraid to graduate. Show just how childish they and their politics really are.
“This academic establishment has misled their graduates about the worth of a college education in non-STEM disciplines.”
And both left and right pols and academic execs have actively worked to undermine our US citizen STEM grads and their careers… and at the same time misled students and new grads about the worth of their university education in STEM fields.
http://www.kermitrose.com/econSummaryAnalysis.html#Media
Liberal education (in the classical sense — English, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, maybe a smidgeon of French or Italian, literature, math, arts, philosophy, scientific method) has a lot of worth, which is why the left worked so hard to sabotage and eliminate it (e.g. deconstructionism).
It took the left about 70 years to pervert our university and then K-12 education systems. Correcting it would take 2 decades if we had the back-bone for all-out reform. (Notice that: We reform. They pervert.)
You make an important point in speaking about abandoning conspicuous displays of political buzzwords. Growing up, I saw science fiction was a persuasive way to blindside people into thinking against their own obvious self-interest and breaking the perceptual trap. It’s a perfect way to depict a compassionate view of an ‘other.’
Film in general can do that but SF film is better. Either way, you take a subject, disguise it, and make an argument. In 1953, a year before Brown vs. Board of Education, 3 years before New York house deeds were racially set right, E.C. Comics had an SF story the publisher Gaines fought to get published. A future galaxy has member planets like the U.N. One is a planet of robots, orange and blue, that wants membership. A human in a spacesuit comes and inspects their civilization, and notices the blues discriminate against the orange and discovers they are identical inside, only the shell is different. At the end of the story the human tell this planet they are not ready to join the galactic U.N., takes off his helmet and in the final panel it is shown he is black.
Powerful stuff back then – even a hardened KKK guy would’ve hand his head turned, his emotions and views manipulated. A famous Star Trek TV episode is another example, with Frank Gorshin playing one of two aliens that hate each other with black/white faces, but one has black on the left, the other on the right. People get pulled in and sucker punched.
SF is a powerful tool for changing perceptions – that’s why I lament the passing of more nuanced stories for straight adventure. But even regular films regularly do the same thing. Think of “Dog Day Afternoon.” Simply concentrating on a POV, even a bad guy’s, evokes sympathy.
Think of “Casablanca.” Those were really savvy screenwriters in those days. Had they chosen to, they could’ve made Rick look bad and the Nazis good. So we’re talking about a tool that, if used wrongly, is nothing more than propaganda, rather than perception challenging politically neutral fables like The Fox and the Grapes.
I recently finished a short SF novel. In it, in order to drive home a point, I depict as background, the notion of Western exceptionalism being a golden goose near death from immigration. America is reduced to Tower of Babel status. Two empires step into South America and hand a distracted and once protective America a fait accompli – a non-aggression, non-interference pact, and split South America between them as a Mandate. This is just the background.
I depict four polities in the novel. They are equally depraved, oppressive, without votes or rights. But again, in order to make a point, I choose two, pit them against the other two, and by concentrating on them, they automatically become the “good guys.” I throw in some comedy relief and suddenly your cheering for Oceania in a sense. The novel is a manipulation, and a particularly blase one hidden in a cartoonish, stereotyped plot and James Bond type adventure.
However you’re also talking about a business model here – and it’s true, Fox, Limbaugh, MSNBC – they’re not ideologues – they’re businesses, the logical inheritors of the conspicuous fracturing that occurred in American TV with Morton Downey, Jr., Jerry Springer and Geraldo and early Oprah, where conflicts were manufactured – why wait for news when you can make it?
The Trayvon Martin case is an excellent example: how many news platforms loved this and saw money in the bank and perhaps even pushed for more controversy by publishing inflammatory nonsense? The conspicuous silence from the Left recently on this issue shows they know they went too far, and exposed themselves, badly. NBC in particular risked their own credibility. The Left didn’t shut up because Zimmerman was arrested, they shut up because they were exposed as, not only liars and frauds, but conspicuous and ardent ones. In my opinion, it’ll be years before the NBA Players Assoc. lives down their up front and racist press release on the matter.
Shows like Will and Grace show perceptions can be altered, slippery slopes achieved, it just a matter how one wants to manipulate this reality. 12 year old’s didn’t mimic sex at the half-time of high school basketball games in 1960, now they do. The question is, how did we get here from there. In “Solyent Green, Edgar G. Robinson’s character literally says “How did we come to this” as he cries over once taken for granted and common steak and vegetables – a powerful, powerful moment that makes people think.
So, you don’t have to worry about disturbing people with opposing views – disguise those views and frame them as entertainment, and think about the bewildered and frightened alien and the overly aggressive and evil Sigourney Weaver. It’s a sucker punch.
This is very true. The beauty of fiction is that you can drop the labels and buzzwords, and focus on the ideas. This was something that the left in hollywood had mastered. They used to be verys subtle in how they projected the themes and messages into the movies. Recently though the messaging has become in your face and shrill. There is no more subtlety. It’s not a sucker punch anymore, its a full on haymaker from left field. It’s annoying because it ruins the movie experience, but the thing about haymakers is that you can see them coming a mile away.
The problem with alot of the “Conservative” artists, musicians, films is that they are equally in your face. You dont have to be a Conservative band, just a band full of conservatives. That way the message isn’t forced. The same goes for all cultural arts. The movie needs to be fun and engaging, the theme subtle. I don’t go to movies to be informed, I go to be entertained.
Changing the liberal’s perspective to a conservative view of reality will be easily accomplished once we elect a highly successful, openly and proudly identified conservative to the presidency. Right? No, wrong.
After eight years of the Reagan presidency did we get significant converts to the cause? No. After eight years of a 180 degree turn from the disaster of the Jimmy Carter presidency what was the reward America’s most conservative president received? Answer…. the visceral hate of the media, academia, and most of the political class as well as Democrat drones everywhere. Even his successors in his own party could at best only become lukewarm advocates for the conservative cause.
With that in mind, I am quite skeptical of your well-intended reach for the minds of liberals through books, films, and other art forms. That will take eons and the fact is we may only have months. PJM can do its part by helping shape conservatives into an informed and thereby confident army that shows up at the polls and beats the boneheaded bastards in election after election until they simply dry up.
I agree that it will take time. I’m also not interested in putting forth an agenda that strays far from the fact that fire is hot and water wet. I myself have more interest in blind-siding people with art in ways that addresses the tools of perception and self-criticism and not what one should perceive.
I am interested when Frank Herbert writes, “Be prepared to appreciate what you meet,” rather than what it is that is met.
I am more interested in Plotinus wrote in Alexandria over 2,000 years ago, “To any vision must be brought an eye adapted to what is to be seen,” rather than what it is that is seen.
Yes, it’ll be a long road back, but it’s the only way. I just pray a tipping point hasn’t already been reached that will make it impossible to re-cross this bridge.
For my part, I believe the Left has failed to retain tools that allow for context, proportion, self-criticism, and the simple ability to know when you like something as opposed to when something is good. The first is natural, but not good when voting by skin color or speech rhythms, the second is a long perspective.
A link, please, to the novel you’ve completed.
It’s unpublished. And, I’m not a writer. Chances that it stinx – high. So no loss to the world. I’ll probably put it on Amazon at the end of the year. They don’t care if novels stink.
Well, if you’d like some free editing or proof-reading, e-mail me: deadmanturner at yahoo dot com.
You write well. Can you tell a story? Roger knows about this. And Klavan. And others here. That’s what I like about PJ Media. Good stuff.
To be honest, it’s a 55,000 word novel I wrote in 3 weeks in direct response to an article about SF at PJM some time back about the “Human Wave” and “grey goo.”
The people there insulted me with name calling because they felt I spoke rather more authoritatively than I should about that odious and overrated novel, “Ender’s Game,” among other things. I wrote it from frustration and joy.
My own feeling afterwards was that complaining about the entire system of publishing as being at fault for not recognizing their genius rather than taking a hard look at their own writing style was not the Conservative and Libertarian ground they claimed, but a distinctly Liberal one.
So, I said to myself, hell, I can write a better novel than these people can. All they write about on their blogs is about evil publishers and the giveaway to me was that they almost never wrote about the art of it and creativity. You can be the best grammarian that ever was, or outline the hell out of a novel – without artistry it’ll be crap.
There’s another kind of “grey goo,” the kind where a 5 line conversation is endlessly interrupted and extended by the character extemporizing and explaining all the magic spells and having cool descriptions at the exact same time like “the wall was streaked like sad eels that reminded me of the time…” endlessly.
That means that when nothing is happening I’m bored but even when something is happening I’m bored and that we have a lot of 85,000 word short stories. So I wrote something that I felt at least has the virtue of being intellectually and artistically honest, and is stripped down to the bare essentials. I ran the risk of having shallow characters that was thought about by Dickens when he wrote “A Tale of Two Cities.”
In an afterwords to Dickens, Edgar Johnson wrote in 1962 about Tale, “Dickens was essaying another sort of novel: one as he himself explained, whose characters should be express by the action, ‘more than they should express themselves, by dialogue,’ or introspection.
Bronte, Heinlein and Wharton can get away with grey goo writing, they’re great writers, their seeming dithering is in fact not time wasting but essential – I recommend “The Age of Innocence” in this regard – most people can’t do this or mistake the dithering as padding, and they should stop trying. So, I have two women who are main characters, they are related but I don’t say how, you know nothing about their past, parents, nothing, other than what they say and where they are, and it’s plenty. Believe me you’ll know enough about them.
I wrote what I consider an actual Conservative novel at its core and not one dependent on men in armor suits as if “Starship Troopers” is the be-all and end-all of the genre or of frickin’ military mercenaries – I think the Conservative world is just slightly more nuanced than that. It’s funny, stupid, depraved, vulgar, silly, stereotypical to play off that, and somewhat violent but not graphically. I’m quite proud of the work artistically but not being a writer the chance that it in fact stinx – high.
But yeah, it’s a PJM inspired work in essence as far as why it was created. But not the inside.
Okay, here’s an early draft. I welcome any suggestions as regards clarity, pacing, anything.
You’ve been warned about the stinx factor.
http://www.jamesmaystock.com/BritetownRaces/BritetownRaces.html
I am going to read that and give you feedback, but I don’t know just when. Heads up: my own personal tastes in SF run more to the S than the F, but it can be abstract as well as concretely physical stuff (I am task oriented rather than people oriented); and, if I am constrained I tend to concentrate my criticism on what is wrong rather than what is right, hopefully constructively, since I take the view that you already know what you are doing with what is right – but that can be discouragingly negative for some people (it’s no way to mentor beginners, for instance – that needs to be sandwiched with at least a little deserved praise).
Where is Archie Bunker when you need him? Comedy is especially effective, no matter the medium. It helps mightily if you can look at your own views with a sense of humor. There used to be something universal in the American character where no cow was sacred. I’m not all that sure that the cure, political correctness, isn’t worse than the disease. Aren’t we better off when pompous windbags of all persuasions get deflated now and then?
Absolutely right — and it would be SO EASY to do an “all-in-the-family” style takedown of the left. Meathead is now Archie — he’s the pluperfect liberal, but his daughter comes home with a black fiance from college. Fine, Meathead’s liberal, after all, and this will give him a chance to show it more than ever! But it turns out he’s not only black but conservative! Challenges everything Meathead believes, with a smile on his face as he watches Meathead squirm. How much of an opportunity for comedy is that?
The non-left definitely needs to stake out more turf in entertainment, the media and academe.
Be sure and read ‘Wyst’ by Jack Vance – great conservative sci-fi!
I’ve read every thing by Vance multiple times – he’s top of the list.
For that matter, read anything by Tom Kratman, David Weber, or John Ringo (or most anyone else at Baen Publishing). They write hard-core Science Fiction, but it’s written from a conservative point of view. All have written good novels that vividly describe the possible implications of a Progressive victory. (“Caliphate”, the “Armageddon Reef” series, and the “Posleen” series, respectively).
I got “Caliphate” a couple of hours ago on your recommendation. It’s funny cuz when I started reading it is is like the America and Europe in my novel, though I have that completely off stage and fuzzy to the point one only knows that Europe and America have so many internal problems due to migrations that they are basically fallen into themselves, semi-conquered and colonized from within through factional views of the law turned against the greater good approach and strictly applied by ethnic identity – Babel Wars using votes and the bureacracy to back it up, but going down financially and socially. Tech has moved backwards or stood still in many areas except for exceptionalist enclaves I call the Ameragains and Britagains.
Mine takes place on the coast of South America and a little on the Moon and a gigantic geosynchronous artificial habitat.
I think another reason that new media is gaining more traction is that we are no longer being put on defense. It used to be a constant battle of defending ourselves from baseless attacks from the left. With New Media, we can go on the attack, and I mean that not in an agressive way, but in that the free flow of information allows us to be better informed in the war of ideas, and deflect baseless arguments. This allows us to better keep on message, and the message is what matters.
Another area that Conservative/libertarians need to be more active in is education. We need a larger presense in schools and colleges. I think one of the reasons that we have failed in that regard, is that conservatives tend to value actual work (no offense to educators) alot of conservatives would rather be Doing the job than Teaching the job. That leaves The Left a huge opening with which to indoctrinate future generations. This has had a huge detrimental effect on American society as a whole. Once again though, I see Conservative/Libertarians are starting to get the memo and take an interest in teaching. We as a society have gotten complacent and allowed the radical left to implant themselves in the most important areas of our society Education, Journalism, and Culture. Its going to be an uphill battle to take that ground back, but we know what we are fighting against, and most importantly, what we are fighting for.
Trick is to give people on the other side who wouldn’t ordinarily come to the site a reason to do so. They’re not going to click on PJM because they want to know what we’re thinking. They don’t care. But they might stop by if they think their world view is being given fair exposure on a right-of-center site
So, feature dialogues between heavyweights from both sides. Adams vs. Conyers on Holder’s DoJ; VDH vs. Ornstein on dysfunction in Washington; Ledeen vs. Friedman on foreign policy; Moulitsas and Simon on anything.
The hard part would be to get anybody on the left to go back and forth with VDH, say.
Amen! Where is the next Firing Line, and where is the next William F. Buckley?
How about something like the Russian word lady that comes on O’Reilly from time to time?
Have a debate with Salon.com. I think they’re comparably-sized, left of center, and cover the same blend of politics and culture as PJM. Advertise the heck out of it, then have your best and their best write a series of articles on, say, five agreed-upon topics, each topic with opening statements and a fixed number of rebuttals. One day per article, one week per issue, a month and a half or so of mature debate.
“Should we engage liberals in respectful discussion?”
Calling them “liberals” is your first mistake.
Assuming that most ObamaBots will respond to REASON is – ahem – well, *now* I’m embarrassed FOR you.
You could always try 6 months of the “he’s inevitable” jib jab on the liberals that you foisted on us.
Forgetaboutit. Having attempted rational discussion with various and sundry ‘friends’ and family members, I now realize how impossible it is to have a conversation with liberals. The initial reaction often is name calling; X is a moron, Y is an imbecile, Z is a racist, etc. Ignoring the ad hominem attacks, and presenting arguements usually results in being told that I am spouting the party line. All of this is usually accompanied by a certain smugness. And so I do not waste my time engaging leberals anymore. Better to motivate the choir to get out the vote and throw the bastards out.
“Oh, gosh, ever since Herman Cain got Borked, I’ve started retroactively not believing what Anita Hill said, so I don’t really trust this latest bit” if it’s one of those.
Or “Goodness, I’m going to have to go to Confession for all this Schadefreude; that Sarah Palin just lives in people’s heads, rent-free, and it’s kind of fun to watch their heads explode with PDS or KDS (Koch). I’m so glad you aren’t like that.”
There must be a relentless search for truth and justice, as revealed to man by God. With this as the goal, why should anyone attach any credence to the arguments of liars and thieves? I do not want to give “equal time” to Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or any of their acolytes. Doing so makes me complicit in their atrocities. Let those who seek sympathy for such things go to their own corner of the world. I come to places like PJMedia because it gives me hope that EVERYONE in the world isn’t a stupid ass!
Well spoken, blackelkspeaks!
Ridicule of the ridiculous statements and positions of the left is effective. The whole Fauxcahontas discussion is a fine example that is now pretty much in the mainstream.
Take a leaf from the successful Republicans in blue states – think Chris Christie in New Jersey: straight talk and treat Americans as adults. Don’t be afraid to tell people hard truths and give them the honest alternatives and risks of both sides courses of action.
Focus on issues where common ground is possible. Fiscal, and to a lesser extent defense, issues affect everyone. Social issues persuasion to be successful has to be on an individual, lived behavior, level.
Do not concede the moral high ground. GW Bush tried this with his ‘compassionate conservatism’ – a notion which resonated even if the execution was botched and meant just more spending. Look carefully at the arguments in Haidt’s new book The Righteous Mind and its implications. Emphasize the superiority of local administration (and funding?) of charitable support of the deserving poor by the people close enough to the situation to know who is a proper object of our help. Reinvigorate the idea of distinguishing between the deserving poor and those who do not behave responsibly.
Really, leftist ideas are lame, infantile and boring. Any series of articles that attempts to discuss leftists or their ideas ‘seriously and thoughtfully’ will therefore be lame and boring.
The only way to discuss leftist ideas without falling into that trap is to use mockery.
It would be better for people from PJ to go onto leftist sites – perhaps infiltrate them in some devious double-agent kind of way? – and leave PJ itself clear of that rubbish.
It’s the leftists who have never been exposed to conservative thought; they are the ones who need the exposure. We conservatives get leftism shoved in our faces every day.
Nothing like a good Fisking.
There is no need to appeal to liberals, lefties or loonies; appeal to reasonable people of all political shades with sound reasoning. A long time ago, when I still supported the Australian Labor Party, I subscribed to National Review because it featured good writing and challenging views, and because I already knew the left’s arguments.
Construct solid articles with coherent, logical arguments, and receptive readers will come.
I like to frequent the comment sections of college newspapers, to be honest. The opinions are almost always leftist in nature, but the kids are young and actually WANT a debate. It rarely devolves into name-calling, and I think you can still reach them with a well-reasoned, well-articulated argument.
Granted, you’re not reaching many. One of the reasons I like it is because there are few comments on the boards, so yours is more likely to be seen and read. But we’re talking about seed-planting, not mass-conversion, anyways.
I say Saul Alinsky them. Mock them endlessly. It works. Look how stupid and pathetic Liz Warren is under the blistering mocking of Fauxcahantas or Hokum-hantas. She will now have a hard time being taken seriously by the squishy middle full of nice, but muddleheaded people.
Madison Avenue is the answer. We need winning arguments that refute and lay open the foibles of Leftism. Catchy phrases and zing them to the core. And throw it back on the. Oh, how I miss Breitbart because he was a warrior. And make their ideas unpalatable. Mark Levin can make great arguments defending conservatism. Rush has his parody songs–which are not only entertaining, but informative and often mocking. But we have mush mouthed pansy waisted leaders who could not defend the obvious. It may be that our leaders really don’t believe in anything, which is why they have a hard time defending conservatism.
You mean like pointing out that Warren is less native American than Zimmerman is black, but who is white according to the Left? This is Leftsville, everything is interchangeable at will.
While it has been tried frequently in the past, today’s “progressive/liberal/Marxist/Fascist believes s/he and their ilk can succeed in establishing a Hobbsian utopia that works. The last time anyone came even close was during the era of divine right kings. That was the agrarian era with small merchants/artisans/tradesmen with everyone born into his/her station in life. No freedom, no liberty, very slow economic progress. Then, industrialization totally changed the outlook for individuals and rulers alike.
Locke wrote of the laws of nature and man, individual liberty, rule of man not rule by a man, and the war commenced. If you will, the genie was out of the bottle. Today’s progressives are desperate, trying to put it back in the bottle.
Perhaps we need our own “Super PAC” to move our message into the communication mainstream. If you decide to organize one, I, and I suspect many of these readers, will be more than happy to contribute.
But what is your mission at PJM? I thought/think it’s about ‘voices from a free America’. Not just in journalist’s writing, but in the reader comments. I like to come here to listen to those voices, to know that they still exist. If someone who doesn’t agree with most of those thoughts wants to listen in, fine with me, maybe a different thought might break through. But why can’t it be about a place that conservatives can come, work through ideas, and be at home?
You know the business side of what you do. Maybe you have to think about drawing more viewership and going forward from where you are–I don’t begrudge you. But I’d be sorry to see you head down that road.
“Should we engage liberals in respectful discussion?”
I’ve tried engaging my liberal friends and family in respectful discussion. I’ve been called a race traitor, defriended because I don’t like Obama, ridiculed, scoffed at, and ignored. The Left does not want respectful discussion, they want total obeisance.
At this time, preaching to the choir is the best we can do to bolster their faith in their beliefs because outsiders do not want to be converted. Outsiders will have to experience their philosophy through experience, which will not tell lies to assuage their sensitivities.
When you want to reach out to a new audience, start by analyzing that audience.
We can forget about trying to reach out to black people. Their entire history in America is based on support from the Federal Government, and they’re not going to want to hear any message in which that support does not play a major role. Especially not in a time when The First Black President ™ is in the White House.
As for nonblacks:
Polls have repeatedly shown that the biggest single determiner of party affiliation is religiosity. The more religiously devout you are, and the more often you attend church, the more likely you are to vote Republican.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124649/religious-intensity-remains-powerful-predictor-politics.aspx
Today, something like 40% of liberals self-identify as atheist or non-theist or agnostic. So if that’s the audience you’re trying to reach out to, you need to remember that ANY arguments that appear to be religiously based won’t sell them.
That basically means that social conservative positions on abortion and same-sex marriage (which are usually based on religion) are never going to sell them. Nor will a defense of American liberty based on God. The minute you mention God, or the Bible, or Christianity, their eyes instantly glaze over. So don’t. Remember that Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman didn’t need to base *their* arguments on religion.
What can work is to surprise them that we really do know our history. Most liberals think that we conservatives are ignorant. It surprises them that we know more about the history of liberalism and progressivism than they do.
And it’s important to remind them of all their good intentions that have led us to hell. The flap over Elizabeth Warren is a perfect example of a liberal policy (affirmative action in this case) that has led us to absurdity: A blonde, blue-eyed, obviously white woman claiming affirmative action privileges,just because she had *heard* that she had a Native American great-great-great-great grandmother.
I’ve noticed that today’s young liberals are unaware of how liberal policies in our major cities drove them to the brink of bankruptcy. They don’t know the history of Mayor Dennis Kucinich or Mayor John Lindsay. They don’t know why the movie “Death Wish” was so popular in 1974.
Argue history with liberals, and you’ll usually win.
Mention religion, and you’ll instantly lose.
Spot-on post but only one bone to pick. I think it has been a huge mistake on the part of the Republican Party & conservatives in general to dismiss the black community as not worth trying to reach out to. To a large degree, IMO, they don’t see how liberal policies don’t serve their interests because they are simply uninformed. Conservatives should strive to strip away their image of looking down their noses at blacks in general despite the fact that it would be a challenging, time-consuming endeavor. I would imagine that a grassroots-type approach might be the best way to go about it.
People join parties, parties don’t join them. I don’t think the NHL will be combing any black neighborhoods either.
I can’t think of any message that blacks would find attractive.
Blacks had a unique history in America in that their slavery and subsequent discrimination were codified into law. They could no more “stand on their own two feet” than Jews in Germany could stand on their own two feet after the Nuremberg Laws were passed.
Blacks must first rid themselves of their feelings of self-pity and victimization. They must realize that the past is OVER and what happens to them now is up to them. Anyone who wallows in self-pity is not going to be receptive to a message of individualism and self-reliance.
LOl I send my black friends Zo Nation videos, or Sowell- coming from a black these views cannot be instantly dismissed as RACIST- when I saw DEMS poo-poohing vouchers (which I was once against as well) I showed them the article that convinced me that it is especially black children who do not have access to good public schools who deserve to go to private schools chosen by their parents- children who can neither afford to wait for public schools to be “fixed’ (which may never happen) and they deserve the same rights as a person who can afford private tuition and if they desire the choice to have their child in faith based education.
I once used the same argument as they use on me- but it takes money out of public schools- and b/c I was once a liberal I understand and KNOW all their thinking and debate points- After 9-11 I was devastated and went online to hear other Americans views of what happened-I hated G Bush and used all the lib lines- one day a lady said to me- why do you hate GWB more than Osama- it was the day the lights began to go on for me- I stuck withthe chats of mostly conservs Having listened to conservs an studying history and learning real facts, I could no longer pretned not to see what was staring me in the face- OMG I though GW saw the Axis of Evil and was not wrong about it and damn if our own citizens were not even alarmed, but worse, making excuses and selling more of the same to our kids- The professional Israel hate industry forced me to wake up! however I agree it is like talking Chinese to Greeks, Lib/left progs simply refuse to even entertain any thoughts outside their programming, so throughly indoctrinated into the MYTH, they are unable as well as unwilling to seeor hear most of what I say. Instead I just got called names and/or ridiculed to the point I do not ever discuss politics any more in personal or worklife. I only post online under a psuedonym.
Learn from the Left’s success and use their same most effective weapon against them. Incessant and corrosive mockery, more than any other force, has made religion, authority and tradition “infantile, un-cool and ridiculous” in the eyes of the unthinking masses – who, above all, do not want to be thought of as the pea-brained suckers of conformity that they are, but as “shrewd and independant thinkers” ….without, of course, having to, you know, actually learn anything or think or advance an idea that may not be approved of by the group. The more we can get the meme into the general consciousness that all things “progressive” or “liberal” = “lame” “un-hip” and the antithesis of “sexy”, the more we will disarm them of their most powerful weapon, which is “social ostracism.”
But the problem of trying to figure out “how to have conversations” about principles and ideas with people who are not truly interested in those things is the least of our worries now. The more important thing is to re-win the ground ceded to fifty years of Alinskyite brainwashing of the culture – which itself was won not by argument, but by emotional appeal. You sell to the audience you have, to paraphrase the great Don Draper.
“Most run of the mill liberals are not completely unreasonable, they are just ill informed. The Left has controlled the message for so long, that trying to break through that wall of messaging is like storming the gates of Troy.”
Yes, the “enemy” is the Media. The MSM. (And the Schools and Universities.)
The Media is what Breitbart focused on … and he did a spectacular job of it, bless his soul. And he used their own tactics against them, jiu jitsu style. He Alinsky’d them right back. It was good. That must be continued.
I don’t know what can be done about the Schools and Universities … unless more conservative kids want to become teachers and professors … and then it will take many years to change things.
Thanks for posing a $64K dilemna. After years of trying to change a few minds of friends I consider intelligent, I’ve given up. They don’t vote for what they truly believe in, but instead they vote out of habit. In one instance in particular, a friend who has voted for 67 years without fail, voted for Obama and will do so again. At heart, she’s a conservative, but somewhere in her make-up is a tradition stronger than logic. I think we must begin by getting younger people to ignore party politics. It won’t be easy, and it will take time and vigorous effort. Maybe a third party would help. Hate and denigration of the opposition will not work. It hasn’t in the past, and will not in futire.
My thoughts, for what they’re worth.
The solution is simple, even if the execution complex. Take or threaten a position that the left cannot afford or has no wish to surrender, use their counterattack to advance the debate and public consciousness (win or lose), and don’t care about the damage you take.
Make them fight on ground of your choosing. Warp in, take the hill; fight, damage, and discredit; warp out and go do something else. Repeat until victory.
I’m in two minds. On the one hand, I think events over the next decade will put an end the Leftist domination of the discussion because the areas they’ve captured and held for so long (media, ever-bigger-government, ever-more regulatory intrusion) are simply going to collapse because they truly aren’t sustainable. Reality has this way of always breaking in.
On the other hand, I really believe in confronting them, Alinsky-style. And the most effective weapon in that line is ridicule. It’s hard to take seriously any “authority” you’ve had a good laugh at.
And keep the aim on young people, who are the future. But always remember they’ve been raised on irony as the default attitude and their historical perspective is extremely shallow.
The Left got where it is by the Long March Through the Institutions. We need patience. The entire structure the Left has built will not collapse in one election.
And for those who say Mitt’s too flexible — that’s no bug, that’s definitely a feature. But to use it, we need a congress (both houses) that’s reliably small-government conservative.
If it’s not mutually respectful, there’s no point.
Persons on the left side of the political spectrum have largely internalized the notion that anyone who doesn’t embrace left-liberal thinking, essentially without reservation, must be either stupid or evil. They are, in short, incapable of respecting political opponents; most of them aren’t even able to simulate respect. That makes it supremely difficult for us to treat them with respect.
This is the core of America’s political division. We’re no longer oriented toward “reasoning together;” we’re more like two armed camps that eye one another warily over the No-Man’s-Land of the ballot box. Until that state of hostilities is dissolved, mutual respect, and therefore respectful discussion, will be absent from our political discourse.
The above post #25 was supposed to be a reply to Jacob at #2.
I believe there is a sense of frustration about preaching to the choir or the converted however in spite of having all the right arguments, no one on the other side gives a damm. The truth is a casualty as a result with liberals but again they could care less. Morality, justice forget about it if they need to win an election. Conservatives have no one to give us a voice. How about the RNC? Anyone heard from them lately. Why do they NOT have a website that is functional that covers all aspects of our platform and lays out the intellectual arguments against liberalism and Obama? The reason is that these guys are really not on our side and could give a happy damm themselves about selling conservative ideas. All they want is the republican version of big government. So in conclusion, don’t worry be happy! Work on those you care about and let the rest go their own way. Our greatest hope is many ignorant liberals may ultimately discover these gems on their own and become truth zeolets! We can only hope and pray.
Of course the RNC has a functional website that includes the GOP stand on various issues:
http://www.gop.com
The cohort that most concerns me is that set of potential voters who should vote Republican and think conservatively but whose thinking and voting is distorted by class envy, paranoia, and populism, and in my experience this is a lot of working class America, both blue and white collar. Reagan was the last to do a good job of bringing that voter. Then they were called the Reagan Democrats, but to the extent they’re Democrats at all anymore, it is out of habit or heredity. They’re mostly independents, but they’re not the independent we usually think of and court. The suburban white collar “mushy middle” independent is almost the Holy Grail for Republican politicians, but the tradesman, the guy who owns a small construction company or auto repair shop and his family and friends are a valuable target constituency.
The Democrats have controlled that voter in ’06 and ’08 with a combination of a moral equivalence argument to cover for their own sins and a class envy/populism argument to co-opt this voter to think that anything a Democrat might do would be good for him. These are generally low information voters in the sense that they don’t hang on politics but they do have a general sense of events. They generally tar all political figures with the same brush, and it is an ugly, smelly brush; they really don’t like politicians at all but most importantly, they think they’re all the same, Democrat or Republican, and they’re all on the take. Unfortunately, in the leadup to the ’06 election we on the Republican side gave them ample evidence to back up the Democrat claims of the Republicans having a culture of corruption. The Democrats had half a century of almost untrammelled power and used it to make most of their corruption legal. If Randy Cunningham had been a Democrat, he’d have set up a bunch of non-profits and hired himself a really good accountant and using his Congressional power, he’d have just appropriated lots of money to those non-profits and had that good accountant make sure his share got deposited to the right account. He’d now be a multi-millionaire Democrat senator rather than a convicted felon. This is where the Democrat bias of the media hurts us most; the media never peeks under the Democrats’ skirts and they stay after Republicans like the hounds of Hell. What Breitbart did that was most valuable to our side is expose how venal and corrupt the Democrats actually are. The unions and non-profits are nothing more than extortion rings, yet they have a mantle of righteousness that the media constantly reinforces by going to them for comment on issues and giving them a validity that they in no sense deserve.
So, if PJM wishes to preach to someone other than the choir, it think going after the corruption and deviousness of Democrats and aiming at a working class/tradesman/small business audiences acceptance of the Democrats’ moral equivalence arguments is a profitable field. I don’t think this can be done by trying to get some guy who just pulled a twelve on some construction job to sit in front of his computer and read Mr. Adams’ latest excellent expose on the USDOJ, but it can be done by getting Republican Congressmen and senators to do so; only they can break through the media forcefield that exists to protect Democrats. Yes, it is useful to help we choirmembers with new information and arguments, but the the political tribes in America today are more segregated than a small Southern town in the ’50s ever pretended to be. I know just don’t go where there are lefties if I can help it. The audience PJM can do the most good with is Republican elected and appointed officials, many of whom in my experience have only the most nebulous ideas of why they are Republicans. Worse, they don’t know why the Democrats are Democrats. They still think they’re dealing with the Rotary Club and that guy on the other side of the aisle with a different opinion is just a friend waiting to be made. I did a class at a candidate school the other day about union interests and what to expect in their candidate screening; other than a couple who had run or held office before, the participants were clueless and utterly shocked by what I told them about their union “friends.” This is pervasive among Republicans. Governing is an unnatural act for most Republicans, and Democrats live and breathe it; most of our recent troubles start with that fact. So, a mission to better educate our elected and appointed officials so that they can inform the uninformed through the media seems a worthy project that goes beyond preaching to the choir while still allowing the choir to hear and discuss the sermon.
Another thuoght: Rather than constantly pointing out the difference between the concept of liberal and conservative, which only serves to “put their backs up”, it might be wise to show how much in common many liberals actually have with the other side. Too much anger only begets stronger defense.
The new media is vital to maintaining and developing a modern American Constitutional ethic. The intellectual ferment here is not for the purpose of convincing or converting the left, although it may have that effect for those who choose to visit. Efforts to engage the left in honest discussion at PJ Media are fruitless and would result in PJM losing its intellectual edge, as so many of the RINO types have over the years by accommodating the left and sinking out of sight in the ooze of the DC swamp.
Forget the angst over “preaching to the choir.” Hard political work is what is required to halt big government’s forward inertia. That is not done in the media. The Tea Party (and allied organizations) is where that is done. PJM is the locker room. The game is at the polls.
At one time or another most of my family was in the church choir. Of course this is anecdotal, and I would be interested in hearing about other choirs, but my father used to make sotto voce critiques during the sermon. In our case at least the choir was not the amen corner. I realize this won’t affect the well-established cliché – just saying.
Roger – What made you switch? You used to be a leftie, but not any more. Did you stumble on to a conservative web site which changed your mind? I doubt it.
How many conservatives have switched to liberalism? (Not counting politicians trying to get elected). I’ve never heard of one, but I hear often of liberals switching to conservative. Has anyone ever explored why that is? What arguments worked?
I’m not in favor of corrupting PJM with liberal viewpoints in an attempt to be fair.
You will never coinvince a hard lefty. The best you can do is have reasonable, informative conversation with a fence stradler and convince them to come over to your side. The problem with the left is they have a deep rooted senses of superior wisdom and correctness. They are spoiled fifth graders who know they are better than everyone else because their parents told them so.
That’s easy. Jut have someone like Robert Reich critiqe a PJM article of his choice once a week. No counter-argument by the article author. Let the readers hash it out.
My suggestions:
1. Slow down.
2. Use pictures. Here is a good one: http://polipundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/path1.jpg
Let people meditate. The Sistine chapel tells the whole story of the Bible in a small space. People need pictures to go with ideas and people need time to think about things quietly.
Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals
I don’t want to change their minds, I want to defeat them.
Exactly! Defeat them….first. And while we’re doing that, school them day and night on the history of defeat, death and tyranny going down the entitlement, socialist path they find so attractive. Continue to count the many failures of the present administration and the bankruptcy of the European nations, the U.S. states and the union pensions because of the liberal entitlement ideology which is unsustainable. Run every statistic you can get your hands on which show the successes of the American economy, education, military, technological advances and liberty in the hands of conservatives. Don’t argue or try to convince them of anything, defeat them with the facts. But one other point, in your quest to bring liberals and independants into the flock, don’t overlook the Libertarians because Liberty is a message you can’t compete with with a Mitt Romney. You might also remind the Liberals and Independants of what all of that power amassing in the executive branch is going to be like for them when their party is no long in power. That’s what brought them all out of the woodwork against George W. Bush that was part of the reason Obama got elected.
Change people’s opinions one at a time. My wife was a reliable member of the Democratic Constituency for the first 12 years of our marriage. In 2010 she voted Republican up and down the line. Why the change? She was appalled at the results of her vote in 2008 and while that was necessary it was not sufficient. What pushed her over the edge was our regular discussions about the different approaches to fiscal policy and how small government with most decisions in private hands had led to wealth creation, not the government. The failure of the stimulus and the hopeless belief of taxing wealth as a way to increased wealth and my persistent argument against that led to the change.
One at a time can work. Sometimes the key is: one point at a time. Just one.
I’ve persuaded a few hard-lefty friends by showing them things they didn’t know because they were getting all their news from their own media. One was shocked when she found out Michelle Obama’s “proud” remarks were rehearsed (occurred identically in TWO speeches) and not just unfortunate misspeaking. I kept showing her other examples in the news of facts she wasn’t getting and asking her why the NY Times, alternet, etc were deceiving her like this? Why were they making her look like an idiot in front of her Republican friend?
I got another struggling small businessman (gay, Asian, Democrat) who was shocked when his employees starting calling him racist to thinking about racism. I asked him if Republican capitalists worship money to the exclusion of all else, why would they WANT to keep Black people impoverished and unproductive? Why would they WANT to destroy 12% of their customer base and employee base by creating a huge class of people who are unfit to work and unable to buy? I kept insisting that Republicans and conservatives want EVERYONE to be profitable and productive. He started to get it.
One of the ways I try to overcome this phenomenon is to hear what the other side is saying. My go to is On Point with Tom Ashbrook on NPR.
I am interested in learning if anyone else does this? If so, what do you listen/read to hear alternative points of view?
I occasionally watch MSNBC and I read Daily Kos. I do find one few weak point consistently: identity politics. I swear there are some gays who would vote for Dick Cheney over Obama if they had the chance.
Another weak point is Obama’s broken promises to the left. He ain’t the same guy they saw in 2008.
When ABC,NBC, NSNBC, CBS, NYT, etc., foster real debate with real conservatives, then bastions of conservatism should do the same….not before. There was a day when my liberal newspaper (the Courier-Journal) was run by principled liberals (the Binghams) who gladly published columns by William F. Buckley in the interest of debate. No more. It seems that columns from the right are not written by conservatism’s heavy hitters (Steyn, Sowell, Goldberg, et al), but from the rightwing straw men who are easily impugned or dismissed.
Don’t be square, be cool. I think you guys are cool, but I don’t know if the voters do or not.
In order to get your message across you first have to be cool in a neutral realm. Be cool in a realm that will get peoples’ attention.
People will listen to those who are cool: Comedians, rebellious teachers, rap artists, entrepreneurs whatever.
What is cool? I don’t know. If I could figure that out I would be a millionaire selling clothing or something.
If you can figure out what is cool, without compromising your principals, you can piggyback on this. You will sell your product.
Of course failure to succeed at being cool can open you to ridicule. Be warned.
Here in Ohio we have been taking a long-term approach to the problem. Conservatives need to be able to articulate their worldview well in order to counter the logical inconsistencies with liberal policies. Many minds that are changeable have never been exposed to the conservative argument, and can be converted if we pounce at the right time with a compelling argument.
Thus, the “We The People Convention”, http://www.wethepeopleconvention.org, strives to present conservative viewpoints in a thoughtful and complete manner. People walk out of the convention educated on the issues of the day, trained on how to be effective as a candidate, advocate or volunteer, and inspired to action.
Preaching to the choir is needed at times, but missionary work is critical.
Roger,
Preaching to the choir may not be a bad thing. I only ask is that you give me the facts of the story so I can use it for ammunition when 1 of my bleeding-heart liberal friends starts spewing leftist lies. It’s we, readers, who are the grunts in this war of ideas.
Because right is on our side we should all display joyful confidence when in contact with the liberal numbnuts. And we should be respectful to them however nutty, irrational, shortsighted & emotional their argument is.
BTW, For my sanity I have given up reading the NYT many yrs ago although it’s best to know what the other side is reading. I leave that to you.
“It’s we, readers, who are the grunts in this war of ideas.”
Precisely. As a grunt, my job isn’t to convert the masses. My job between now and the election is to influence/inform/sway a few specific voters. Period.
One is a blue collar union guy – and devoted father. A registered Dem, he’s a bit of a contrarian, thinks for himself and is halfway down the path to ABO on his own. Nudge: Are you better off than you were 4 years ago? No. Will your son and daughter be better off 4 years from now if current conditions continue? No. Well then …
Another is a young person preparing to vote for the first time. Nudge: You know how hard it’s been to find a part-time job? Yes. Want a job when you graduate from college? Yes. Well then …
A third is a registered Dem, self-described “independent” who is one tiny step away from becoming a fully committed ABOer. Listen, empathize. Nudge.
In each case, it IS all about the economy, so that’s where this grunt is focusing.
Facebook and Twitter. I have some “leftward” ‘friends’ (one posted the stupid poster of Ayn Rand and Jesus – “make the choice”). Maybe we conservatives start to subtly or not so subtly posting our opinions (maybe in an emotional way) so that our leftward friends start getting that subliminal message (I’ve started doing that. Of course, I may start losing friends).
“one posted the stupid poster of Ayn Rand and Jesus – “make the choice””
I’ve read her works and the Bible– I don’t get the comparison.
It’s not a comparison. It’s a contrast that makes Ayn Rand the devil.
“It’s not a comparison. It’s a contrast that makes Ayn Rand the devil.”
Ah. As the people who would peddle that pic probably never read either one, it makes it a bit ludicrous. Could simply turn it back on them:
Barabbas Obama or Jesus! Choose! (As if we need to guess) — As a poster once mentioned here at PJM, if you leave it to the breying mob, they will choose Barabbas every time.
Like Simon, I am an ex-liberal turned conservative. I believe that many conservatives today fall into that category. We made the switch, so we should simply ask ourselves why? What did it for us? And focus our efforts there.
For me I grew up in a family that was staunchly Democratic, but socially conservative…think Catholic with a picture of JFK next to that of the Pope. A socially conservative Democrat used to be the norm, not an oxymoron. My family was Democrat (and most still are) because we believed “Democrats look out for the little guy” and “government is the only thing that can remedy the injustices of capitalism”. What changed me was essentially two things. The First was the conflict between my social conservative leanings and the militant social liberalism of the modern day Democratic party. Second was my gradual realization that government stinks at remedying the injustices of capitalism, and that most of it’s attempts to try to end up making things worse, and that many things considered the injustices of capitalism really aren’t so bad in our time in this country.
So my advice? Pick your battles carefully. Tell your traditionally Catholic union brother-in-law how miffed you are about how Obama wants to force the Church to pay for other peoples sex convenience. Tell your lower middle class friend how dumb it that someone on welfare has their cell phone bill paid for, but she doesn’t. Tell your brother how mad you are about your boss sticking it to you because he knows the economy sucks and you’re stuck where you are…and when he says you just made an argument for unions tell him you made an argument for aggressive pro-growth economic policy, because he didn’t screw with you when there was 4% unemployment. Talk teacher unions. Talk Solyndra.
In other words, find the areas where you can agree with them about the inefficacy of government and the superiority, albeit imperfectness, of capitalism. And some of them will open up.
There came a point in 1860 when sides could no longer talk to each other.
Put on a Romney 2012 tshirt and take a stroll through any liberal enclave. You will quickly come to realize the futility of trying to persuade Liberals. I’ve discovered that if I scratch beneath the surface of many of my liberal friends and colleagues I find a very narrow-minded, racist, and hate-filled person.
As with any form of evangelism, our time is best spent ignoring the atheists and focusing on the agnostics. By that I mean that there is a huge swath of American citizenry who find themselves at odds with the Democrat party agenda but find it difficult to break the habit of voting Democrat. These are the people we can convince. PJM can do that best by doing what it is doing today: providing us readers with ‘ammunition’.
One of the worst things to happen politically in the country is the incestuous relationship that has developed between the Left and the MSM. One of the best things to happen politically is that the MSM’s influence is crumbling before our eyes, (Evidence: note how quickly the conservative blogosphere was able to uncover that not only was Elizabeth Warren’s great-great-great-grandfather NOT Cherokee, he actually was part of the group that rounded up Cherokees and sent them on the Trail of Tears death march.)
My point is that think PJM needs to do nothing different than it’s already doing.
Several folks have mentioned higher ed, and as a conservative working in higher education, I agree that there needs to be concerted focus on the insanity that goes on here in the “ivory towers”. I had always hoped that Breitbart would make good on his ‘Big Education’ plan, and start exposing some of the liberal looniness that goes on. (The Vanderbilt case is one example that’s sort-of getting news today, but there’s probably something going on worth reporting at nearly every campus in the country!)
Thanks for bringing this up. I’ve been wondering too. How to reach at least some of them.
I sure could use some ideas myself, so I hope PJM will devote effort to that.
Getting thru to the Leftist/Libs is hard. Probably the best would be to concentrate on those who consider themselves Indies.
But, many of my friends are Libs, and for me, it’s painful. Their ideas are one thing, but they themselves are good, nice, well-meaning people, who actually do live by what I’d consider “conservative” values in their daily lives — they work hard, want to be successful, are decent, treat people honestly … and I care about them.
I don’t remember their being as closed off from any kind of reasonable discussion in the past as they are now. I recall having lots of lively discussions with them. Not so nowadays. It gets ugly and you just lose friends. I guess it’s the MSM, which has finally succeeded in establishing this absolute ridicule and demonization of anything not Left.
One thing I try, and sometimes it works a little — at least to keep the conversation reasonable and civilized … (I try to stay away from the “Ideological” … that doesn’t work at all) … is to start out with ….
“We all are really wanting to reach the same goal. We all hope for a better world where the most people possible prosper. Capitalism has provided that … it has its drawbacks … but not as many as other systems … and it has provided well for the greatest number of people. On the other hand, while your ideas are noble(?), they might work in a perfect world with perfect people … what you’d consider perfect. But that’s not the case. Humans are … human. Socialism/leftism has failed to provide for people to prosper … and it ultimately collapses.”
On corporation/lobbyist haters, I’ve tried this …
Of course, some corporations do bad things … but most are just trying to succeed in a very honest way. It’s not capitalism that’s the problem … it’s crony capitalism. It’s when the government makes the rules and the bureaucrats and politicians have so much power, that the corporations have to … must … lobby them … pay them off … because if they don’t, favoritism within the regulations will go to their competitors. If the government, the bureaucrats, didn’t have the power, didn’t make so many regulations, there would be no need for lobbyists. That’s what sets up so much corruption — the politicians having so much power. It’s really the politicians that have been and are corrupted, because of the power they are given (it’s human nature) … much less than the corporations who ultimately either have no choice, or the more corrupt ones, who happily join with the corrupt politicians. There’s much, much more corruption (there will always be some) when the gov’t runs everything.
On “Redistribution” ….
One thing I did say to a very liberal friend … she’s retired, single, worked and saved all her life for a home she built — which is everything to her, and she lives comfortably, but not lavishly by any means.
I said, if you believe in “redistribution of wealth” … Remember, once it starts it goes way beyond the “very rich.” You see, here you are, one person who has a two-storey house. How would you like it if the gov’t said you have too much space all to yourself, and had to have another 3 or 4 people, your poor neighbors (who didn’t do as well as you, nor did they plan as well or work as hard as you), move into your house with you … because it had to be “shared fairly?”
It happened to my friend whose family had owned a small-ish farm in Nicaragua, after the kids had grown and moved out. The gov’t placed 5 “poor” strangers in the house with the dignified, widowed, 55 yr old grandmother — They have their “rights,” and they aren’t very nice to her. She has to take it, and be very careful about what she says … so as not to make “waves.”
My friend was shocked … and taken aback. It did make her think, though I don’t know for how long, because she was back the next day talking about how the “stimulous” was going to solve all our problems. She probably thought, “It can’t happen here. We have a Constitution!” Well … “Redistribution” isn’t exactly Constitutional, is it. Take a look at what’s going on with “Eminent Domain” lately … people’s homes taken and destroyed for privately owned shopping malls that don’t even ever get built.
But, who knows, maybe it had a small effect on her that that might grow … at least give her some second thoughts.
(But she’s a hard case of dedicated Liberal. Thinks Bill Ayres (Anti-War), The Black Panthers (Anti-Racism), and Che (for the poor) are heroes and never intended to hurt anyone (facts are irrelevant). It might work better on loose Lib or Independent.)
By the way, Humberto Fontova used to write for Breitbart. He has some good things to say about Cuba and Che. It would be good if he wrote for PJM.
To make the case for market capitalism and against crony capitalism, I often find myself at odds with the GOP.
Let’s face it, on crony capitalism the GOP isn’t exactly pure as the driven snow. They have their own favored industries: Oil, hedge funds, agribusiness; all of whom get rewarded with special tax breaks and subsidies.
For that reason, I often explain that I am NOT carrying water for the Republican Party, and especially not for its own favored lobbyists. I explain that the Tea Party–which liberals regard as so “radical”–is only “radical” in the sense of forcing the GOP to practice what it preaches, rather than just paying lip service to it.
I remind them that Dennis Kucinich and other leftists like to style themselves as “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party”; i.e., principled rather than compromising. In that sense, the Tea Party is “the Republican wing of the Republican party.”
The radical progressives are a lost cause. But surely we can find good old fashioned liberals that are on the cusp. My vision is to pair a an old fashioned liberal with an old fashioned conservative in a segment … kinda odd couple style. They could address the viewer by saying “hey, I do not agree with …” or “hey, I have come to agree with …” BUT more importantly the segment would end with them putting aside old hot button issues (agreeing to disagree)for the sake of America’s survival regarding the debt and oppressive government.
Surely, there are some liberals out there that recognize the oppressive, unconstitutional power given the HHS department. Of course they like the goodies Sebilius is handing out now, but given the eventual replacement appointment by a conservative president do they really support the power that has been granted this position? Find the ones that see the danger and engage them. Will only be credible, however, if there is a counterpoint conservative fessing up on a “conservative” issue … say, perhaps, home interest or 501C3 (the churches these days are tax free empires) tax exemptions.
Don’t attack. Question. Ask them questions. If they don’t feel threatened they’ll be more receptive. Then you need to have the facts to back it up. In prepping we do this all the time. Rather than telling someone that they need more food ask them if they’ve ever been unemployed. Doesn’t that suck! Wouldn’t it be nice to have a couple of months of food stored to take that burden off of your meager unemployment check? And if they don’t bite and get an attitude don’t push. Move on. The only thing you do when you continue what is perceived as an assault is shut them down further and push them away.
My slender hope is to preach by example. My innumerable liberal acquaintances (I live in Massachusetts) see in me a Republican who is neither evil nor stupid.
I agree Nancy, set a good example, be a light in the wilderness (the wilderness here is New York at a private school).
Rodger – I am a salesperson, a sales manager and a sales trainer. Perhaps the core point I seek to communicate to my people is that the foundation of selling is 1st: Finding out what someone wants and then 2nd: presenting what you want them to do in the context of achieving their preexisting needs and wants.
Prospecting and qualification is seeking to find people for whom there is some potential of overlap between what they already want to buy and what they want to sell – so that one’s efforts can be targeted. (You don’t attempt to sell
commercial real-estate on the corner outside the local skate park)
MOST people will not want what you have to sell under any circumstances – the key is to find those that might (prospect) find out what they want (probe) and then deliver your product in the context of what they already want (sell).
Most liberals will NEVER want what we have. Their decision making is emotional. They want freebees. They want to be charitable with other people’s money. Their needs and wants will NEVER be compatible with conservatism. But Roger – that is OK – we don’t need them. We just need a small percentage to dominate this election. A 60% – 40% election is a landslide of historical proportions! We just need to identify the low hanging fruit (perhaps the Regan Democrats) and illustrate how they have been disserved.
I believe a common failure in sales is identical to a common failure in politics – trying to appeal to everybody. You can’t. If we pick our target market, and win there – then the 40% of hard core lefties can do whatever they want and is wont matter.
Roger, I’ve thought about this very problem.
I know some leftists who are good, sincere, informed people. For them, confirmation bias is the determining factor. They accept facts that support their positions, and ignore or devalue those that do not.
Another factor that I personally believe is in play relates to your idea about taking a psychoanalytic/emotional approach. I’ve observed that many (perhaps all) people assume political positions that are aligned with their “personal narratives,” i.e. the stories they tell themselves (perhaps unconsciously) about who they are and how they relate to the world. One familiar example is the person who identifies himself as a liberal because he’s compassionate, and he equates liberalism with values like sharing with others and caring for them. To this person, it’s a matter of moral coherence to reject behavior that is cold and self-serving; and insofar as conservatives are typecast as cold and self-serving, “hating” them becomes a handy way to validate his moral choices and identity.
Someone who values his own independence, on the other hand, is likely to be receptive to conservative or libertarian politics. Etc.
There is no way you can argue someone out of a political affiliation if doing so requires that person to dismantle his sense of self. The most you can hope for is that the person will one day realize that he’s fighting a projection, not reality.
For the problem of confirmation bias, you might want to consider a page that supports a point-counterpoint approach to examining political issues on an empirical basis. Invite a conservative and a liberal to a “debate by essay.” Put their papers up side-by-side, so people can see how the facts support their respective arguments. (It would be nice to pair this with some lessons in analytic thinking, i.e. by flagging comments that commit logical fallacies.) (Please? lol)
For the second problem — the psychological one — I suppose you could try to tackle it head on, e.g. with articles that grub out the subconscious stuff behind political positions. I’ve played with this on my blog from time to time.
You might reach people that way. And if not, it would be fun trying
Roger,
The left seems to think it is worth time and money to seed the comments section with progressive talking points.
Perhaps PJM needs to start posting comments on lefty websites. I would think it should be done in a genuine way that could evoke some real thought from the mindless.
Jonah Goldberg recently wrote a little piece at NRO regarding the new “science” that has “proven” that Republicans have bad brains.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/298913/republicans-have-bad-brains-jonah-goldberg
At the end, there is part of a sentence that stuck in my mind … helpful, I think, to remind some Lefties about themselves …
“… it is also self-serving bigotry that allows liberals to justify their own closed-mindedness on the grounds that Republicans aren’t even worth listening to.”
Roger:
The answer is education.
Americans younger than, say, 45 have been brought up in an America with very little intellectual freedom: they don’t get facts from the media, and they sure as hell don’t get facts in college.
I’m about your age. Remember how we’d be exposed to various political viewpoints when we were in high school? My history teacher used to assign us to watch Firing Line so we could see the difference between the Left and Right in high relief. We watched Buckley debate Alinsky, and wrote reviews of it and came to our own conclusions. (Buckley beat Alinsky—like a drum.)
Obama got that 2008 vote by virtue of sheer ignorance. American voters no longer have the political, historical and economic literacy to preserve their own freedom. They can’t even analyze an argument.
Right now, it is no use trying to compromise or to be gentlemanly because the Dems have been taken over by the hard Left; they’re now Marxists. America is in a fight for its life. The so-called “extremist” Republicans, including many disaffected Dems as well as other liberals—like us—are nothing more than those older among us who’ve noticed that the country is being turned into a leftist totalitarian state and refuse to comply.
Good—SOMEBODY SHOULD REFUSE TO COMPLY. It took thousands of years and millions of lives for us to achieve the level of freedom we enjoy. It should not so shamefully, and ignorantly, be cast away.
I know your innate instincts are liberal, and you hate a fight—why can’t we all just get along?–but there are circumstances in life that call for some discernment. All ideas are not equally noble or valid. All ideas are not equally worthy of respect. The current college campus is a veritable soviet union of groupthink.
Publish countervailing ideas to be sure, but expose the bad ideas for what they are. As pampered Americans, this is one of those rare times in our lives that we are being called on to stand up for something. The men who fought WWII gave Americans 75 years of relative peace and luxury, but it had to end. It’s ending now. We are obliged to stand up for the sake of future Americans.
The election of 2008 was more than an election; it was a coup. The Left has no intention of allowing a fair election and is, at this very moment, trying forcefully and illegally to take over the country. Now is the time to show some backbone and resist them on the field of ideas.
It means we have to dissect every argument they make and educate them where the rest of society has failed.
“The election of 2008 was more than an election; it was a coup. The Left has no intention of allowing a fair election and is, at this very moment, trying forcefully and illegally to take over the country. Now is the time to show some backbone and resist them on the field of ideas.”
Assuming that this is the case (yes, I believe it is), do you really think that “resist[ing] them on the field of ideas” is going to be enough? I think it might be required to back up our “backbone” with some precious metals.
One word: Humor.
Even liberal-leaning folks like a good joke and God knows, the left is full of them. Progressives hate being made fun of, which is why they use Ad-hominem attacks so frequently. It’s all projection. Look, eventually the mob will self-destruct. They always do. Why not help them along with the ridicule they so richly deserve?
(Plus, its more fun than economics charts and debt clocks.)
I haven’t seen a column by Ruben Navarrette lately………
Mr. Simon, I disagree with your premise. The so-called right, by which I assume you mean most Republicans, conservatives and libertarians, have no choice but to talk with leftists. I’ve been forced to since my undergraduate days at Columbia. The vast majority of all educators are socialist in nature. This has also morphed to the vast majority of government bureaucrats are also socialist in nature as are many senior executives in corporations (or at least they give lip service to socialist philosophies in order to give them and their corporations cover). We have no choice but to talk to and listen to the left and their cul de sac of a philosophy.
The left has no such compunction and are as closed minded as any religious fanatic in Iran. This is because in their denial of God, their politics has become their religion. And those who don’t think as they do are infidels and those who actually reach the epiphany that socialism/Marxism is a death cult are heretics.
So don’t point your finger at the so-called right. We have no choice but to listen. And because we have to, we think their arguments through and have seen them as the corruption that they are.
“Nanner, Nanner, Nanner”. I can’t hear you.
I suggest you take back the MSM via the same methods that Communists use to infiltrate and take over organizations. By advancing within them and then when in a position of power, actively discriminating against Leftwingers in hiring and promotion, of course not openly, giving other reasons for not hiring or promoting them.
It works.
Oh and target the education system as well. Start the kids in the right direction, so the choir will be much larger to begin with.
One simple, clear, repeated message might get through: math is nonpartisan and has no morals. It just is and a $1.3 trillion deficit less even $500 billion in new revenue from expired Bush tax cuts and new Obamacare taxes still leaves an unsustainable $800 billion, before baby boomer retirements kick in. Do liberals want the right for homosexuals to marry, only to experience grinding poverty rather than marital bliss, do the social conservatives want to bring millions more children into the world by banning abortion, who will live in grinding poverty. Go ask the poor in Africa, Rio or Calcutta how much they think about or care about anything beyond their next meal and a safe place to sleep this night.
You cannot reach the other side, any energy spent in that direction is wasted. Utterly.
But that isn’t really a problem, because there aren’t enough of them to matter. What matters are the folks in the middle, people of no strong ideological bent, who sometimes vote R and sometimes vote D depending on the candidates and/or how they feel that day.
They’re not so easy to reach either, though, because they’re not particularly political (even if they do show up on election day in large enough numbers to swing the election). But they can be reached through leading by example. Don’t argue your positions, just live an admirable life. And gently (!) push back against the shriller of liberal water-cooler pronouncements.
Live in stark contrast to the liberal caricature of right-wingers. That will be enough. It will provide no glorious victories on the field of debate, but it will win them on election day.
RIDICULE.
It’s the only way to impress a juvenile.
Liberals seem to be stuck in puberty. Deal with them as if they are juveniles.
They don’t even treat each other with much civility. Lying, distortion, withholding information is their way of life.
The people voting for Obama are no different than a Jewish Community voting in a muslim Community Manager. They don’t really know what they are getting, but, he makes them feel good.
Illuminating the phony rhetoric and information emanating from Obama, his Regime, and Big Media , is the best way to illustrate what fools they take us for.
And a good laugh is very therapeutic.
Keep up the good work, PJM.
Please don’t change.
“Should we engage liberals in respectful discussion?”
No: It’s like trying to teach a pig to sing. It frustrates you and it irritates the pig.
In today’s world any adult who isn’t being paid to be a Democrat and remains one is too stupid to live or totally brainwashed, so you cannot respectfully discus anything with them. There is no reason to try to respectfully discuss anything with someone who is being paid to be a Democrat, whether their pay comes from being an elected or appointed official, party operative, union goon, employee of a Democrat front group, public employee, welfare recipient, the whole gamut of Democrat constituencies. It simply isn’t in their interest to agree with you on anything. Time and experience may change some of these people, I know that being mugged by reality is what changed my political perspectives, but if you went straight into government, the non-profits, a union, etc. right out of school, you can keep the same stupid ideas you had when you left school for a lifetime.
Art, you nailed it: “…if you went straight into government, the non-profits, a union, etc. right out of school, you can keep the same stupid ideas you had when you left school for a lifetime.”
Time and again, I see the truth of that statement. The vast majority have never confronted reality or experienced the school of hard knocks. AND THEY LIKE IT THAT WAY.
Their motto: We demand the RIGHT to be mollycoddled.
BTW: I’d add every tier of education to your list.
THIS IS A GREAT AND SOMEWHAT DEPRESSING READ>>
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/tactn/tactn010.htm
Primer for Polemicists -Owen Harries
Rule 1: Forget about trying to convert your adversary. In any serious ideological confrontation the chances of success on this score are so remote as to exclude it as a rational objective. On the very rare occasions when it does happen, it will be because the person converted has already and independently come to harbour serious doubts and is teetering on the edge of ideological defection.
This is due, more often than not, to some outrageous action by his own side or some shocking revelation: witness the effects on members of Communist parties in the West of the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939 and the Khrushchev speech of 1956. Then, but only then, a particular argument or example may provide the catalyst to complete the process. When that happens it should be treated as the equivalent of winning a lottery….
OBAMA MAY YET PROVE THE CATALYST
part2 – ANYONE WHO ARGUES IN COMMENTS SECTION KNOWS THIS IS TRUE>>
This rule is important for two reasons: because beginners are likely to confuse polemical exchanges with genuine intellectual debate, in which persuading is a proper and sensible goal; and because, in the oddly symbiotic relationship that often develops in a prolonged polemic, even the experienced are susceptible of becoming fascinated by their adversaries.
You’re wrong, people can be converted, you just have to do it right and then make the stakes high enough so that stubbornness is not advisable.
Perception is everything in such matters and it only remains to set perceptual traps. Show someone who loves Melissa Harris-Perry a fake quote about Ann Coulter praising Bush for “liberating more white bodies from prisons,” watch them nod their heads at the racism and then tell them it’s Harris who did it, which in fact she did.
I got a lesson in keeping eyes open in college: a film history teacher lured our class into thinking we were about to watch Bergman’s “The Seventh Seal,” but it was in fact the send up parody of Bergman, “De Duva.” I started laughing right away and got dirty looks in the auditorium at being so rude during a famous and serious film. Naturally people soon caught on and everyone laughed, but there were some sheepish expressions – a lesson had been handed out. Yup, it’s the ol’ sucker punch.
I was a PJTV subscriber in 2011 and cancelled. I purchased the annual subscription, so not excatly small peanuts. Don’t visit PJM much anyone. I still usually follow the links to Roger Simon’s writings from Instapundit though.
Watch the Maine and Nevada GOP Convention clips on youtube from this past weekend. Search youtube for the crowds that show up to a Romney rallies vs his GOP contendor. Then come back and answer this – Are we going to unite these people or not?
If that’s something that this audience wants to do, then stop treating the other side with hateful derision. (Not you Mr. Simon, but some of the PJM/TV contributors.)
Want some new eyeballs at PJM/TV? It’s the unconstitutional foreign policy, stupid!
As a libertarian or “classical liberal” or limited-government conservative, my views are ridiculed, and labeled racist and dangerous by PJM/TV contributors. So thanks, but no thanks. The thought of supporting candidates that supported the bank bailouts and the *Repeal-The-4th-Amendment Act* is reprehensible to me, and I think it is for much of the crowd that is entering the GOP Conventions.
It wouldn’t hurt the GOP to do a little pandering to the youth vote either.
Why not have them all do the ultimate act of pandering and join the Dem Party – and convert to Islam, and reject opposite sex marriage and then kill themselves?
That does not make any sense. Care to try again?
This site is a reaction to the river of misinformation coming from our traditional news sources. People who are experienced enough to know how bad the work product of our traditional media really is, have migrated away from it. That’s your choir. The people you want to reach are those who still imbibe misinformation.
If you want those people who don’t yet know how bad their news is to join you, you can go to their sources, and comment on them. It’s a reliable draw for the curious and skeptical. Don’t do this too often, just once in a while, but be thorough.
The New York Times, the Washington Post and the Associated Press are regularly being reviewed for their nonsense, as are CNN and MSNBC.
NPR is largely being ignored, perhaps because it is generally thought of as radio, although it publishes articles.
In my area, NPR, KPFT and KPFK have regular shows that publish the most incredible BS, which seems to be swallowed whole and uncritically by some local people, who then write to the local newspaper to share their ignorance. If you want to find out what Obama supporters tell one another, there it is, in all its math-deprived glory.
Take a podcast, get a transcript, and have fun with it. But remember, there are actually people who believe this stuff. For example, the Union-Tribune contains a letter today, where the writer describes the Obama stimulus as “modest” and castigating the state for trying to fit its budget to its recent revenue stream, creating an “austerity” that has hurt the local economy. This theme was drawn from the podcast from Connect The Dots at KPFK on May 7 or 8 during the am rush hour.
There is no use “reaching across” when the foundational premises regarding humanity and society are so wildly divergent. The only recourse is to continue sining the song of Truth.
Tolkien put it well in his story of God’s creation of
Earth and God’s struggle with evil.
In The Silmarillion,God’s name is Iluvatar, and he
creates all things through his song. He creates the Ainur, the angels, and the Sons of God and the morning star are the choir that sings for joy at the beauty of creation. Their music fills the void. Tolkien writes, “For a great while it seemed good to him, for in the music there were no flaws.”
But then, Melkor, one of the most powerful of the angels, wants to create a different reality, so he starts to sing a discordant melody. The two songs clash.
“Straightway discord arose about him, and many that sang nigh him grew despondent, and their thought was disturbed and their music faltered; but some began to attune their music to his rather than to the thought which
they had at first. Then the discord of Melkor spread ever wider, and the melodies which had been heard before foundered in a sea of turbulent sound. But Iluvatar sat and hearkened until it seemed that about his throne there was
a raging storm, as of dark waters that made war one upon another in an endless wrath that would not be assuaged.
“Then Iluvatar arose, and the Ainur perceived that he smiled; and he lifted up his left hand, and a new theme began amid the storm, like and yet unlike to the former theme, and it gathered power and had new beauty. But the
discord of Melkor rose in uproar and contended with it, and again there was a war of sound more violent than before, until many of the Ainur were dismayed and sang no longer, and Melkor had the mastery. Then again Iluvatar arose, and the Ainur perceived that his countenance was stern; and he lifted up his right hand and behold! A third theme grew amid the confusion, and it was unlike the others. For it seemed at first soft and sweet, a mere rippling of gentle sounds in delicate melodies; but it could not be quenched, and it took to itself power and profundity. And it seemed at last that there were two musics progressing at one time before the seat of Iluvatar, and they were utterly at variance. The one was deep and wide and beautiful, but slow and blended with an
immeasurable sorrow, from which its beauty chiefly came. The other had now achieved a unity of its own; but it was LOUD, and VAIN, and ENDLESSLY repeated; and it had little harmony, but rather a CLAMOROUS UNISON as of many
trumpets braying upon a few notes. And it essayed to drown the other music by the VIOLENCE of its voice, but it seemed that its most triumphant notes were taken by the other and woven into its own solemn pattern.(Caps mine.)
In the midst of this strife, whereat the halls of Iluvatar shook and a tremor ran out into the silences yet unmoved, Iluvatar arose a third time, and his face was terrible to behold. Then he raised up both his hands, and in
one chord, deeper than the Abyss, higher than the Firmament, piercing as the light of the eye of Iluvatar, the Music ceased.
Then Iluvatar spoke, and he said: ‘Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Iluvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that ye may
see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the
devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.’ (J.R.R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion,
Houghton Mifflin Company Boston: 1977, p.16-17)
We must keep singing with the choir of the Good, the True and the Beautiful, and thus drown out the discord–not dialogue with it by singing the same tune.
This is an interesting question. Alvin Toffler talked about this back in the early 90′s as a trend he expected to see (see his address to CPSR), and it’s pretty much played out precisely as he anticipated. With increasing options for communication channels, and vast amounts of data and computing power easily available, it’s easy to surround yourself with viewpoints like your own, armed with reams of data supporting your preconceptions. DP Moynihan once said, “You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.” Except that, nowadays, that’s exactly what’s happened: two sides each armed with their own conflicting worldviews, backed up by reams of data supporting them. Impasse
Consider the housing bubble. The Left blames rampant speculation. The Right blames housing policy through Freddie/Fannie for causing the speculation by inflating the re-sale value. Now, personally, I think we have the better of that argument, but obviously so do they. I sometimes run my own analyses off the Treasury/BLS/BEA data, but even on our side does one person in a thousand? No, mostly, we take our own pundits at their word… and they mostly draw their numbers from our think tanks.
The good news for conservatives is that we have a healthy debate (especially thanks to the libertarian/conservative divide), and it’s largely over ideology. Liberals claim not to have an ideology at all. They have a single dogma, and their factions are based mostly on ethnicity, gender and other interest groups.
So how do we break people out of their silos? I don’t think we can. CAP and Media Matters provide data to Ezra Klein and Matt Iglesias, who write columns that get picked up by lesser pundits. People are remarkably resilient in their biases. I’m working from a small sample and haven’t read the academic research, but seems intuitively like it’s long-term dissonance between the stated values of liberalism and the behavior/policies of the left setting the stage, followed by a “shock” event.
Roger, I’d love to look at your example here. If you had been any more committed to the Left, you’d be paying them alimony. But it seems like your values of openness and free discussion of ideas clashed with the Left’s tendency to excommunicate anyone who dissents on even one issue. Then 9/11 hits and suddenly you’re the one being excommunicated. For Breitbart, it was Clarence Thomas. For the neocons, it was the treatment of the refuseniks.
Averted example: Andrew Sullivan. A committed leftist (“conservative” only by TNR’s standards), his wake-up call was human rights. Gays were being executed in the middle east. The Left was covering for them, in spite of their stated devotion to human rights– and excusing themselves with a mixture of cultural relativism and Bush Derangement Syndrome. Meanwhile, even the genuinely anti-gay social conservatives were and are outraged by the abuses. Let alone the pro-gay rights conservatives and libertarians. What pushed him back from the brink? Abu Ghraib and cold feet over the war. Now he’s spouting the received wisdom.
Some lessons we can learn from these examples. First, let’s not make the Left’s mistake. The right is a diverse place, and we shouldn’t drive people out for heterodoxy, even when our allies are driving us nuts. Second, we should be alert to the liberal blogosphere. There was an intelligence and earnestness to Roger’s blog even back when he was a full-bore liberal that was lacking in… well, lacking on both sides, actually.
When the rest of liberalism piles on people like that– and eventually, anyone with some amount of intellectual independence will be at odds with their own party– that’s the moment. On the left, the deviation from dogma will make them pariahs, at least temporarily. Instead of trumpeting how they’re conservatives now, instead just provide support and encouragement, and accept that they’re liberals on everything else, but on this we agree.
What we get out of that is probably just a more open-minded liberal. But that’s a victory in itself! If that’s all we ever get, then we’ve gotten some small progress on a particular issue, improved political discourse in general, and helped incubate a “Better Left”. Every once in a while– and this requires liberals screwing things up themselves in the name of tactical zeal– we get a new-fledged independent, libertarian or conservative.
Roger,
I teach history in an inner city school in bluest of blue Massachusetts and use articles from PJMedia on a regular basis. Many of the students are extremely receptive to a different point of view and eager to better understand how the world operates. They are especially interested in matters relating to college, the debt and employment. Providing “in the can” lessons with a libertarian point of view will help end the leftist grip on both students and teachers and better prepare the students for what awaits them after graduation.
I would recommend developing a series of lesson plans about conservative/libertarian ideas for use in the public schools, especially high school. The shift to the Common Core standards calls for large amounts of non-fiction readings and teacher are going to be desperate for new materials. If PJ Media or any other conservative/libertarian operation can provide pre packaged lesson ideas with a short reading or visual, a series of comprehension questions in the SAT style of multiple choice and a writing prompt there would be numerous takers.
Thinking of Sowell’s Conflict of Visions, I’m not optimistic that a significant means of rational discourse can be found.
Point is, the further out into the “unconstrained” one gets, the more emotion-based it becomes, and strongly-held emotions are very protective of themselves.
/IMHO
Forget trying to talk to or convince liberals on anything. They are set in stone.
Go after the fence sitters – the non-political types that don’t want to listen, but can be persuaded.
It’s true: the reason Leftists can’t be reasoned with using facts is that their narrative is not fact-based in the first place. They love to use false facts as if they in turn can be moved by them but really it isn’t the case – the Left’s view of the world is based on myth and faith.
Good comments for the most part. I have just one minor suggestion: instead of disparaging “liberals,” at which some liberals in the old fashioned sense of the word take offense, why not use “leftists” or something similar. I use “Librul,” and occasionally note that a liberal has an open mind but not an empty head while a Librul tends to be empty headed and closed minded. “Leftist” would work as well.
As a former staunch Democrat, what it took to change my mind were three basic things. Before I describe what those things were, I’ll tell you how serious a Democrat I was. Up until 2008, I was pro-choice, a staunch Hillary Clinton supporter, and yes, I thought all Republicans were racists.
As a kid in high school, I distributed Walter Mondale posters & flyers around my neighborhood, and I was SO happy that Geraldine Ferraro was chosen to run as VP. I couldn’t vote in that election, as I wasn’t 18 yet, but I remember being severely depressed because Reagan won another term. I despised Newt Gingrich and I didn’t even really know who he was. There were a lot of misconceptions I held dear. I believed them without question.
However, even in my high school days in California, I silently began to question Political Correctness. It didn’t seem fair that while people of other races could have clubs at school dedicated to their respective cultures, white kids had nothing to look to. If they did, they were always pointed directly at the KKK and the slaughter of black people and Native Americans. It was a mortal sin to even question the fact that I was somehow supposed to be ashamed for having white skin. Sins of my fathers and all that – even though none of my “fathers” on either side of my family owned slaves. Imagine my shock when, in 2008, I watched Team Obama accuse the Clintons of being racists during the Democratic Primary.
This revelation of how the Obama campaign viciously and systematically attacked Hillary Clinton set me back on my heels. I couldn’t understand why they were doing this to her, the first “legitimate” female candidate for President. This event angered me enough that I began to read up on campaign propaganda. Being a voracious reader, this led me from one previously ignored subject to another and then another. I learned about Multiculturalism and why I was supposed to hate myself for being white. Before long, I began watching and listening to conservatives like Beck, Limbaugh and so on, and began researching what they said as well. In other words, I inadvertently took the ‘red pill.’
So three things had to happen to me to change my mind: 1 – something undeniable had to “shock me” into becoming more curious; 2 – to become curios enough to want to read, learn and discover that nearly everything I’d been told since kindergarten was a lie or a twisted version of the facts; 3 – I had to become angry at what I’d learned and decide to DO something about it.
When Obamacare was passed into law in 2010 (the same year I was caught out with no insurance and diagnosed with cancer), I became enraged when I immediately saw what the repercussions of the law would be for me. This had become personal. I joined the TEA Party at that point and have been active in it ever since. As for Hillary Clinton, after reading up on her for real this time, I can’t stand the woman and God help us if she ever decides to run for President. I thank God for unanswered prayers.
You can change people’s minds, but it takes work and creativity. I do preach to the choir myself, but only when it comes to directing conservatives toward the more conservative candidates. When it comes to trying to “turn” liberals, I still attempt this from time to time whenever I see one expressing some sort of interest in what I have to say, but most of them are now so solidified in their thinking process that you’re better off just hoping that something happens to them to wake them up. A good example of this is Jon Lovitz’ recent expletive-laden rant about Obama and taxes.
I’m a naturally curious person, so this helped me. Most liberals are not. In essence, if you want to get through to them, you have to MAKE them curious. To do that, you have to understand that you’re fighting against several decades of public school indoctrination. Talk to them about things they will understand, and this usually involves their wallets.
Just bear in mind, the mainstream media does not want you to make their flock curious about these things. They will fight tooth and nail to prevent this from happening. So, they dismiss us as “conspiracy theorists” (oh, how I’ve come to loathe that term). PJ Media and others like it are doing a good job getting the truth out there, but in the coming months it will be more important than ever to debunk the mainstream media and perhaps hit on that one great “shocker” it will take to wake up the public. Keep up the good work, and may Lord provide.
-JS
Jill, I think you have hit upon the only realistic opening that one can have to a liberals mind: Something must happen that causes them to see two of their deeply-held beliefs are in conflict. For you, it was Obama calling HIllary a racist when you knew in your heart she was not. It rocked your world. It made you doubt. It made you think.
I believe that is the secret formula.
Great story, Jill, thanks.
I’m wondering if you also now see that the whole framing of Hillary as “female therefore good” was false. Male, female, Black, white, brown, gay, straight — none of it makes a person smarter or a better leader.
Best of luck to you in battling your cancer.
What a great comment, Jill! I hope that Roger L. Simon reads your comment and many others here.
This is no time to go wobbly!
I learned a long time ago to just agree to disagree when it comes to libs/progs. They know what they know and no amount of pointing out the real facts will not dislodge them from their beliefs. As a former liberal like Roger I know first hand how to close off the mind from facts that don’t jive with reality.
Preach to the moderates Roger – you’ll get much more mileage for your persuasions. Its the only votes left of conservative that you’ll be able to sway.
The Truth. The truth above all worldly things. Math and physics and the real laws, the laws that can not be violated, unlike the laws of man. The truth is the ladder to appreciating the devine.
Opinions are like manure. Everyone makes them and opinions fertilize the vast fields of imagination. Like the grand experiments of nature, most opinions will fail in an attempt to evolve thinking into greater mindsets. Failure is valuable to shade the light of truth.
Lies, con jobs, deceptions, distractions, criminality are fair game to the punishments of mockery, cynicism, law enforcement and barrages of counteropinions.
What is hard to see is the flow of ideas after they are initially popped into the open in places like PJM. Writers here would not see where things go when they are done.
Much as how conservative themes find recognition when lurking beneath the surface of a movie that touches home, I think many readers here carry the ideas to the next hill and others notice. Hopefully with more success than my metaphor.
Give us the facts. Be as truthful as you know how. Have faith in the cause we all share. You’re not alone. The mush of ideas that passes for leftist thought these days are not as powerful as some claim. The compelling ideas are conservative. They travel. Pass the ammo.
“Much as how conservative themes find recognition when lurking beneath the surface of a movie that touches home, I think many readers here carry the ideas to the next hill and others notice.”
So, how many of the conservative and libertarian memes did you recognize in, oh, “Sleepless in Seattle”, “Batman Forever”, “Conspiracy Theory”, “MIB”, “Jerry Maguire”, “The Rock”, “Blade”, “Nothing to Lose”, “Star Trek: First Contact”, “Payback”, “Mask of Zorro” and 20 or more other big box office movies (and a few smaller ones like “Dogma”) back in the 1990s? They were there. I helped put them there. But, lacking the necessary context, the vast majority of them went right past audiences.
There is more dirt on Obama that has been swept under the rug than any other President I can think of. Remove the rug.
BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT!
UGH.
Where do I begin, Rog?
You state your case with FACTS. You state your case with TRUTH. You state your case with INTEGRITY.
THAT IS ALL that is needed.
The people who want to undermine our country aren’t interested in FATS or TRUTH or INTEGRITY and you will NEVER reach those ‘people’ with such bare naked things.
The farther left the right turns…the closer our country goes into a cold dead state of zombie commie DOA.
F*ck ‘em. Be real.
I will NOT SUBMIT and nor should YOU.
Fats=Facts
Spellcheck KWEEN I am not.
Also, WTF is wrong with preaching to the choir? The choir NEEDS the preaching just as much as the heathens (haha). I get disheartened at times and a good PJM article can boost my morale.
Please. Keep preaching to the choir.
My wife is a reflexive liberal and my daughter is an ardent socialist. Not about giving up on either of them, I have learned to be patient. If a liberal becomes a conservative, or discovers the unsuspected conservative in oneself, we are talking about a process likely to take many years, in a way similar to the process of mourning, for instance. So I think we must consider the time scale: In the short term it is possible to win one argument at a time, after having demonstrated our capacity for listening. In this I am careful not to be triumphant. If I have given pause to one of them, I consider it a victory to be celebrated quietly, and I rest my case, so I can prosecute another one later on. One thing that helps me greatly is PJmedia and PJTV. I do not advocate the sites, but I link to those articles that are particulalrly suited to my target at the moment.
About winning over the libs? There is no short term solution to that, except electoral “surprises”, as we were able to produce in 2010. Eventually, it may become “cool”, whatever that means, to say something conservative. I have been with PJmedia and PJTV from the beginning. In my personal opinion, they are only improving, and the ads suggest to me that the audience is growing. Trolling in the comment sections is not as virulent as often seen on many other sites, which is another sign of quality. So I think the best thing that the R.L. Simon empire can do it to keep up the good work. It serves me well, and evidently so it does a great many others.
Posts like this are important. We assume that you do not think your wife and your daughter are mindless and/or evil people. A lot of the jabber at PJM would tell us that they are. Now that’s a real selling point for an argument, eh?
Several people have mentions Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Most recommending Rule 5.
Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage
However I think for engagement with liberals to make them break through the group think is Rule 4.
Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
Liberal Rule: I’m not a racist.
Then why do you support special privileges based on race? Isn’t that racist?
Liberal Rule: I believe in separation of church and state.
Then why do you support the state making laws forcing churches to go against what they believe? How is it separate when the state is making laws for religions?
Liberal Rule: I believe the government should keep it hands off my body.
Then why are you demanding the government take care of your body. How can it keep it hands off when you are demanding that the government taking care of your body?
Liberal Rule: I want to do what’s right and fair.
Who gave you the power to say what’s right and fair. Why do we have to make laws based on your version of morality?
Liberal Rule: I need to have my taxes raised. That would be fair.
Then lead by example. Send in how much you think is fair.
Liberal Rule: But the rich and others won’t pay their fair share.
So that’s your excuse for not paying your fair share?
Liberal Rule: I believe in freedom.
Then why are you demanding that the government have more power to regulate every aspect of our lives.
EXCELLENT. Print-out-on-cards-and-carry-everywhere-worthy.
I’ve had a little success here and there, getting an unpopular message across. I don’t “argue” because that always devolves into spit-covered monitors or chilly “holiday” dinners. Women especially will stop reading or listening when it gets to a slamfest. So I just start the discussion from the other person’s POV and discuss consequences etc.
Keep your goal in mind; verbal slams are satisfying but you’re probably better off forgoing the immediate gratification and work for a change of heart; what you want is a person to decide to vote against Obama/not get that abortion/resist the temptation to drink or smoke or do drugs. This situation she’s faced with is long after the discussion with you. People are intelligent enough to understand concepts but you don’t want them to get bogged down with your vocabulary so go easy on the terminology.
I’ve had more success with social issues than with fiscal ones, so those are most of the examples I’ll give. When I discuss contraception (I’m Catholic so it comes up of course), I point out that in Humanae Vitae section 17 (written 45 years ago!), the first paragraph describes modern Western societies’ social problems and the second paragraph describes modern China, and the situation with HHS this year. I note the study on trout in Colorado, where there were something like 75% female trout, 10% male because of all the estrogen in the water (It’s not a good thing when “other” outnumbers “male”) or that I think it’s funny when women wouldn’t DREAM of eating hormone-fed beef but will ingest the Pill every day for 35 years. I give sideways arguments that get them to think.
On abortion, I just point out that both liberals and conservatives agree that there are just too many liberals: we’d like them to change their minds and they want to end their lines (with contraception, ESCR, abortion, same-sex marriage, euthanasia). I’d kind of prefer the other way but I don’t have the power or inclination to make people do what I think is right. But no, I don’t spend any time thinking “Golly, if only Ellen had reproduced!”. We saw that in 2008, when we were all relieved (C’mon, admit it!) that if Obama’s daughters got pregnant, he wouldn’t want to punish America with another Obama. When they talk about choice, I point out that the most common reason for having an abortion, among women in recovery from it, is “I didn’t think I had a choice”
Taxes: there are two reasons to tax. Raise money, or punish a behavior. If you punish people for earning money and spending it wisely, you will reduce the number of people doing that. If you push for high taxes on people who invested their money, you will decrease the amount of money you take in. So you have to decide if the envy is worth it and if it is, you have to decide where else to cut spending because there isn’t any more money.
Actually, there are at least two other (related) reasons, that I came across in a history of Madagascar and put in the wikipedia article on Corvée: to maintain the value of a fiat currency in a Chartalist way, and to promote a behaviour (in Madagascar, to encourage productive work).
The commenters who suggest trying to get to the people in the middle are right. The devoted leftists are lost causes – just as they think we are lost causes – and we just end up yelling at each other. But there are a lot of people in the middle, even middle right, who need to be reached. In part it’s the content of the messaging, but in part it’s just getting the message to them. I use as an example a close friend of mine who has two young kids, no time, and a wife who doesn’t care about politics at all. He iives in a liberal area and has no work associates or neighbors whom he knows to be Republicans. He is a Republican and used to be pretty conservative. He gets snippets of political news from ‘mainstream’ sources and has bought the latest David Brooks claptrap about the Right and Tea Party running off the rails. He actually told me that he thought Obama was more “Reaganesqe” than any of the GOP candidates in the primary. He thinks that the government is shrinking under Obama and that’s a good thing. I hardly know where to begin with him, but if we’re having a hard time with _him_ then it’s got to be worse with true middle-of-the-roaders in swing states.
So what we need to do is find someone or someones with boatloads of money and create a coordinated TV, internet/social media campaign to support the traditional values of limited government and spending within our means. I think of the Mormon Church ads that used to run on TV where it was some nice message about loving your family, being nice, etc., and then you find out it’s from the Mormons. Those made me feel much better about the Mormons. So, something like that, but with a litlte more policy.
I actually think Paul Ryan would be a good choice for starring in those ads – he seems sincere, decent, honest and grown-up, which is what we need to be. There would be some harder messages – like we’re out of money and maybe it’s time to have people start being self-reliant again instead of always looking to the government, but there are ways to say that that are uplifting and empowering, not negaive and a downer. An appeal to America’s great traditions of letting people be successful on their own terms.
Where do we get the money for such a venture? Who knows? It’s an effort requiring at least as much capital as a Presidential race, although it could be spread out over years. The ads have to go on the main networks to catch those viewers, and be in prime time. Money, money, money.
There would be merciless mocking from the Left (I think of Wll Ferrell “Funny or Die” mocking commercials), but we just have to deal with that and keep our heads up. I think that we could offer a refreshing contrast to the terrible cynicism of the Left (Jon Stewart, I’m looking at you) and appeal to Americans the way Ronald Reagan used to do. “Morning in America” was the greatest poltical ad ever, and we could do things kind of like that.
This would take coordination between the Social Cons and Libertarian Cons, and I honestly think it should tilt away from the SocialCon message, but that’s just me. The point is that this would be a huge effort and everyone on our side would have to realize that nobody on our side would think the campaign is “perfect” but perfect is the enemy of the good and we need to some good pro-limited government, pro-self reliance messages out there.
Except as occasional leavening, I don’t like the emotional/psychological approach. I think a real shift of focus in that direction would be too much of a retreat from the actual intellectual engagement that is most needed. Some methods of engaging that I think work and are fruitful are the Dennis Prager’s “clarity, not agreement” approach, the collegial approach Russ Roberts takes on his Econtalk podcast, and the BloggingHeads.tv approach. All of these ways of engaging allow the ideas to contend, typically without the advocates tending to descend into contentiousness.
But surely, the problem is not just one of bringing adversary advocates to the PJ sites but also procuring unconverted viewers who may be available to conversion. For that I recommend frequent appearances where such viewers’ eyes and ears are already focused, and where a mention of PJM and PJTV might garner some further attention to PJM and PJTV. For that purpose I make the following two suggestions:
1.Appearances by PJ people as PJ people on Public Radio shows, particularly Airtalk on KPCC, KQED Forum on KQED, The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC, The Leonard Lopate Show on WNYC, and the various shows of Wisconsin Public Radio’s Ideas Network. Of course there is broader exposure to be had on national shows like The Diane Rehm Show, Talk of the Nation, and Fresh Air, but for a really fair hearing (not three against one, for example), the local shows mentioned tend to be better. Introduction to the PJ people and ideas plus the customary mention of pjmedia.com and pjtv.com will be salutary.
2.Establishment of shows by PJM and PJTV people on BloggingHeads.tv – This site is specifically intended to provide dialogs (or as they put it, diavlogs, i.e. video dialogs) between progressives and conservatives or libertarians, although there is also a fair amount of matching up of the generally like-minded who happen to disagree on some particular point, as well. A number of conservatives and libertarians have appeared there over the years, including Matt Lewis, Eli Lake, Glenn Reynolds, Byran York, James Pinkerton, Jonah Goldberg, Megan McArdle, Ed Morrissey and Robert P. George; however, at present the only conservatives with their own shows on the site are Matt Lewis, who is the co-host of a show called The DMZ, and Conor Friedersdorf, who hosts Friedersdorf. More conservative-hosted shows would surely have more impact over time. I think David Goldman’s perspective is probably more than Bloggingheads.tv is prepared to entertain, but there are several PJ people I could easily imagine hosting shows on that site in addition to their presence here. Affiliations are always listed and mentioned and links are provided, which would facilitate the drawing of the eyes and ears of ordinary progressives to PJM and PJTV themselves.
I like PJMedia.com as a conservative site. Your outreach idea is a laudable though challenging goal, but please create a sister site, which of course can link here, on which to pursue it.
I presume PJMedia.com is viable in a business sense. If so, why fold it into a speculative idea? If not, I agree you have to try something new.
It will be hard to find contributors that both sides will listen to. Mickey Kaus and Walter Russell Mead come to mind.
Hosting open comment sections with the ‘reply’ option is one good step beyond preaching to the choir. I notice that this address does that. Once in a while an actual debate on facts and principles does occur, and those are very good things.
I also notice that some of the opposition (Daily Beast, Huffpo) are mighty quick to ban or erase comments from unwelcome visitors. And I have not seen any organized conservative movement to silence leftist megaphones, as leftists attempt to shut down Fox News and Rush.
The open debate SHOULD be occuring on the public media if anywhere, but the selection bias there normally ensures that conservative voices are outnumbered, if not feeble.
Be cheered that the internet still allows maintenance of sites such as PJM, and let us make all possible efforts to strengthen and expand this pioneering platform.
yes, pjmedia does an excellent job with how it treats comments (best in the biz imho)
everyone can have his say and everyone can react to what is said
there are no gimmicks like the +1/-1 bs and those who moderate do a fine job as well
the trolls usually get beaten back in the comments sections as well (and the best “trolls” are the satirists who mask as lefties and nab unsuspecting passersby- all in great fun)
the intellectual debate format between freedom and tyranny is a fool errand as most on this site will already recognize– the left has no intellectual ground to stand on so what’s the point
we can all link to the old milton friedman ‘free to choose’ vids to see a competent free-market capitalist dismantle up to 4 or 5 various lefties simultaneously- no need to reinvent the wheel here
Very thoughtful, sage advice. After nearly a decade of preaching to the choir (which is more emotionally rewarding and slightly more effective than yelling at the TV), I decided to actually “do something,” so I ran for Ann Arbor City Council as a Republican. I’m an unconventional, small l libertarian, pro-Tea Party Republican in an 80% Democrat town and I got 40% of the vote. I found that on a personal level, if you go door to door, people are human beings. We might call the people here “the Left” but most people are not real activists; they just go along to get along, and if you talk to them nicely, they will think. My main argument was that this is a democracy and a two party system and Republicans are not demons. I got the endorsement of the liberal student newspaper, the Michigan Daily. My incumbent opponent refused to debate me, and my signs were yanked, but I made my point. Trouble is, the stress (which went on for months) was simply awful, and it seriously affected my health. Depending on the individual and the level of stress taken on, I really think it can kill. My problem is that I hate politics, and I understand better than ever before why politics is dominated by people who like politics.
I say this not to discourage anyone from running for office or getting involved in politics, but only to share my experience. (It was so stressful that I have yet to discuss it in the blog I have been writing for ten years.)
The most rabid leftists/progressives I know are not going to be swayed from their opinions. Period. I have learned to look at them the same as I might a mentally ill family member…love them for who they are and try to look beyond their faults when possible; isolate them when those faults may cause harm to others. Those on the left who will listen to reason are already here. I suppose.
Far more important are two aspects of PJM’s existence that were not excplored in Mr. Simon’s post:
1) Even if you are only preaching to the choir, that is still a massively important function, and alone is reason to carry on with a vengeance. We (your collected audience nationwide) need to know we are not alone, that there are plenty of other strong minds and voices similar to our own out there. The importance of this CANNOT be overstated.
2) DO NOT allow yourselves to be beclowned, in any way. Make sure you always tell the truth, don’t jump on stuff without checking it out just because it supports your views (not saying that has happened, or does on any routine basis). It is important to not allow yourselves to be discredited so if links to your site are ever used as evidence/backup/etc. in a discussion between friends of differing ideologies, it will not be a simple matter for the leftist/progressive to dismiss the link with a wave of their hand and a muttering of “discredited” (not that many will need any evidence to do so; simply by disagreeing with them they may instinctively go there, but don’t give them proof).
When you take everything the left finds unacceptable off the table, then you take everything the right finds unacceptable off the table…what’s left? We all know what we disagree about. Is there anything about which we agree? Why not identify that and work on it?
Like the budget. There MUST be some programs or entitlements that Democrats don’t really care about, that they would sacrifice in order to help balance the budget. Likewise, there must be some kind of tax that Republicans wouldn’t find too tyrannical and would agree to if it would help dig us out of the hole.
Why does everything have to be either/or? NO tax increases! NO budget cuts! “I’m alright, Jack, keep your hands off of my stack.” DON’T TOUCH MY MONEY!
I think we’re fighting about principles, not the practical issue of what to do with money. Republicans don’t like the idea of taxation, so they fight against any proposed tax no matter how trivial. Democrats don’t like the idea of a government that doesn’t provide citizens everything they need to live, so they fight against any reduction in entitlements no matter how trivial.
Because in ideology, nothing is trivial. Everything represents a principle we either love or hate. We can’t compromise, even if the practical results would be trivial. That would mean violating our cherished principles. Nobody seems to consider that we can impose a tax now, then repeal it when the economy gets better. They don’t seem to care that we can cut an entitlement now and restore it when the deficit is back to a sane level. None of that matters. We’d rather see the country burn than let it appear that our opponents are momentarily getting what they want. Because if they did, it would be slippery slope time. One new tax and we’re headed for permanent Socialism. One reduced entitlement and the poor are starving in the streets forever.
Yeah, it appears to be that stupid.
What all this means is, if you want to stop preaching to the choir you have to search for points of agreement, even trivial ones to start with, and acknowledge them – gladly, not grudgingly. Use them to build bridges. Think outside the ideological box and consider practical matters. Spend some time thinking about issues that we CAN agree on, about problems that we CAN cooperate on. Write something about them.
Agree with what some others have said. The target is not hard-core liberals. It is the independents. You work on the margins.
Here’s an analogy. As dramatic as it is to make the big parachute drop into the enemy’s backyard, it’s a great way to get your troops chewed up. You really need to focus on seizing the no-man’s-land between the trenches.
Dear PJM Staff of Witers,
you are not “preaching to the choir”.
I learn a lot here, a lot of information that I wouldn’t have the possibility to get by searching about any and every problem by myself. What I learn here I spread around, with family and friends.
Facts facts facts, that’s what you give us, and those facts are all that the totalitarian media machine wants us to ignore.
So the only improvement that I could propose would be this: gather the documents about important cases (like Fast and Furious, voter fraud, etc.) in dossiers. And list the dossiers with a link to them on the main page, so they are easy to find, print, distribute.
Offer an “opinion exchange” with HuffPo or maybe even NYT. Give them space to put their best stuff on PJM while you run PJM’s best on their site. Mobil used to buy some very expensive real estate on the Times’ op-ed page because it felt it couldn’t get its views across any other way. Of course, that would be fantastically costly. But what about an exchange of space? Maybe you should give Ms. Huffing-and-puffington a call, Mr. Simon.
Sir,
Authoritarian states seek to isolate their dissenters, make them feel they are alone, and, somehow, abnormal. Before the alternative media, the left controlled the MSM, academia and entertainment. (They still do). The value of places which simply preach to the choir is that there is an alternative to Dan Rather and the NY Times telling us how awful we are.
This column raises an important question and there are many thoughtful responses. I’d add a couple of ideas.
Websites such as PJ provide conservatives with a virtual meeting place, something that many of us have not had before the Internet. Let’s not minimize the importance of this; it strengthens the base that might otherwise be fragmented and isolated. The alternate media and Fox News are having an impact on the messaging in our country – the progressive narrative no longer goes unchallenged. The left devotes a lot of energy criticizing and mocking these outlets, and that tells me they consider them a threat. Good.
I agree with Jeanine @ #47 that places like PJ can arm us with a good understanding of the issues and the conservative stance on them. I went to a talk the other day that absolutely dismantled multiculturalism. Can’t wait for that topic to come up again with a progressive.
The areas where progressives have gained dominance are the news media, entertainment, and education. These are the battlegrounds where we must engage them. We held our GOP caucuses at a public school this year and, predictably, there was a Che Guevara poster in one of the classrooms. One of our group complained and got it removed. Here in Colorado Springs, we have a Constitutional Champions program, basically like a patriotic summer camp for kids. It’s pretty successful. We had a Patriot Day presentation at a local library – standing room only, many home schoolers there. So, to get at the progressive bias in education, parents should pay attention to what is being taught, develop programs to counteract the progressive bias, support educational choice legislation, etc. If there is a university in your town, find out what they’re up to and develop alternate messaging via public forums and seminars.
On the issue of news media, for about a year I pointed out instances of bias to one of our local newspaper editors. On a nearly daily basis, I sent him an e-mail – not to convert him but to point out incomplete reporting, story selection, and the like (“Left Turn” is a good resource, particularly the discussion of bias theory). It did some good; the editor regularly acknowledged the bias and would sometimes print a follow up story to balance the coverage. Fellow news junkies might be able to do the same with their local news outlets. I wouldn’t bother with letters to the editor or comment boards – go directly to the reporters and editors.
Finally, there is the issue of debate tactics. The committed leftie is not going to change, but such individuals can influence others. It is important not to let their messaging go publicly unchallenged, and here Alinsky style tactics may be useful. In contrast, social psychology provides us some insight into how people form and change opinions, and these concepts can be used in personal discussion. Telling people they are wrong doesn’t work very well. If a person is ambivalent and you start making a conservative argument, the natural tendency is for them to take a progressive stance (“yes, but”). The more a person voices an opinion, the more s/he is likely to believe it. So, trying to convince someone of your views can have the opposite effect. Vince @ #55 has it right – ask questions. Use a more Socratic method. I just had a wonderful experience with a student in discussing tariffs; I asked her, “Who benefits from tariffs?” and “Is there a downside to tariffs?”, and by the end she understood some basic economic principles. I would add that it is common for progressives to try to end the conversation or change the subject when they are losing. Don’t let them, because at that point you’re almost there.
One thing I wish we had more information about is argument style. I find it fascinating to listen to how people argue their points. For example, when cornered James Carville usually counterattacks while Obama deflects with a joke.
The problem is not making good arguments or having a good approach: The problem is access.
The Left’s intentionally imposed monopoly on discourse prevents the average liberal of even becoming aware that there is an opposing viewpoint. Only the weakest and most ill-spoken conservative notions even get presented in the liberal media, as token examples to laugh at and scorn. We at PJM (and similar sources) could have the best and most convincing and most brilliant arguments and positions ever, and it would do no good because no liberal would ever see them. This is by design.
The problem is not to come up with better ideas: The problem is how to get those ideas onto the liberal menu.
Another issue to consider: “Deprogramming” never happens in a group setting; it happens in private, individually. Peer pressure prevents people from declaring their new-found views publicly at the time of the conversion. Thus, it’s difficult to “covert” masses of people at once, and it’s basically impossible to ever see any evidence that you may have been successful. You could go to Speakers Corner and have 99 people jeering at you and throwing rotten tomatoes; but neither you nor the tomato throwers will ever notice the silent person at the back of the crowd who internalized your message and walked away a changed man.
And that’s the best we can hope for. One at a time. Silently, privately, little by little. We may already be much more successful than we realize.
Another technique to consider: Shock.
It took a major shock — 9/11 — for me to switch from default leftist to whatever it is I am now (I hesitate to say “conservative” — I simply refer to my my famous chart and place myself in its lower left corner: http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2010/10/11/the-electric-tea-party-acid-test/ ). It took years of slowly reconstructing my inner landscape for me to realize that I had already had many of those same “libertarian/conservative” views, it’s just that I didn’t realize it pre-9/11, and instead had awkwardly tried to arrange these inconvenient beliefs into my liberal interior design. For, 9/11 precipitated a “paradigm shift”: Ii didn’t actually acquire new beliefs, I simply acquired a different framework or theory which better matched the beliefs I already had, allowing them to be more comfortably and rationally arranged.
What we need to find are those shocks, and force liberals to confront them.
A good example of a conversion-worthy shock, and one that should be emphasized more:
Affirmative action. Especially the punch-in-the-stomach feeling that parents (i.e. Asian or White parents in A-A states) in their 40s feel when their kids turn 18 and get turned away from the college of their choice due to their racial heritage. It suddenly turns the touchy-feely utopianism of liberal attitudes about A-A into a life-altering assault on fairness and rationality. I’d wager that 80% of liberals secretly don’t like A-A (notice how it twice was banned in California of all places, normally a liberal stronghold); we can use that as the hook to introduce a paradigm shift for their internal beliefs — give them a better way to arrange the beliefs they already have, rather than trying to awkwardly accommodate something as ill-fitting as Affirmative Action.
Another: Personal freedom: I truly think that at least 80% of people who currently identify as “liberal” would change their self-identification to “libertarian” if we could bypass the MSM monopoly and directly communicate the notions ensuring “personal freedom” from totalitarianism. PJM, and all “conservative” commentators should pound this point relentlessly, because it is a winner.
There are other potential “shocks” out there. Keep searching for them. And never, ever give up the fight.
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”
– Charles Mackay
I can tell you about two successful techniques I know of. I’ll put them in two separate posts so’s not to cause fatigue.
EXAMPLE.
My lefty-couple friends were shocked when they met my Republican family. We’re multiracial because my very generous parents adopted Mexican and Asian kids and never shut the door on anyone. Our gay friends are 100% welcome. Our parties look the way Obama’s campaign headquarters wishes it did. Some of us speak a few languages because we’ve traveled the world and immersed ourselves in foreign cultures. My mother has two full refrigerators because so many people drop by for breakfast unannounced.
This made no sense to the lefty friends, who knew right well along with the entire civilized world that Republicans are stingy, racist, and closed. They started asking me questions because it made no sense, and I explained a few things. We don’t rely on the government to care for Mexican orphans, to open our eyes to other cultures, to feed the hungry, and to make gay Americans feel welcome. We do it ourselves because it’s the right thing to do and because it’s the only way we know it’ll get done. I told her we could do a lot more if the government wasn’t taking so much money from us to build factories in Finland.
How about a series of debates with intelligent liberals (not the easy-to-demolish, high-entertainment-value crackpots that abound on talk radio)?
Probably not on college campuses, as there’s too much room there for extremists to steal the spotlight, but somewhere.
Those people that believe the Democrat party is the source of all goodness are probably a waste of time—and these people do exist. By the time they’re in their fifties and sixties their opinions and worldview are cemented in and they’re gone for good. Libs in their thirties and forties can still be reached. But everyone here has probably run into more than one lib that seemed cheerful and normal on the outside, yet once the discussion turned to politics or US foreign policy the angry part showed up—and sometimes explosively—and they storm away. This probably wasn’t true fifty years ago when liberalism was just starting its long test phase. I have to assume that they were just as intolerant then as well as being supremely self-assured. The intolerance part is still there, but the self-assurance is pretty much gone. Most libs are going to have a very, very bad day the day after Romney’s election. I wouldn’t go anywhere near one of them. I’m not a coward—it just doesn’t do my self-assurance any good to be rejected so much.
As a former lefty liberal, like Mr. Simon, I can understand the depth of feeling that underlies liberalism and conservatism both. I still call myself a classical liberal rather than conservative. Trouble is, true believers on the Right are sometime as angry about “talking to the other side” as on the Left.
In terms of culture, I might suggest that we talk of positive issues and themes, like Lionel C does in movies, and let others come to their own awakening on what that means to their political opinions. As strange as it sounds, people will open up to a novel or movie more than they will their brother-in-law spouting off at Thanksgiving dinner.
When I am with a Democrat or Liberal I ask them to explain the position with a non-judgmental “Tell me more.” Then I provide my view as a What if…which works nearly all the time because they haven’t ever considered anything but their view. Because I’ve been receptive to their view, they’re more likely to listen to mine.
Pointing out contradictions also works quite well. Take the position that Speculation is Bad and Speculators Are Evil Because They Manipulate The (Usually Oil) Market. Counter that with the point that if speculation is manipulation (which it isn’t), then the biggest speculator out there is the Fed and US Treasury, who are keeping interest rates artificially low. I guarantee you won’t get a snippy comment back on that one.
Roger, congrats on this topic! You’ve gotten quite a number of responses. I hope you’ll follow up with a summary and maybe some next steps.
I think you’re already doing most of what you can do. PJ produces very high-quality pieces and video, which is really the key to get new people reading and watching. Occasionally I’ll post a good Bill Whittle video on Facebook, which definitely has to hook a few people in. It’s the production quality and pure sensibility of the material that works for new people.
Get subscriber permission to post to their sights.
I am way down the thread here…don’t know how many will read this far. But. An excellent tactic for reaching the young is youtube. They are all over that.
So for example, a simple technique is to show short clips of the Left making statements — and then juxtapose with evidence that they DO the opposite. This is highly effective. A short 1 minute video could include 3 clips of left wing politicians making statements, following each clip is a short piece showing THEY LIE. Example: Al Gore being saying something green followed by a photo of his mansion with some text showing size and percentage of electrical consumption compared to the average. Another example: any left wing figure saying how we have to cut back on fuel consumption — followed by factoid of their airplane fuel usage as they fly back and forth across the country.
The young folks eat this format up because (a) this is THEIR communication format, and (b) it is simple and to the point so they “get it”, and (c) they can forward the link to their friends and (d) they can view these short clips on their mobile devices.
PJ Media columns and blogs (like this one) are for older people, who have deeper experience and can think in depth. The young can’t do that yet. So communicate to them in THEIR format. You can reach the kids as young as 7th graders with this approach — and it inoculates them against the propaganda they get in school. In fact they forward these clips to each other as responses to “do you know what my idiot teacher spewed today?” Check this out! Etc.
So PJ Media folks — start creating clips and put them on youtube. Have a 3 second “PJ Media” intro visual (many people and groups that leverage youtube do this) and then go right into the body of the message. Target message clips no more than 2 minutes — 1 minute to 1 1/2 minutes is best.
Heck, I could supply my 13 year old son to you as a consultant. (Seriously.)
A great idea, SunSword. And a followup idea for Mr. Simon: please encourage someone to put together a how-to posting on the creation of YouTube-bound videos, especially for anything more complicated than uploading something from point/shoot cameras (like videos with music, say). Perhaps Dr. Mercury over at Maggie’s Farm could do that for you – but someone. I’ve seen plaintive cries for help like that often in PJM comments.
> I solicit your thoughts.
Evangelize egoism.
http://selfadoration.com/?p=880
The typical libertarian/conservative strategy of lamenting everything in high dudgeon is useless. It’s preaching to the choir, but, much worse, it serves mainly to convince the choir that things can only get worse.
This is completely false. Any problem created by the human mind can be solved by the human mind. But that tautology illuminates the path we must take, doesn’t it? It’s not the state we need to change, nor the legislature. It’s the people.
Human liberty is the consequence of individualism, but individualism is the politics of egoism. We will not turn socialists into libertarians by yelling at them or about them, but we can turn anegoists into egoists — and hence collectivists into individualists — if we can show them why self-adoration offers a better way of life for every human being.
That will backfire horribly. Many of them already worship themselves, and revealing that fact to them will only make them more dangerous.
Er… no. As the famous computer scientist Brian W. Kernighan pointed out, “Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.” It follows that, since there are only a finite number of human minds, any sufficiently ingenious problem created by a sufficiently ingenious human mind cannot be solved by the human mind – at least in certain problem areas, and quite possibly in what concerns us here.
I think the bigger challenge and the one with the most effect would be to reach the “silent majority” that doesn’t know there are sources for the whole story and the truth. There are vast millions that only know of the major networks, major magazines and major cable news. I am amazed at how many fundamentaly conservative friends are totally ignorant when it comes to alternate news sources.
As far as convincing the left….good luck.
Depends on who you deem “the other side”. But if you think any of this will be read, much less understood, much, much less considered rationally YOU ARE MISERABLY WRONG.
The Left, Progressives (sic) if they will, know all, see all and will dictate all. Never mind truth, history or common sense. Barack Obama and the rest of his gang want to manage business, manage personal lives and be dictators.
We need to try to enlighten the vast middle, those who actually work for livings don’t live off the government (Obama) or government-financed “think tanks” or advocaty organizations. Most Americans believe in free enterprise and democracy and the right-ness of “The People”.
In all conversations, be rational, truthful and call out BS gently when heard. Do not turn the middle off with rabid ideology but listen and coax.
We can win.
Preaching to the Choir….I know it is hard to get to the other side. Lt. Col. Alan West is trying that with the Black Community when he had the Meeting with the Black Politicians ( See his site for Details ). Problem is, we are dealing with people who vote for Color, Who Vote “D” because Daddy told them to, and and who vote not knowing what is going on in America at this very moment. This Muslim Brotherhood is every where. The Black Community think that Obama’s Change is good for them but they don’t realize that the Change means Conversion to Islam…They have never read the Koran Qur’an. If every one was told to read the Koran from cover to cover, they might change their minds about voting D for Obama…If they only knew what was in store fort them and this Country.
If you push for the reading of the Koran, you might just bring some of the D’s to the R’s side. I say this…If Obama Wins in 2012, we will have WWIII here in America because the Southern States are Boiling as we speak. It is very close…If he Looses, we may still have WWIII because his Muslims will more than likely start it. Nice game of chess you’ve gotten us in to Ollie Obama.Ron
I agree with the Prof. in #86 & with Kurmudgeon in #100.
Put another way, the process of changing a liberal’s mind
is like a marathon, but in our nano-second world, subconsciously,
I think, we expect a sprint.
Re.: Argument style, imho, one of the best is by Phillip E. Johnson,
who served as a Law Clerk under Chief Justice Earl Warren. He turned
down an offered professorship @ Yale, & later landed at U.Cal Berkley.
The book, “Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds”–IVPress, I believe.
Though not all on this site may agree with his Wedge Strategy that
promotes Intelligent Design, there is an excellent chapter which I
think all could benefit from about debate–”Turn up your Baloney
Detector” I believe is the chapter title.
As a Minister in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) I have engaged in
debate on the floor of presbytery meetings, and via e-mail with folk
on the other side on many issues. On the human sexuality issue, in
particular, I have been in conversation for 5+ years now with a fellow
on the other side of the issue. Though we have not changed each others’
minds, we have found an issue or two of common ground.
Whether a liberal’s aggregate views on issues could reach a critical
mass bringing about a conversion to conservatism, I am a bit doubtful,
but still hopeful–especially, as with the Prof, I think of various
extended family members.
How to impact the other side?
It is way beyond disposition for disposition’s sake.
The radical left has been on a 60 year march to coopt and subvert the world’s institutions and brainwash the brainless public and make opposition untenable for the much smaller thinking public… and you think there might be some magic bullet to fix that?
If there is a magic bullet, it’s force, but that won’t be acceptable, even to committed thinkers. At least, not yet.
So the answer is to begin to reverse the 60 year march. It will take decades. And it isn’t just politics. It’s way more than that. The evil has sunk deeply into the culture, the morals (actually, the lack of morals), the religion, the belief systems.
The schools, the media, entertainment have to be rebuilt; not just transformed, rebuilt. Fox News had it right. You can’t infiltrate them. You have to replace them. PJmedia is already beginning to address all of the key things. Do it more. Do it harder.
But arguing with hypnotized zombies is useless.
That’s the key. The basic problem is that Conservatives, by their very nature, don’t like to get involved. They don’t like to force their views on others, and basically want to go along to get along whenever possible. Likewise, they refuse to believe that other people don’t necessarily follow the same views! How many conservative articles and people out there have stated publicly that Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and the other Progressive “aren’t really evil, they’re not really out to destroy America as we know it, they’re just misguided – or incompetent.”
Mitt Romney has to forcefully lead on all this. He needs to be decisive about defending free enterprise, defending business, defending personal freedom agains the tyranny of the government.
The few — Democrat autocrats-wanna-be — cannot foretell the future any better than you or I can. But they want to tell us how to lead our lives, what to buy, what to eat, how to borrow, what to pay executives, how to manage companies. (Do THEY live their lives better? Do they buy more intelligently? Do they eat better? Do they borrow more smartly? Do they have successful experience in hiring business executives who can manage companies profitably? Have they ever managed a company or even managed people before? Have the actual policies they have passed over the past 75 years reduced poverty, increased affordable healthcare, expanded and improved education?)
Do they really know better than you what cereals to buy you kids? They think you are stupid because you don’t understand Tony to Tiger from whole grains. You as a consumer need government’s protection. They think you are stupid because you (of course none of them) paid and borrowed too much for housing and didn’t understand the mortgage documents as they clearly do, being much smarter than you. Why can a government gaggle of bureaucrats know more about what you want and need better than you can?
Romney needs to be brief, clear and truthful, yet needs to shine oratorically.
He has truth, justice and the American Way on his — our — side!
Let’s go.
I read my last Chicago Sun-Times in late 2006- after they dropped George Will and Mark Steyn. I’ve not watched the networks election coverage when they went off air at 1000pm when I lived in Ca. CNN was last seen during the first Gulf War. Now is not the time to ‘reach out’ because ‘they’ have not finished kicking out folks to our side. This is a loooooong battle and this will be the happiest grump vote I’ve made since Dole [go Mitt!]
Don’t waste even one second worrying about how to change the minds of committed statists. It’s not possible. If the 75% of Americans who are NOT socialists will vote in the 2012 election, everything will be fine. So, work on getting conservatives involved and active.
We will never win over committed Left-wingers (though some of them do come ’round on their own) but it’s not too difficult persuade “independents” and the mushy centrists to vote more conservative. All we have to do is speak up a bit more. We can’t continue to bite our tongues when political topics arise among our personal circle of friends and associates. Always be polite and respectful when discussing political issues, but don’t remain silent. In cities like Los Angeles, where I live, people with right of center views can feel like they are all alone, when in fact there are other like-minded people all around them who keep their views to themselves. It’s time to speak up. Just be sure to smile and be good humored.
Use the words, “liberty, constitution, liberty, constitution,” until people wake up.
Make the point that liberty is not the same thing as license. Dare to suggest that economic license (which in absolute terms nobody advocates) is no more dangerous than is sexual and personal license (which the Left seems to advocate). In fact, not only is license not the same thing as liberty — it destroys liberty. All the old philosophers and theologians and poets knew that.
When they say, “I want the government out of our bedrooms,” reply, “Do you believe that there should be no laws or customs whatsoever regarding marriage and the raising of children?” Any reasonable person here will concede that there must be laws and customs; then the question is what those laws and customs will be, and whether they will be based upon human nature or not.
Liberty, constitution, liberty, constitution …
People will start to listen when the battle-and-privation-hardened survivors crawl out from the wreckage of a once great land and start to rebuild. That listening will last until they get to where we are now – maybe 3 or 4 hundred years from now, maybe less – and then this will repeat.
This country is dead. It is a corpse and the maggots are starting to feed. Pretty soon the scavengers will realize that what they smell is ripened flesh and know that the corpse will NOT rise to fight back and then they will pounce and tear. Most of us are going to die very soon – few are truly ready to fight what is to come and fewer still realize how fully our elite leaders have prepared the ground for our destruction.
America was a great nation – flawed but great – built on ideas that made possible an approach to paradise mankind has never achieved – and may never achieve again. The biggest flaw is that its Foundation didn’t fully prevent agents of chaos and stagnation from using money and power for dominating the halls of government.
Term limits for ALL positions, backed-currency mandates, and time-service requirements for youth approaching adulthood (military, public security, emergency services, public services) to achieve voting rights are among things that might have prevented decay and instilled a sense of both patriotism and responsibility in the citizenry AND that their government truly represented their collective will.
Well, as they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. What has always struck me is how well the Progressives are organized to indoctrinate the young and get their message out. The Nazi’s had the Hitler Youth and the papers, the Soviets likewise, the U.S. Progressive Left has taken over the educational establishment lock, stock, and barrel as well as owning the most of the media. The U.S. conservatives….send their kids to public schools (run by progressives) and read the Washington Post. Sigh.
Most people in the general U.S. society get their attitudes from the popular TV shows. We need to follow suite and re-infiltrate our own society. I’ve been complaining for years that Rush, Hannity, and Beck (Mark Levin runs the Landmark Legal Foundation) should put their money where their mouth is, pool their money, and buy ABC or the New York Times and turn around the editorial content. Don’t be obvious about it, but hire properly balanced editors and we could work wonders. For that matter, how about pooling resources and starting a company to do this?
I appreciate Mr. Simon basically saying that there are two sides to an argument. I totally agree in principle. However, this is not a problem for left-wing web sites, the MSM, or modern liberalism in general. They thrive by omitting opposing viewpoints or shouting them down. Even getting the most thoughtful, non-attack argument posted on a liberal site, without getting shouted down or personally attacked, is problematical at best. The core of the problem is that liberalism is fueled by emotion, group think, and demonization, not rational thinking.
Conservatives like to base their viewpoint on logic and reason, which includes a careful examination of all sides. This is not a problem for liberals. Like Mr. Simon. many of us conservatives feel a little like we’re drinking Kool-Aid here too. But that’s half the problem. Liberals EXPECT conservatives to play by the rules of rational debate, while they run willy-nilly with non-sequiters, ad hominems, and inconsistent reasoning.
With the cards stacked against us, we can’t be concerned by our inherent sense of fairness. That doesn’t mean we need to be robotic ideologues, it just means we can’t be too concerned about our opponents getting due consideration when they walk all over ours.
The people we need to engage are the people in the middle. They are the ones we need to convince. The problem is that, for the most part, they are not interested in politics. We need to find some way of getting them to turn off their “reality” tv and pay attention to the real reality taking place around them.
1. Partner with a select “liberal” webzine(s) to cross-publish articles that will be in the interests of both sites’ readers.
Invite considered response articles (not Tatler-length, “gotcha” ripostes).
Strategically managed, this will drive new and more traffic to both sites.
2. Get resident PJM writers represented in TV broadcast and radio media, to provide the “conservative” point of view on an issue.
I lived through WWII and became aware of the word propaganda. I said to myself, my young self, that can’t happen here, we are two knowledgeable, learned, aware. Hah. Scary!
We can convert the liberals up close, personal, and one by one.
For example, a woman bemoaned her daughter’s husband, who is unemployed. He has worked but was laid off over and over. At 60 years old himself he finds no employment anywhere. I say to his mother-in-law, “If you hadn’t voted for Obama, your son-in-law would have a job.”
Another liberal lady has a 30-year-old son who went bankrupt and lost two restaurant businesses. His partner, a trusted long-time friend, skimmed the revenue, wrote bad checks, even dipped illegally into the lady’s personal accounts. The partner had a sense of entitlement to both the business’s and his partner’s funds. We have government that says “What’s yours is mine.” It robs taxpayers to pay others and calls it okay. It’s not. Everybody involved goes bankrupt.
Liberals, one by one, stand for all that brings everybody else down.
Both women got the idea that their liberal outlook brought nothing but heartache.
Most of us conservatives are former Lefties. There are a few of us that were raised on the right and continued that tradition…but for the large majority of us (like Roger)- we came to the ‘faith’ through one of the following ways:
1. Quiet, introspective thought and a thorough vetting of our assumptions (like David Mamet) in which we realized the logical fallacies of leftist thought.
2. A massively disruptive personal experience (9/11, becoming the victim of a crime- see Dennis Hopper- whose eyes were opened when the second tower fell) which led us to challenge some of our long held beliefs about human nature and the objective existence of “good” and “evil”.
3. Military service- because of it’s strenuous enforcement of objective reality (you either ARE good enough or you are NOT- intentions are worth nothing…this was actually MY path because, if you think about it, once you accept an objective reality…conservatism is almost sure to follow).
4. A desire to read, study, and understand history…especially the history of ideas. I have seen this convert a lot of people when they realize that most of the left’s best ideas have been tried and been shown wanting. Progressivism + Historical Reality = conservatism.
5. Travel abroad- to see how most of the rest of the world lives and, from personal experience, a chance to see just how well a lot of the competing ideologies have historically played out.
There are many other paths that could be argued…everyone has their own “road to Damascus” moment…but here’s kind of my point: In NONE of these stories will you ever find someone who says “well- I argued with a guy who believed in conservative principles and he convinced me right there, at that moment…and I was converted!”. THAT doesn’t happen, unfortunately. The best that we can hope for is that during one of these arguments we end up planting the infectious seed of an idea in someone’s mind and that it begins to take root. Over time the natural defense mechanisms kick in and attack this seed of an idea but, in the end, fail because, like the theoretical ‘acid that can’t be contained’ (from Richard Dawkins’ “The Selfish Gene”)- the point is so powerful that it immediately dissolves everything that it touches- so no matter what you throw at it…it manages to break through. During an argument the defenses are high…so planting this “acid seed” (boy- have I screwed up my metaphors here…but let’s keep going) is difficult.
BUT IT IS POSSIBLE. You will NEVER see it at the time (these things take a lot of time to gestate; no leftist will fall to their knees and embrace your ideology midway through an argument)… but you must have faith that it WILL HAPPEN.
So what does this idea look like? I don’t know, myself: it will be different things to different people. For some- it will be the sanctity of life. For others- it might be the fact that the first thing that a dictator does is to take away guns…it will be something different for every liberal- but the conclusions will almost always be the same: that there IS an objective reality. That there IS such a thing as GOOD and EVIL. Once you accept the ‘objective good and evil’ basis then conservatism will follow…in time…and that’s something that we just have to have faith in…we will never get the immediate gratification of in the moment embracing of an idea.
Oh- one thing that I know this idea does NOT look like- ad hominem attacks. If you find yourself attacking leftist politicians- no matter how despicable it might be- you will convert NO ONE. I’m going to make an assumption that no one “converted” to conservatism because Maxine Waters is an idiot. If you really want to convert them- argue on the metaphysical…not on the ad hominem.
Roger,
Minds do not normally change quickly, it takes time.
What we need:
1) More data driven articles, less opinion. Even liberals can understand arithmetic if they are exposed to it often enough. This applies to all of PJ Media, including PJTV.
2) No Snark — it might be fun, but it only pushes the other side away.
3) Ruthless truth — even when it does not agree with our current ideas (but see number 1.)
Chris
“People do not want to be disturbed by opposing views. They don’t even want to think about them.”
Tell me about it! Look how this article starts with the mention of Romney and three things “we mostly agree on.” No one around here will ever be able to change a liberal’s mind, or probably even have a rational discussion with them, if they can’t even see their own hypocrisy.
You want examples? Ok. How many people here support Paul Ryan’s budget plan? I bet a lot. Roger Simon just wrote how we’re all for smaller government and less spending. If so, then why do so many people happily support a budget plan that won’t balance the budget for 30 years? That’s three decades. Half the people reading this will literally be dead before the budget is balanced under such a “fiscally conservative” plan.
…and that’s just one year of balancing the budget. The debt would actually be trillions bigger at that 30-year mark.
How many people here support Paul Ryan in general? I bet a lot. What does Paul Ryan support? TARP, Patriot Act, NDAA, more debt and budgets without any actual cuts… this guy’s a conservative!? Heck, Paul Ryan doesn’t even want U.S. soldiers who fight in Afghanistan to be able to play poker online when they come home. This guy is for small government!?
Some people say, “Internet gambling? What a minor issue to talk about.” …Exactly! Why are so many “small-government” people in Washington using their time to take away freedom and choice on such “minor” issues? Even worse is when they are hypocrites and support things like state lotteries. Yeah, we want to dictate morality and don’t want you to gamble, unless it’s a government-run program.
Want to criminalize marijuana? Great! Have states do it then. Conservatives are all about states rights, right? People had to amend the Constitution TWICE for alcohol prohibition, but for other drugs they just pretend the Commerce Clause can do it. That’s the same clause lefties say makes Obamacare legal. You can’t have it both ways.
How come the “Taxed Enough Already” Party shuns the one presidential candidate who has a stellar record of cutting spending, never raising taxes, wants to cut a trillion dollars of waste, balance the budget in three years, and wants to eliminate the entire income tax and IRS? You’d think the “Taxed Enough Already” Party would love that stuff. But nope.
How come “small-government conservatives” don’t trust government to oversee their health care, but they do trust government to wiretap, indefinitely detain, and even kill U.S. citizens without transparency or due process?
I ask questions like this around here, and generally I get made fun of or am told the Obama campaign is paying me to say it to thwart Romney. Really? The Obama campaign is paying me to promote the Constitution and small government and real spending cuts? Come on. If those things “thwart Romney,” then that should tell you what kind of candidate Romney is. But you already know what kind of candidate he is, don’t you. That’s why you have to hold your nose to vote for him.
I don’t know how anyone here expects to have rational conversations with the left when they can’t even have rational conversations with people who take the Constitution and small government seriously instead of merely paying lip service to such things.
If you’re referring to Ron Paul, what makes him unacceptable is his blind isolationism with strong underpinnings of national guilt.
We have learned the hard way–two world wars plus the Cold War–that we can not withdraw into Fortress America without it coming back to bite us.
America is not the weak, limited, nation of the 19th century anymore. We’re top dog on this planet. And being top dog means you must constantly defend your position.
America is weak. We have a big powerful military… but not the means to pay for it. That is a recipe for disaster and everyone should see it clearly.
China pays our soldiers, pays for the construction of our ships, planes, missiles, small arms, etc.
Have you heard of Karen Kwiatkowski, candidate for Virginia 6th district? Please search her on youtube. A Retired Air Force Lt Col that worked in the Pentagon in an intelligence role. Anyway… she has a few things to say about unconstitutional foreign policies and the threat of chaos caused by the imminent sovereign debt crisis.
Forget Ron Paul… that’s not the issue. The issue is “what is conservatism”? Paul Ryan would probably view the constitution as toilet paper.
Ron Paul isn’t an isolationist. He’s a non-interventionist and a constitutionalist.
He’s also a mediocre speaker. It’s too bad in debates he didn’t just stick to his main point of “If you want to go to war, have Congress declare it like they’re supposed to.”
Similar deal with his drug policy. Whether he think the war on drugs is a failure or not is immaterial to the bigger point that the feds have no constitutional authority to regulate such things. That power is for the states. …that’s it, that’s Paul’s “omg he wants everyone to use cocaine” drug policy in a nutshell — letting the states decide.
Like I said, conservatives are all about states rights, right? Or do they merely pay lip service and are they only for states rights and the Constitution when it’s convenient for them and fits their agenda? Undeclared war, NDAA indefinite detention, feds constantly telling states what to do… there’s nothing conservative about these things.
This may help; first “keep it simple saint”. Perhaps just putting into a side-by-side chart pointing out the pros (which his zombies want to hear and see) and the cons (which we all know will outweigh the pros)being sure to emphasize what the cost was on either side and the importance of government overspending and borrowing to support the pros and cons. I’d also point out what it will cost in the future for all these things and where will the money come from. Point out how current policies, pork barrel spending, how medicaid and welfare fraud gobble up billions of $$, etc.
It’s always been a bugaboo with me how the government thinks nothing of spending $65 for a hammer when they could buy it for $10, or how they spend $4 for a muffin that can be bought for .75 cents, for example.
That’s the drift. I think if they see both sides quite simply then maybe some seeds will be planted in their brains!
Keep doing what you’re doing.
Only faster, higher, stronger.
More humor.
More music.
More pictures.
More funny pictures.
See Michelle Obama’s Mirror:
http://www.michellesmirror.com
More Zonation.
More Bill Whittle.
Lots more.
Help Mitt win.
In my experience the best way to convert a liberal is to start out with them agreeing to a particular premise. For instance, “The best society is one where the population is educated to take care of themselves.” This is an easy one because all parents (at least the ones I encounter) strive to give their kids a good education. If they disagree with the premise, try to modify to a point where they agree with it. If they still won’t agree, then they are incapable of being converted and you should move on. If they agree to the premise, then you have almost already won. There are plenty of that are innocuous-sounding enough. Then argue how to achieve the goal set out in the premise. Once they agree with enough premises, then tell them they are conservatives who just realized it.
A second way I’ve had success with is to make the discussion about what you do in your family. Do you get the kids to appreciate money by making them take out the trash and clean the room in exchange for their allowance? Or, so you just give them an allowance without any chores? Do you have expectations for their behavior? Or, do just let them misbehave? Do you expect honesty? Do you expect your family to live within its means, or at least have an understanding of the limits of its consumption? These are all conservative things.
Finally, for the “fiscal conservative” who has never voted for a Republican, ask them if abortion remains legal, would they vote “R”. If the answer is “yes”, remind them that no Republican president since Roe v. Wade has managed to outlaw abortion and it’s unlikely they will in the foreseeable future.
Cite the first half of Federalist No. 57, calling on our leaders to serve the ocmmon good and warning that when our leaders are distant from the people, tyranny happens. Take note of President Obama’s fondness for $35,800 per person fundraisers and the implicit favoritism such fundraising leads to.
Leftists seek safety within their own. The best way to debate them is one on one and so far for me that has resulted in very weak arguments from them, not being able to group-think the pre-programmed responses. The more intelligent of them will return better armed the next time and can actually be interesting to debate. But most by far just retreat and never attempt to debate again.
With this method I have convinced very few but have at least stopped them from posting ridiculous Leftist propaganda links on Facebook, now that they know they will be challenged.
The war is not for the hearts and minds of the Left cadres. Their minds are made up and short of some kind of David Horowitz or David Mamet like epiphany they are not likely to embrace even the cleverest of arguments that contradict their ideological underpinnings.
The war is for the minds of the mushy middle who (incredibly in my view) “don’t think much about politics” and actually see their lack of political views as some kind of above-the-fray moral strength. These people tend to drift into soft-focus left positions for the same reason their parents and grandparents drifted in to what would now be considered right leaning positions: the media makes it seem like the prevailing, common-sense view.
I tend to hang out on HuffPo about as much as I do the conservative blogs. I rarely expect to change the minds of anyone I am debating — but I always hope that one of those mushy middle folks is reading along.
Mark,
You nailed it. That’s why I don’t back away from flamers or “resident trolls” for that matter (yes, they live on conservative sites too). You can’t change the mind of the “Super User” with 500 “fans”, but the one thing they want most is to chase you away. They may get the last word (count on it), but you can make their victory costly in terms of credibility. Plus they will not single you out again for unearned ridicule (trust me on this, even if you only have five fans). Just stick to the argument and avoid the segues and personal attacks that they will invariably throw at you.
In standing your ground you just might influence the guy with three “fans” who has been following the battle. Perhaps he’s been “home-trolled” by the super user who likes to flaunt their forum status. Maybe he thinks they’re a blowhard too.
I think the worst thing that political sites can do is set up the “likes”, “fans”, “followers” “super-poster” crap. All it does is create forum elitists and encourage conformity.
If you’re serious about persuasion, drop the ad hominem slanders & buzzwords like Obamacare.
–Declare facts to be your true vein (on civil liberties the Obama administration is terrible and vulnerable) and keep mining it for the golden bricks of your Constitutional argument.
No one ever convinced anyone by sneering at him, though a fair number of folks make their livings by peddling fleers.
People who support the Democratic party, those here being called liberal, are not (I repeat NOT) all bad, stupid, or uninformed. An element within that party has made the party it’s base of operations. They’re rightly called Marxists, Statists, or something of that nature. We can and should stand by the many good Democrats who are God-fearing, patriotic, hard-working Americans. To lump them in with the Pelosis, Wrangles, Obamas is wrong, wrong, wrong !!
It’s like waving a red flag at an otherwise quiet bull. Stop lumping all the good apples with the rotten ones. It is unfair and unwise. Better to try to get them to understand that they’ve been infiltrated with a poisonous element, and hope they’ll either make a change of parties, or clean their own house.
Ironic that you’d say all that, as it’s very similar in nature to what many of them say about the right.
To an extent it’s all true, of course, as we all are individuals. But what makes the current era so noteworthy though is how balkanized we all have become, with both sides adhering closely to the idea that the strategy is no longer one with cooperation as the central theme but that of defeat. From my POV, defeat is the most appropriate one at this time. This is also the approach that appears to be most popular among those on the left. What to do? “Keep it dry,” as some say?
The fundamental – FUNDAMENTAL – platform of the Dem Party is organized around race, gender and gender preference. Completely opposite to the values they say they espouse. That’s why they are an excuse factory – they mitigate their own obvious bigotry and racism with explanations – explanations about how they and theirs are under attack. And there is not the slightest doubt to they consider themselves under attack by: white men. This is their view, and not mine and I could prove it in front of a judge a hundred times over if I wished.
Race and accusing others of racism is not a fringe of the party but their centerpiece. They bewilderingly reject that skin endows anything one can predict and yet routinely pillory whites and connect them to events 200 years old. They believe white people are divided into two arenas: one where intransigent white racists talk in code and liberal and unwitting racist who are the beneficiaries of white privilege.
The Dem Party flat out believes that women, gays, blacks and Latinos, are simply incapable of the kind of groupthink and racism they accuse Conservatives and white people in general of, but which they can’t show. They do this by wheeling out the excuse factory to show why the Congressional Black Caucus is necessary, because of the history of racism that in some unspecified way, gnaws at blacks and anchors them down.
There is no word on why Jews came out of Europe and created Israel in only 3 years after a thousand years and more of prejudice, culminating in mass slaughter. No hangover or a sad lack of access to networking and institutions slowed down those Jews. If a person CAN do a thing, they will have DONE such a thing – there’s no “but” or “woulda” or “coulda” about it.
The Dem Party today, operates from an intellectual and philosophical space that shares more with Nazi Germany than with Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Jefferson owned frickin’ slaves. What does that tell you about two sides to a story?
Good Democrats, good Nazis, good Muslims? Where in the hell are they? Those “good Democrats” are in fact the ones on the fringes, and they don’t dare speak – no one does in this country without being slapped down by accusations of racism, profiling and bigotry if you disagree with a Dem position.
How do I know I’m right and they’re wrong: I don’t support any law or group based on race – no excuses. Although the NHL Player’s Assoc. would be well within their rights to make their own race-based press release about black crime, compared to the myths and lies around the Trayvon Martin case, I’d be sad if they did – irony would be lost in the shuffle. No excuses. The proper place to do that is simply to challenge the Left using their own language and field’s of battle, not to become like them.
You guys, either Dem or Rep are locked in. You can not escape because you wear blinders. You vote for politics and your Party. Start voting for the man. Find somebody honest, immune to party politics and vote there. And if you can’t find an honest man, then don’t vote, abstain. Won’t happen though, the majority accepts the corruption of politics and even expect it.
Emphasize your feeeeeelings, not reality, not data. Cartoons, not graphs. Collect sob stories of the millions of people harmed by leftist programs and legislation, the bigoted, racist Klansman “Democratic” politicians.
When you talk about the need to eliminate the Socialist Insecurity Abomination start by asking to see the family pictures, then remind people of the terrible burden on those very children and grand-children, how the adult ones don’t have funds to start their businesses, buy a home, etc., because so much is being taken out of their earnings in taxes. How the younger ones may not get to go to university, probably won’t be able to afford a nice big house like the one you had…
And those taxes depress the job markets, too. While in an earlier age, employers got tax breaks to help cover the costs of flying Americans in for interviews, helping relocate new-hires and retained employees, training; today those costs are simply avoided by bringing in guest-workers or demanding that new-hires “hit the ground running”.
Don’t talk about patriotism or the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, the actual US Constitution, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers… Don’t talk about freedom or liberty much, either. Certainly, if they bring it up, you can dwell on “their” amendments to the US constitution, but don’t bring up “ours”. When talking about the need to revoke the 16th amendment and eliminate income extortion you have to approach the subject obliquely; sneak up on it by talking about all of the abuses before revealing. Ditto when criticizing the actions of their “gods”; leave the name for last. Find the sane things they said and praise those before dropping the hammer.
Feeeelings. Feeeelings. Not abstractions. Not principles or their application. And intentions, not actual deeds or consequences or implications of proposed legislation. Obummercare is so mean-spirited, after all. It’s really terrible how those poor people were snookered into those mortgages they couldn’t pay off; that was terribly dishonest, even vicious of Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd and Maxine Waters.
I’m a liberal and reading the posts on this issue tells me many conservatives are not open to reason, only preaching.
Reason? Please enlighten us.
Do you believe that you liberals have a monopoly on reason?
You’re welcome to point out the posts that you find are preaching and make your case, but apparently you don’t have one. It’s easier to throw poo and run away.
You have helped make many PJM posters point concerning liberals. Thanks for the contriubtion.
“One tactic might be to take a more psychoanalytic/emotional rather than a logical/ideological tack.”
…you mean, sorta like when you called those who object to Romney’s proven record as an unrepentant STATIST as having “Romney Derangement Syndrome”?!?
Kettle calling the pot black, sir….
Weren’t most of us “liberals” once-upon-a-time? I was! I grew up in the Bay Area where just to fit in at my high school I had to claim to be bisexual. I was heavily indoctrinated by my town, friends, teachers, and my lefty parents.
So what happened to me? It would be a long story going over 2 decades but I suppose I just became “curious” about how the other side could possibly believe all the horrible things I thought they believed. How could someone not believe in global warming? How could someone think it was ok to say “Under God” in the pledge? How dare they think they could control my uterus? Etc etc.
So after a long long time, peaking into right-wing websites and talk radio, I began to understand, and finally a light bulb went on.
I think we should all think about our personal journeys and how we escaped the plantation. Maybe some of you were raised in conservative homes and had a greater advantage but there must be lots of others like me, too. How do we welcome those people in?
(Apologies if this was covered already, but I don’t have time to read all the comments.)
If we want to change minds we have to reach them. Here’s how. So, develop an application that places conservative and leftist comments about issues side by side, allowing free subscription to the issues site, ability to comment about comments, and tools for watching/seeing what is trending overall and for comments on an issue. Make the news commentary equivalent of Facebook that people can put into Facebook and twitter and that would allow people to see the ideas side by side. We have the technology to do this, we just need someone with the will to do it.
Message vs. Messenger. Simple.
Keeping on message:1)religion, 2)education, 3)financial system, 4) government (capitalist) will solidify a philosophy of Our Bill of Rights, Constitution and Declaration of Independence…in other words, back to basics.
These tenets, and America’s Excellence, fruit of cheap energy and efficient manufacturing, were building blocks for America’s prominance in a World defuddled with: competing ideologies of “societal gerrymandering,” complicated economic deadends and command economies leading nowhere.
Voting for candidates who adhere to and live these “back-to-basics” philosophies.
Currently, in US House of Representative there are 100 or so admitted, avowed communists. This is a growing bloc of nefarious individuals sworn to destroy everything American. They must be voted out of office with their Constitutional Conservative candidate replacements. Community-level Constitutional Conservatives must become active in fielding willing individuals who desire to Represent Americans in US’s House, Senate and Presidency.
A slow, Constitutional Process, requiring time, effort and above all intelligent decision-making at all American community levels. This is the only way to defeat encroaching marxism/leninism taking over everything American. God Bless America. Amen.
If you want to persuade people who aren’t already on your side, you first have to get their attention, and hold it. To do that, you have to entertain them–and then sneak your message in when they aren’t looking.
When Lincoln met the author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, he is reported to have said, “So you are the lady who wrote the book that started this war!” And there is some truth to it. Uncle Tom’s Cabin, in conjunction with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, radicalized many Northerners who had been indifferent to the subject of slavery.
If you can write songs: do it. Put them up on YouTube.
If you can write entertaining fiction: do it. You may get a trade publisher, or you have to self-publish as an ebook.
If you have access to big money: make entertaining films that have a message to them. (But not too loud of a message, or you will bore people: look at the film version of Atlas Shrugged.) I have a script that will drag in a lot of people that don’t think of themselves as conservatives, because it is about an incident involving abolitionists just before the Civil War. And the message is subtle. And it is exciting, and in places humorous.
Picking up on #110 (there’s nothing as powerful as moving images) — you should at *minimum* establish a presence on YouTube — a PJM-tube channel. Keep all connections between articles and videos current and plentiful. Make PJM multi-media in essence. This is the single most powerful new technology you could bring in to your arsenal. And, given many of your Hollywood backgrounds, you are already good at it.
In a sense it would mean converting PJ-TV completely over to You-Tube — which, if you were to do it, would attract far more viewers than it currently attracts (PJTV I mean). PJ-TV should migrate to you-tube.
–FF
Challenge the premise, then juxtapose the lies. Someone said it earlier. The problem is they get all their information single source (ideologically speaking). When you look to buy something, you don’t spend your time with the competitor’s sales guy to get an accurate view of your purchase objective. Hey I give this credit for doing it. (rare indeed)
Rachel Maddow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mPZlysCAm0&feature=related
I have this one bookmarked too… it’s a good example of Obama’s totalitarian regime. Great tool for starting the de-programming process.
Romney apparently supports the same policy, but I digress.
The best way to open a leftie’s mind…is with a baseball bat.
Unhelpful, I know. But I am jaded almost beyond the point of no return.
Don’t underestimate “preaching to the choir”. A choir member can learn more about a issue. A choir member maybe falling away, and need encouragement. A choir member may be a newbie and not be very grounded yet. A choir member may be alone in a liberal environment, and need the support of others that are like-minded. And our choir is very thoughtful, fascinating, and has solid core principles.
P.S. I like the lifestyle articles, like “Talent Isn’t Everything: 5 Secrets to Freelance Success”. I used this article to get a job done at work that was languishing. That is putting conservative values to work!
We on the right are constantly accused by the left of, oh I don’t know…pick anything…Owning the Media, for one. Of course it’s just projection but I say, what the hell. If we’re gonna be accused of it, let’s go ahead and just do it. Get some really rich conservatives to buy/finance some out and out conservative propaganda. Hell, the left does it as a matter of course every day in the culture, unapologetically polluting it to the point where people don’t even see the leftist influence anymore, any more than fish know that they’re wet.
The pendulum no longer swings. We are permanently stuck in the far left position and it will take extraordinary measures to get it un-stuck.
For the first thing which I would say, the PJM authors must needs comment on sites, blogs, vlogs, in some wide variety of intellectual exposure, adverting back to their own work on any given topic, . . .
Avoid preaching to the choir by doing the followig steps:
1) Build up your website by appealing to conservatives
2) Reach out to the larger audience by talking about gays and atheists (as in Hot Air).
3) Profit.
Why is it that only we worry about preaching to the choir?
The weekly standard, foxnews,NRO, Town hall etc.. are unwilling to come out in a big way and expose the left the way Jonah Goldberg did in “Liberal Fascism”, I do not know what the answer is.
If most of the non thinking left knew where the democrats derive all of their “Wonderful” new program ideas like FORWARD!! These people are (to be kind) unaware; they would be shocked!
The more classical liberal media (mentioned above) are cowards to a great extent. Our founding fathers knew better, yet, we do not? The blogosphere of importance is afraid to lose credibility, so they are pansies-candy arses, cowards, timid, reluctant…pick your adjective.
Pretty sad really; but the answer is ATTACK! Damn the torpedoes-go all in!!
If you try to convince a person to “come over to our side” it’s best not to discuss politics, or talk about individual politicians, but rather to discuss ideas. If you make the discussion a philosophical one, rather than a political one, you will get further.
I won’t even take the time to read the other posts ’cause if Roger is actually reading all of these, no doubt he’s tallying the common posts. I hope this joins the common themes.
We need to do exactly what the liberals have done over the last fifty years:
1) Influence the public school classroom
2) Influence the popular culture
We need to stop being altruistic and ‘fair’ and advocate for conservative points of view. We need to find a way to make conservatives values cool. Maybe by pointing out (correctly) that the liberals are the new conformists and conservatives have the large tent of ideas.
I believe that Sgt. Friday on Dragnet said it best. Just the facts. What killed us in the last election is that the Repubs wanted to look compassionette as a party and just kissed up to BHO. What ever the truth is about BHO and his constituents that has been perpetuated and is harmful to this country and our freedom, it has to be brought up even if we risk sounding mean spirited. This is war and if we loose the casualty list will have over 320 million people on it. This race is unlike any race in the history of this great nation and so many of my family and friends have been severely hurt by the legislation coming out of Washington. No holds barred. Go for whatever the weaknesses and corruption can be found and hit it hard and hit it quick.
1) invite your smartest opponents to an online forum or debate. Position it as an opportunity for ‘them’ to reach out to ‘us’. If they are really smart they will tell their constituency to watch them as they take you out. If you do a good job you will turn the tables on them and make a small number of their constituency think harder about their entrenched view.
2) see if you can challenge or shame your opponent’s home publisher/website/blog etc to return the courtesty. Use it as a way to make your best arguments in front of your opponent audience.
3) Assign someone an aggressive, proactive SEO responsibility to 1) find the opposition online discussions and 2) engage them in debate in which your text includes links back to this site. Hook ‘em with your responses to their posts and land ‘em by reeling them over here. These need to be hyper-thoughtful posts that link to your most effectively phrased articles.
Target more messages to independent women voters..For example, point out what Obamacare will really cost their families; debunk food scares and climate change propaganda and show how organic farming will cost more and reduce available food supplies just as the war on carbon does.Expose the corporate beneficiaries of the organic food and locavore scams.
You have to undercut the constant messages beamed at them by media propagandists from tv newscasters to Parade and almost every womens magazine.
To appeal to liberals, just offer a menu of the fringe benefits that many liberals are largely ‘in it for.’ Let’s face it, Conservatives are mostly buzzkills (Breitbart being a glowing exception) because that’s kind of what being an adult is all about. So to appeal to lefties, you’ll need to offer humor, entertainment, some escapism, a famous crossword puzzle, musical genius and more. Yes, it’s kind of a ‘dumb it down’ approach, but hey, it’s not 1955 anymore.
This is an excellent topic. Perhaps the place to start is with the existing conservative outlets and spokesmen. I appreciate talk radio, Fox network and the internet, the chief alternatives to the “foul stream” media, but they have their difficulties, which are best criticized among friends. On radio, there are so many conservative hosts that one can choose one’s favorites without feeling less than committed to good citizenship. Rush is the best, except when he takes up historical issues that he has not adequately researched. He is not alone in insisting on his conservative bona fides, in opposition to real or perceived RINOs, but the value of that stance is overrated. Those who have studied closely the thought and actions of Abraham Lincoln, our first Republican president, know how determined he was to “conserve” America’s political and economic institutions and principles, and for whom the word Republican meant precisely to conserve those blessings.
Although Bill Buckley did not appeal to all on the Right, his Firing Line shows were far more conducive to close examination of issues than the shouting matches that Hannity and O’Reilly engage in with their liberal Democrat guests. The CBS left-right debates in the 1970s were also superior. Greta van Susteren would never be confused with a great thinker, but most of the time she gives her guests more time to expound their views (although she too can be annoying). Michael Medved and Dennis Prager have managed to attract a wider (not a larger)following than the above-named folks, for they are mindful of the shortcomings of shouting matches. I’m not advocating less partisanship but more thoughtful and prudent partisanship. The American founders were partisans in that sense. We should take their (and Lincoln’s) example to heart. No less than other Republicans, I would like to see Democrats fade into oblivion. More of them will see the light (as many did in the 1960s, mugged by reality) if we return to our deepest roots.
Unfortunately it comes down to what Dennis Prager pointed out in that speech recently about 10 liberal fails – that while conservatives can adopt the mental attitude to give a liberal the benefit of the doubt for the purposes of discussion, a liberal can’t. If they ever admit that a conservative could be a decent person with good motives, they would have no argument. I remember a Facebook discussion with a liberal sister-in-law about the raids on Gibson Guitar. I had raised the narrow point of whether it was legal for the federal government to raid a business, steal a half million dollars of inventory, and make ZERO charges of wrongdoing. Her answer (I am not making this up) was to the effect that “I guess I care about elephants being killed by the hundreds for their tusks…” and other things completely unrelated either to the Gibson case or my question. It was an argument of moral superiority, not of the facts in question. She is no dummy. She is a very smart medical professional and (in many ways) thoughtful and educated. Liberalism isn’t about superior arguments, it is about classifying your opponents as evil or stupid and therefore not worthy of arguing with. Some of the nicest people I know are this way, and it is very frustrating. If I *try* to tie them down to any particular point in their “arguments” then I am “attacking” them and being “mean”. In the case above, a few people responded (none of them in any personal way) and she immediately bowed out, saying that she did not want to take abuse. Of course that statement ended with a silly and insulting barb about the Gibson case. Some people responded to her point, and she immediately was back claiming to be attacked again. Just about every conversation I have had with a liberal is like this. So, really, what’s the point?
I think that the real problem that we have is the complete monopoly that libs have in the fields of entertainment and education. The numbers in our culture are shifting each generation as they indoctrinate the next generation in groupthink and the liberal “anyone who disagrees with us is evil” mentality. We need to break this stranglehold very soon, or, since we are all EVIL, we will find ourselves facing the executioner or re-education camps in a much shorter time than we would think could happen in America.
Anyway, sorry to seem so pessimistic. But really, arguing with these people is like bashing your head against a brick wall. I welcome anyone with a less pessimistic view to encourage me here.
For my part, in answer to the original question, my personal decision was that I was no longer going to be silent. Risking argumentation or just abuse, I resolved to not let the narrative go by without saying *something*. For the sake of civility, family unity or workplace cohesion I won’t take it to the mat. I will just *speak up*. Always speak up. Let them know that there are people with a contrary position. A lot of them just don’t know that. Or they don’t know that that person that they think is nice and smart actually is not liberal. Sometimes that is enough to take them out of their cocoon. So, SPEAK UP, but STAY NICE.
“…the real problem that we have is the complete monopoly that libs have in the fields of entertainment and education.”
You are so right, SMeloche. I get very frustrated with people on our side who don’t think that those two areas are important, or who think that its hopeless and we need to just give up entertainment and education to the Left, and focus elsewhere. We need to focus our efforts on promoting freedom and the truth everywhere, and ESPECIALLY in places where people are now being indoctrinated. I worked in academia for over twenty years, and I often saw naive and well-meaning youths who had been seduced by devilish ideas, which sounded good to someone without much life experience, but which were deadly, horribly untruthful ideas.
And you make an important point about speaking up but staying nice. Speaking up along with being a good example will make a good impression on those who can be converted, and it will drive those who can’t be converted totally bonkers!
If you want a chance to get out the message to folks who haven’t already heard it and/or who don’t already believe it, try making short (5 – 10 minute) videos and posting them on youtube. Open an account, make a tiny webpage there. The first point is to have the videos on a single substantive point – e.g., what really caused the real estate market and the derivitives market to crash – staying away from “Obama is a fink!”, or “Impeach Holder!”, or “Racism against whites ignored!”. The second point is to have them produced without fancy production values, in the form of a mild rant if you will, including on the video an invitation to check out the links on your website – not links to other conservative sites, but to archives of expert opinions, then-current news reports, etc as appropriate – and while avoiding cursing and personal attacks against “progressive elements” in American politics, tell it like it is. Maybe get Representative West or someone with a delivery like his to make them. That same cool-headed, “these are the facts, if you’d just look at them” delivery. That has the best chance of getting “the word” out to the great mass of folks.
Whether liberals are less interested than dialog with those who disagree than conservatives, I’m not sure. At least conservatives don’t hire lawyers to silence liberals. But of this I am certain: conservatives are way less interested in dialoging with each other, than is necessary to save America. To the extent 40% are united, the 60% who are all over the philosophical map are irrelevant. 2 Chronicles 7:14 says God will heal our land, not if we can influence liberals, but only “if my people” come together with God. Likewise Proverbs 15:22 promises victory with “a multitude of counselors”, which means some kind of forum where many voices are heard and processed. “1620: When Freedom Was Reborn” is my documentary at my website about the laboratory of Freedom which the Pilgrims created from Bible study. That web page also has ideas how people can interact respectfully even when they disagree, and how our survival depends on our willingness to return to those Biblical roots. If you want gold, you are going to have to sift through ore. If Christians and conservatives want to save our nation, they are going to have to take seriously God’s many admonitions, some of which I detail at my website, to listen to each other seriously. We are going to have to get past the mindset of our ancestors when God sent the Answer to All Our Problems, but most of the world never heard of it, because God chose to have His Answer born in a stable. If you would like to dialog with me about how a website can create such a forum, email me through www(.)Saltshaker(.)us.
If people want more dialogue, stop talking about God so much. Simply put, there you go. It immediately turns off everyone who either 1) doesn’t believe in God 2) believes in a different God 3) is more private (conservative?) about their religion.
Also, there’s simply little reason to do it. God doesn’t have to be mentioned in order to mention “things God teaches.” It’s not necessary to quote scripture to get across the main point of a scripture. No one needs the 10 Commandments quoted to be told killing is wrong. Just tell them killing is wrong. If the given reason for why killing is wrong is “because God said so,” that’s not exactly a compelling reason to a lot of people.
Conservatives/Republicans would dominate liberals/Democrats if they would do two things: 1) stop talking about God so much 2) stick more to economic issues. …but they just can’t seem to do that.
Let me ask you a rather loaded question: Are you interested in having a point/counterpoint discussion with someone who is holding a gun pointed at you?
The left does exactly that. The power of the state is not kind–it is brutal, and backed by men with guns. All the discussions with liberals seem to ignore that basic fact: that by arguing for the state to do this or that they are arguing with a gun pointed at all those who disagree.
It isn’t fun and games anymore, not pleasant philosophical chatter over cocktails. They intend to use force to change your mind, or kill you for trying to be free (once they get all the power they want). Changing minds starts when they are asked to put away the gun before we talk, or be ridiculed for wanting to use it.
PJM is doing the right thing. More facts, more adversarial commentary, and, if necessary, more cowbell please!
Left & Right have a fundamentally different world-view. We are on parallel paths inhabiting parallel universes. A youthful leftwing view can still be ambushed by real events especially by the heavy hand of the taxman. However, an old leftist cannot be changed. These differences have been bridged by the force of arms in the past and will be again in the future. Just a matter of time.
Well, what persuaded you, Mr Simon?
You started life as a convinced liberal. You’ve changed on some positions, and not on others. Your most interesting columnists have, likewise, swum from one position to another on things dear to their heart. They can give detailed road-maps of their thought processes.
I would think, when you look in the mirror, you see both yourself, and your friends. What persuades you? or not?
Roger:
Nothing hurts our cause more than factual denial. Unemployment is going down, no matter how conservatives want to make the case that the rate is cooked. Lowering unemployment is good for Obama, denying same makes conservatives look like birthers.
Denial of the obvious war on women is another loser. It is undeniable. Let’s stop trying to spin things, especially the obvious. It is condescending and alianating.
Evidently you haven’t been paying attention to the Labor Participation Rate. Many have. It is plummeting and makes the unemployment figures useless. As I recall, this was all over the place last week, surprised you didn’t see it, that an LPR level from the Bush administration, current unemployment rate is in reality a bout 15%. You can check that on the extremely useful ZeroHedge blog. It’s leading the pack on this kind of information now. In any case, real unemployment is getting worse, not better as the number of discouraged workers (those taking themselves out of the labor pool) increases.
I highly recommend an essay by a young 16th century Frenchman, Etienne de la Boetie, entitled “The Politics of Obedience:The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude.” Prepare to be mesmerized, for the key to our freedom is written there, simple yet profound.
“Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces?”
Sure, there is a place for debate and persuasion, and the comments are full of great suggestions for engaging our adversaries, the best of which I would say align with the Golden Rule. But a better question might be to ask why we allow ourselves to be enslaved? Why do we hand over our labor and resources to be used against us? Why do we send our children to be indoctrinated against us? Why do we continue to submit to laws and actions we know to be contrary to our Constitution and founding principles?
Instead of knocking our heads against a proverbial brick wall, trying to convince the clueless and the tyrants to leave us alone, our time would be better spent forming alliances and taking concrete action to starve the beast of the leviathan state and provide safe havens and moral support for the millions who wish to reclaim their liberty. This would include the further development of economic, media and educational tools to nurture, support and protect, in present and future generations, a true respect and understanding of the benefits of freedom, limited government, capitalism, free markets, etc.
Here are a couple thoughts:
1. No need to apologize for ‘preaching to the choir’, after all they are also part of a congregation that is asked to evangelize…no different here in terms of grassroots ‘witnessing’ to the alternative message of a conservative world view…PJMedia can’t be expected to carry that weight, but empowering your audience to be more effective bearers of the message is a very powerful force for the cause
2. PJMedia does have PJTV and a well-structured video debate series (structure I like is in voter guides — each side states their case briefly, each side rebuts the others’ case, final responses allowed to the rebuttal) could be a way to get beyond the sound bite meme that predomiates. Especially if if you can recruit some recognizable names on both sides. And then make sure the videos are available on web with no barriers or hurdles for the casual viewer.
So liberals have their megaphones: The NYTimes, the Washington Post, CBS, ABC, NBC, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, 99% of the other colleges, universities, and schools. And non liberals have Fox News, the Rush Limbaugh Show, Reason Magazine, and PJM. It hardly seems fair.
To tell the truth, I still subscribe to the NYTimes. It pays to know what our insect overlords are are thinking, and the unintentional humor can be priceless.
Tell you what, when PJM’s page views passes NYTimes.com, maybe we should start to worry about it. Until then, let them take care of themselves.
Hi Roger. One possible way to get your site read by liberals is to somehow get reciprocal link agreements with some of the liberal sites. You link to their sites, and they link to yours. It is a thought…
Great question. How do we reach the voices that can’t carry an American tune?
Before I answer, Roger, I need to make a preemptive apology in case I ruffle any PJMedia feathers.
Partly due to self interest and personal disorganization, PJMedia is my favorite political website. I like it more than Drudge, Hewitt, Malkin, Breitbart, Newsbusters, American Thinker and the also-rans. Why? Because I can comment without having to remember pass words, etc. I can land here, get my thoughts off my chest and leave.
The main reason, though, why PJMedia is my favorite place on the internet are the writers, starting with Mr. Simon. I’ve become a fan of many of you. I like your styles, your insights, analysis and your honesty. I’m also part of the Hanson fan club. In fact, I was brash enough to ask him to consider running for President. And Dr. Hanson was polite enough to politely say, “no”.
If I’m impolite enough to step on any toes as I write, I apologize. That isn’t my intent.
Here’s where the feather ruffling starts.
Some days, as many as half of your subjects are a touch on the esoteric/uninteresting side. 90% of your headlines remind me of ink spilled on a page. No life. No lift. No sparkle. Almost no top spin. Clever doesn’t live here. It just visits from time to time, then it’s gone.
Your visuals are almost always second rate, reminding me of the first thing an art director would think of. Amateurish.
My first thought is that better headlines, killer visuals and some attention-getting subject matter might get you a broader political spectrum willing to spend time here. I’m looking for intellects who don’t comment, but want to hear some cutting edge stuff they might be embarrassed not to know.
I want some of your articles to get referred to on Drudge, a website that liberal opinion leaders almost all look at daily because they want to know the latest gossip and such, and not be caught with their information pants down.
Christian seems to have a lot of insights that Drudge should eat up. For example, his work on voter suppression of U.S. troops deployed overseas was fascinating.
Point is, when you have something Drudge might be interested in, call him up.
Another idea: Pam Geller goes on talk shows, radio and TV which aren’t all conservative, and does a good job of selling her website. No reason we can’t do the same.
Maybe you could suggest one of your guys write a book: Visual, Obama and Holder. Headline: Why jail is too good for them. I’d read it.
What I’m saying is, get the name, PJ Media publicized in the main stream media more. Have yourself or Christian or anyone in your circle stir up a hornet’s nest by exposing the unwashed to conservative truth. Be as provocative as possible, but always have facts and the truth to back everything up.
Maybe the right PR person would help. Good ones don’t come cheap, but you get what you pay for.
I don’t mean to suggest I have every answer, but you threw your loyal commenters a pitch, and I decided to take a swing at it. All My Best, Rachel
Ya need to tell an emotional story that covers the issues with the main progressive/liberal character using logic and facts to win the day. Most people are emotional first and then later may apply logic but when an immediate response to any issue is demanded, emotion trumps logic every time.
You should try to bring in columnists with a web presence elsewhere who might be able to attract a more diverse readership. I am a young, female fiscal conservative, social liberal. I probably visit PM once a month or so. The first thing I see on your homepage is a bunch of middle-aged white men as columnists and a string of headlines that don’t exactly grab me. That’s not to say you’re wrong, but I think that’s why I don’t come more often. On the other had, I read Salon almost every day, and HuffPo and Slate several times a week. A good portion of their commentary I disagree with, but they’re speaking to issues more in line with my interests.
So I’m #255 and a day late and hoping hat you always make a last check. I’m a retired marketing executive and consultant, so I look at the preaching to the choir problem with a different eye from most of your commenters. You phrase it as a problem for the “Right” but I know that has a specific concern for PJM. What can you and your partners and associates do to make yourselves a stronger voice for Exceptionalism and a more widely recognized influence?
Brief situation analysis: Those who knowingly vote socialist will never be converted. You don’t need them. You just need to bring in 20% of those who voted for Obama last time. They are those who vote Democratic because they’ve always done it. They are the leftist families, fiends and neighbors so frequently mentioned above, who don’t realize that their party has been taken over by the Socialists. Their representatives in Congress never use the word. The White House studiously avoids it. Their favorite newspapers and TV channels never breathe it. They are indignant when you call them Socialist because they think they are just compassionate champions for Social JUstice and Protesters against greedy carbon-spewing business men. But increasingly it contains dobters. This is the audience that Fox News has tapped into, the uneasy, thinking semi-lefties.
They need a place that tells them, “While you wern’t watching you’ve been turned into a Socialist.” I disagree with your opinion that tehe “issues” are important. That’s where the GOP foundered in ’08. Those of you who spend all their time in political discourse fail to perceive that the swing voter, at this point and increasingly over the run-up, is fed up with “issues’ andwill vote on a gut-feeling. We want to make sure that their gut-feeling is that they do not want a Socialist government
There is a lot of talk here about Alinsky and his Rules. If you use the word to a Democrat he doesn’t know what you’re talking about. The name has never appeared in his newspaper or news channel. “What’s a Linsky? Some sort ofRussian car?” But we should use those rules against the Democrats. Call their policies, their strategies Socialist and spell out the evidene and the reason. This approach works on two levels: 1) it persuades the unresolved, and 2) it sends Axelrod’s team into frenzied denial, which almost always works against them. We must keep them on the defensive and not fall into a rear-guard stance.
If you really believe, as I do, that we truly face the threat of entrenching a Socialist (not just a leftist) Admistration, then what you should be preaching, with the door wide open and the volume up, is that a vote for the incumbent is a vote for a Socialist future.
I have to be brief but my tip is well worth following up. Read Jonathan Haidt “The Righteous Mind” in order to better understand the different moral standpoints of Left and Right. You will discover why reasoned arguments are so ineffective against different political and moral positions and what you need to do to circumvent this. You have to understand your opponent at the emotional level and to do this you need to emphathise with his position (if this prospect causes you a mild sense of revulsion, that’s your own moral elephant at work, the same set of affective factors that Leftists feel toward conservatives).
You will discover that Leftists have a 2 dimensional moral universe whereas conservatives have a more pluralistic and richer one. The Left focusses primarily on the moral dimensions of Care and Fairness (defined only as avoiding harm and equality), the Right includes these concerns but is also cognizant of others: Loyalty, Sanctity, and Authority. The Right can argue, in an inclusive and emphathic manner, that the Left endorses some necessary conditions for fair governance but not sufficient conditions. The Right, on the other hand, can argue that it has a better grasp of the full range of moral concerns which are relevant to good governance.
Many on the Left are scared to side with conservatives because they see them as uncaring and unfair. They don’t want to be seen as uncaring, either by themselves or others. We have to get people to see that the Left defines “fairness” inadequately, the Right has a better understanding of what it means to be caring, and that the other moral factors listed above have to be brought into consideration.
The work of Jonathan Haidt is not some psychological theory plucked out the air by a woolly academic, it is based on years of research by many people in many cultures.
As a general rule liberals tend to be a bit more “conservative” on issues with which they have some personal familiarity, e.g., education, certain bureaucracies and regulations, child-rearing, military service, affirmative action processes. Some kind of dialogue may be possible in these areas. There’s nothing to be done with with the grand abstractions such as social issues.
Roger;
There are conversions that go liberal. They’ve even published their books on the transformation.
But, unless there are high ranking converts like David Mamet that publish their transformations to thoughtful audiences, not much rebirth will ever take place.
An excerpt from John Stossel’s interview of David Mamet:
The Democrat Party is demonstrating they will pander to every conceivable emotion to curry favor with a voter.
Unless there is an overwhelming emotional appeal that attracts a liberal to consider your concepts, don’t expect anything but suspicion and criticism from liberals, about your mission.
Interesting idea. I would propose that you identify your rough counterpart on the left, and embark on a joint project to publish each day one select article/essay from the counterpart, as well as have some debates…say, VDH v well, I’m not sure but there must be somebody over there. I think most thinking people, even progressives, acknowledge we have a problem in this society of people only consuming p.o.v.’s they agree with. To be fair, what most progressives really mean is not that people should watch MSNBC and Fox News, they really wish to shut Fox News down. Read NYT and WSJ..not so much. But perhaps a partner online site could be identified. There should then be a joint social media marketing strategy to get these “debates” in front of the widest audience possible. This would kind of be a “people’s debate” paralleling the election debates. Ideas vs. partisan politics. No talking points allowed. Comment board filters set to block words like “Repugs”, “Faux News”…and words like “libtard”.
Even though the meme is out there that “progressives are smarter and better educated than conservatives”, finding a partner site who’s readership/comments reflect that is very difficult. Comments on sites like Daily Beast/Salon exhibit a mind-numbing brainwashed-ness, and lack of civility and consistent crudeness. NYT comments are more civil/well-articulated, but exhibit the same depressing uniformity of worldview. PJM comment threads by contrast, are almost uniformly well-informed and downright erudite at times, even if some of the views tend a bit to the extreme. So finding a partner outlet to get a really smart dialog going won’t be easy, but it could be worth the effort.
One other thought: When venturing outside the comfy confines of PJM.com, try to match the progressives on their greatest strength…the illusion that they “care”. Even though their utopian solutions are almost always worse than the diseases, when they predicate their argument on notions like saving animals, free education and healthcare for all, chicken in every pot, etc., they seize the moral high ground. To appeal to moderates, before we try to explain how the real world works, we first have to show a little empathy. We’re for much better education too, against hunger and homelessness, etc.(say it like we really mean it, not Obama’s obligatory “free markets are a good thing BUT” approach).
Good luck!
Mr. Simon:
Here’s a set of quirky ideas…
1) Birds of a feather DO flock together. It’s a fact of statistical physics and a fact of human conduct. Steven Strogatz (“Sync”) has a readable book on this topic that demonstrates synchrony between particles, neural clusters, pendulums, and other actors. Phil Rushton (Rushton JP (2005) Ethnic nationalism, evolutionary psychology, and Genetic Similarity Theory. Nations & Nationalism. 11(4), 489-507.) is a fine supplemental source.
2) Every living creature makes its own environment. True for spiders, coral, worms, and crickets. Also true for hot cheerleaders. (See Turner, J. Scott, 2000, The Extended Organism: The Physiology of Animal-Built Structures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.) This effect can be called “nonshared” environment, an environment that is unique to each individual and constructed by each individual from the time he or she is eight years old. (See Plomin, Robert, 1994, Genetics and Experience: The Interplay between Nature and Nurture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.) Indeed, it starts at conception as we adjust our mother’s belly to match our appetites.
3) Political convictions have a strong contribution from heritability. About one-third of us are “conservative,” another third are “collectivists,” and the final third do whatever their neighbors or business associates do. This middle third also tends to be unreliable, reacting to context rather than to principle and earning such names as “RINO.” They can also be seen as “weak links” that act as shock absorbers and bumpers for interactions between network members. One happy outcome – few of us conservative types are convinced or ruined by what our professors told us or what we parroted to them. Implication – one-third of undergraduates lie for four years!
4) One trick may be to recruit as many choir members as you can and use your popularity to attract the once indifferent. None of them will be changed by lectures – such is a collectivist trick that binds collectivists to each other but won’t break them apart if they hear a different lecture.
Thanks for PJ Media! I consistently enjoy Barry Rubin, Victor Hanson, Mike Ledeen, and Chris Adams!
Jim Brody, Ph. D.
Editor, publisher of “DeadCatsandClippings.com,” a conservative site inspired by Hank Mencken….
I dunno about getting thru to liberals. Easier and more effective is getting thru to the younger generation, who are the liberals of the future. Say college students and recent grads. You can do this by writing about things they care about. They don’t much care about the wedge issues (gay marriage, abortion, creches on the village green, gays in the military). They do care about downloading music and movies, getting a job when and if they graduate, graduating university, paying for it, good jobs for the non college guys, meeting, greeting, and marrying the opposite sex, (and for some, the same sex). They do a lot of web surfing and video gaming.
These are subjects that lead into copyright and patent laws, electronic privacy, economics, tax policy, education policy, federal loans, apprenticeship and intern programs, getting job experience in the military, clothing style, marriage and divorce law, and internet freedom.
Only political junkies read pure policy rants. Ordinary folk read about subjects they care about, and may absorb policy pronouncements from their reading, but will ignore outright rants.
My experience is that you can’t influence, persuade or dissuade diehards with any argumentation, evidence or facts, and you might as well save your breath.
Life itself, experience itself will move you along a continuum if your mind is open and you’re able to clearly see where earlier brainwashing (even some of the bromides instilled by your parents) are flawed or, at best, inadequate, then you will advance in understanding.
However, if your brain, physiologically, doesn’t have that kind of plasticity or you cling to a body of cant in fear and your only response to challenges to your dogma is to throw up “the wall”, then there is not much possibility of being challenged by outside logic, even outside brilliance.
This video came to mind:
How Liberals Argue
But this isn’t really about the die-hards…it’s about the people in the middle, who don’t always vote consistently along party lines.
Mr. Simon,
I am a college professor, and I recently concluded my course in political philosophy with the book The Ball and The Cross by G. K. Chesterton. The novel tells the story of an atheist and Christian who pursue a duel to death; the atheist fights for reason, and the Christian fights for faith. I assign that book in part because Chesterton presents both participants as human beings, with reasons for holding to their beliefs and a devout sense of mission that enables them to kill the other (spoiler alert: but they never finish the duel!). I think the book speaks to both sides, the rational and the faithful, though Chesterton himself is on the side of faith.
Today, we might learn from the relationship of Chesterton and George Bernard Shaw. The two were resolute opponents in all things political, philosophical, and religious, yet were good friends. That friendship enabled them to appear in public and debate. They could certainly attract people from disparate backgrounds to attend their debates, but who knows how well people actually listen to the other side. If you are to reach the other side, maybe this debate between disagreeing friends is the first step. Or rather, finding two people who so disagree but remain friends is step one; step two, provide a public platform.
Much of reaching the other side depends on the character of the speakers. I remember watching Christoper Hitchens on Hardball in the late 1990′s. I rarely agreed with him, but could not avoid being impressed by how he argued. Matching eloquence with reason, but also able to strike with deadly quip, Hitchens was the best.
Not to engage in flattery, but you yourself provide the kind of atmosphere that is necessary to reach the other side. I disagree with your thoughts on some issues, gay marriage for one, but I can read what you write and rationally consider your position. I imagine you would be open to listening to the defenders of traditional marriage and replying in turn.
Atmosphere and friendship are the key to reaching the other side, in any matters. How you go about setting up that arena is more a difficult task. If you can find two personable, well-spoken characters with strongly divergent beliefs who also happen to best friends, you will have completed most of the task. If individuals on the left recognize their champion in debate, and individuals on the right do the same, maybe both sides will tune in to see their triumph over the opponent. Incidentally, they will see the other side.
Perhaps too many individuals have moved away from rational consideration of issues entirely. Intuition, emotion, and desire tend to rule in too many souls these days. The university system certainly shares some fault for this; they too easily teach relativism and emotivism. That recent fiasco in the Chronicle of Higher Education over black studies- “Black Studies are legitimate because I want them to be, because I feel them to be!”- is a disgrace. But someone has to push back and return to rational, reasonable discourse.
Good luck with your pursuit.
Yes, “Professor”;
There you have it in a nutshell.
This is precisely what the Democrat Party and THEIR Big Media pander to.
Roger, I hope you’re reading all this. I haven’t the time, at the moment. Somewhere up above I suggested taking on NPR. That’s the national news. You ought to also look to local news sources, to get their take on some of these stories. Our regional newspapers often have insights that supplement the information from the national sources. They are hard to find though, especially through Google.
If you link to a story in a regional newspaper, chances are you will attract readers from a different audience pool (including, for example, the authors). Their curious and open-minded readers will self-select.
I find it useful to use the government’s own statistics, such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics, to illustrate how bad the economy is.
The problem, as Ayn Rand pointed out, is that the real difference among people is whether they want to think or not think. Most don’t; they’d rather emote. That’s why young people are so easily led down the leftist path. It takes no thought, no effort. You just have to go along. That’s fine until you have to pay the bills, and finally grow up.
In that regard, even the mindless know that the economy stinks. Those of us who do bother to think should have our facts ready and feel free to state them.
See my #107 way down at the bottom. Somehow I missed seeing yours here, so mine may now seem like a paraphrase.
…forget my reference to “my #107″…..the sequence seems to change rapidly as the replies and amendments are just as rapidly inserted.
As a former lib Dem who lives in uber-Blue state with most of my friends and family proud liberals/Dems – I have been giving this subject A LOT of thought. [To the point of obsession perhaps.] I began the slow process of “turning to the light” and away from my liberal groupthink [and propensity to repeat liberal talking points] shortly after 9/11. And looking back, I think it was not so much conservative ideas [on fiscal or international matters] that turned me around as much as I began to take a cold hard look at my increasingly irrational, angry, intellectually lazy, and ill-informed liberal friends and family.
I am not sure how or when I came upon Pajama Media – I think I discovered it in the mid-2000’s – and it along with National Review had a huge impact on me. I was by no means an Ayn Rand devote in college and in fact distinctly remember mocking the Republican/libertarian office in the student union as I walked by to get the college radio station. And I think it took several years of almost daily doses of NRO & PJM before I stopped listening to NPR [unless forced], turned to conservative talk radio, and completely stopped reading my local radical loonie leftie free weekly “newspaper”. I seem to remember one of the first things that turned me on to PJM was the humor and [for want of a better word] “hip” factor. [Certainly compared to other sites] And the fact that it was socially moderate. And while perhaps this speaks to my former shallow liberal self – I found the titles of pieces and pictures next to them to be amusing at times and this caught my eye.
I think often of how I might be able to duplicate my personal experience with some of my relatively reasonable Dem friends. I have found a select few of them to be relatively non-judgemental about my Tea Party activity – and even curious. But my conclusion based on years of observation is that while they have brief moments of clarity – in the end they always slip back into their liberal groupthink and childish beliefs. [i.e. Republicans and conservatives are the “boogie men”] I have come to believe that when you live most of your life in a liberal bubble [either via location and/or because you work in academia for example] – unless you are extremely intellectually curious and/or somewhat of a rebel – your beliefs remain static. And I have found then even for the most “promising” left leaning friends, when I provide them with information [even after they have asked me specifically about something] – they are ALWAYS too lazy to read and digest it. I guess as with people who are substance abusers, you have to WANT to change and so few want to.
That all being said, I think one of the few ways you may be able to get through to some folks on the other side is with humor. I was just watching a talk the wonderful Sunny [http://houseofsunny.tv/] gave at a Tea Party event where she speaks of this. So bottom line, between now and the election I do not think you will turn anyone with well reasoned arguments, facts, or trying to engage them with spirited discussion on policy. But more funny pictures, articles [like zombie and Klavaan], and videos cannot hurt. (Discuss: Julia is just weird and not at all “cool”.) Also there are a few “in” Hollywood people that are libertarian/Republican or at least sympathetic to the cause [Vince Vaughan, Trey Parker/Matt Stone, and Adam Corrolla for example] After the election if Romney wins [with assumption that economy improves] and after 4 years of the debacle that was Obama – I think at that point the “other side” may be more open to the wonderful world of conservative ideas.
Remember when Republicans were so close to getting some solid spending cuts last year? Then what did they do, they put a line in the sand that those cuts have to come from Planned Parenthood. Boom, instantly half the population is against them. Whether Planned Parenthood is good or bad is immaterial next to the bigger point of spending cuts in general. So things went from Republicans leading the way and getting some spending cuts to half the population hating them and no spending cuts.
…Was it worth it? Was that Planned Parenthood fight at that time worth it? No, it was not. But Republicans constantly force their morality on people. They could have went after PP later after the spending-cut ball got rolling.
Want to know why liberals think “conservatives” want to take over the world? It’s because of people like Rick Santorum. Santorum goes on stage and says God this, God that, (which is fine), but then basically says he’s morally right, you’re morally wrong, and so he’s going to have big government force you to his morality.
It’s like conservatives can’t even see this stuff. They can’t see what a polarizing figure someone like Santorum is. The guy said he wants to ban homosexual acts in the bedroom! He’s a nutjob. Whether you think such acts are right or wrong is immaterial because it’s not your bedroom, people are adults, and this is supposedly a free country. How would he even enforce such a thing? Bedroom police?
A post above this one says how lefties like to use big government to take away your freedom and force their will upon you. That is true. But righties do the same thing! They just have different ideas they want to force on you. When righties start seeing that, they’ll see where a lot of lefties are coming from.
You’re mistaking the PJM crowd and the fiscal-conservative and libertarian crowd with the social conservatives and the paleo-conservatives. You won’t find much, if any, support, for Santorum among PJM writers. I myself agree with you about him in many respects, and I think most contributors here do as well. You may notice that he got stomped pretty easily by Romney in the GOP race. So, even Republicans don’t want Santorum as their candidate.
Pointing to him as the reason everyone hates conservatives is a straw man argument. Rational conservatives rejected him just as much as liberals do. The modern manifestation of Conservatism is a universe away from the Moral Majority-type attitude of a generation ago. The left just tries, as a political ploy, to paint modern conservatives as puritanical God-bullies. This ploy has apparently fooled you successfully, but I think the gimmick is wearing off.
Yeah, I’m also a traditional Catholic and it drives me crazy how he makes us all look like shrill nutjobs (but I’m biased too, because his wife is/was in this weird cult that freaks me out). I do honestly believe that we all have had our immortal souls from the moment of our conception, so that abortion is killing a human right from the get-go, but there’s no way I can expect every other American to go along with “God says so, and He told the Magisterium” as a basis of civil law; embryos aren’t very human-looking until about nine or ten weeks so it’s a hard sell. We can’t make all sins into civil crimes until there’s a general consensus among the population that it’s wrong.
As far as defunding PP though, it is divisive, and PP doesn’t do much more than abortions (No. They do not do mammograms.) and since the country is a lot more pro-life than the Democratic Party is, it’s the Democrats that were unreasonable about funding cuts in this time of national financial difficulty. When your house is about to be foreclosed on, it’s way past time to remove the porn channel from your cable lineup.
“Pointing to him as the reason everyone hates conservatives is a straw man argument. Rational conservatives rejected him just as much as liberals do.”
Labeling that example as a strawman is the real strawman. Santorum didn’t have much support? Come on. He still has been getting plenty of votes despite having dropped out of the race!
Santorum is just one obvious example. Look at all the big-government stuff “small-government conservatives” try to will onto everyone else. It’s like they have blinders on when they do it and don’t see their own hypocrisy.
The odd part is when lefties and righties both agree. Lefties supposedly are for civil rights. Righties supposedly are for small government and the Constitution. But then they both agree that it’s ok to wiretap, indefinitely detain, and even murder U.S. citizens without trial or due process. Amazing.
If the collapse of the Soviet Union, the pending collapse of the EuroState and the bankruptcy facing every Liberal Nirvana in this Country has failed to convince the leftist that they’re wrong then what makes you think you have a chance?
The real problem is that we don’t have an ideological dialog at the national level. We have the Democrats arguing for the far-left and the Republicans arguing for center-left. The Conservative position is only ever mentioned in passing, and with utter disdain. There can be no debate when people aggressively deny the reality that’s before their eyes. Our only hope is to defeat them and to continue defeating every time their loathsome ideology reappears.
You won’t get everybody, so forget that and consentrate on the ones who really agree with conservative thinking in their own lives, but aren’t exposed to the wit and logic that your media provides. Since everyday lives are busy I’d feature PJTV as the best bait to spark their introduction. Blue dog democrats, think field and stream, nascar, fishing and hunting mags and sites), construction workers(same venues) and even college students(many must be fed up with the liberal bias at their schools. I would use lead ins in print and the web featuring 3 teasers like trifecta, zonation and after burner. These are highly entertaining and drive home the conservative message. The teaser should simply state: Click Now for 15 Minutes of FREE Fun That Will Make Your Buddies Think You’re A GENIUS!!!!
The way to get the message out is to bypass normal channels. This is why the Samizdat campaign against the current administration (Placing “Thanks Barrack” stickers on gas pumps and grocery store shelves to highlight rampant food and fuel price inflation) is successful. There is simply no way for the administration or their legacy media lacies to respond or counter that, and the anger over the high prices is immediatly coupled to a cause, closing the circuit in the potential voter’s mind.
Doing this agressively in “Blue” districts, cities and States may well collapse the support for President Obama since high prices affect everyone, and the poor most of all.
Agressively using new media like the Internet has been the most successful demonstration of this idea, attacking Progressive tropes via websites, the Blogosphere, the Twitterverse and social media is much faster and easier than usig the central and bureaucratic models of the progressives. Even the mere act of posting things like the “Obama eats dog” meme causes the Legacy media to react, and derails their narrative. Cognitive dissonance caused by subverting Progressive messaging will pay amazing dividends in the long run
Jonathan Haidt, Psychology Prof at UVA, just wrote a very good book about this problem, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. He has researched the subject of moral psychology for years. He was a self described ultra liberal and is now a centrist. We all can learn a lot from what he has to say. See the book at:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Righteous-Mind-Politics-Religion/dp/0307377903/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1336698933&sr=1-1
Or get the 19 minute YouTube version at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc
I believe in a direct approach and, like history, cause and effect. If I was running for President I would show, in clear terms, how the policies favored by the left have devastated the American household. How the cost of oil has made the necessities of life too expensive for too many Americans. Most Americans don’t understand Macroeconomics but they do understand HOME economics. How can we eat the high quality whole foods Michelle Obama wants us to consume when we can’t afford macaroni & cheese? Americans over 55 have been pushed out of the work force and labeled EXPENDABLE. Women have been demeaned by the left as being more interested in the DEATH of children, either by contraception or by abortion, than a high quality life.
In fact, I would point out that that the Obama Administration has no concept of a better future for anybody except for his cronies.
Newt Gingrich suggested a Lincolnesque tactic of following the President around the county and making a followup speech within minutes of every BHO campaign event or fundraiser. If I were Gov. Romney tonight I would be somewhere near George Clooney’s MANSION pointing out how much it cost the American people for BHO to appear at the event. And I would follow him in a cheaper, American built aircraft or a cheaper American built bus.
Roger, I was caught up in wall to wall meetings for two days solid, so I missed your article until this morning. Great topic, insightful question.
My response is this:
You can talk a liberal, you can’t talk to a leftist.
A leftist is a cult follower and cult followers need to be deprogrammed…disabused of the notion that their current existence is based upon reality. It is impossible to have a rational discussion over topics with someone who is resistant to reason.
Leftists have their own “facts, evidence and news”, that is not dependent upon being true. In fact, “truth” on their terms ONLY exists if it fits within the guidelines of the pre-fabricated narrative.
Their hunger for knowledge is sated by pre-masticated and partially digested nuggets of narrative. This is why they accept “journOlist” pap, photoshopped pictures, staged “news” events, forged documents, fraudulent “composites” of people, truthyness, “hide the decline” omissions, conspiracies, fraud, and slander and libel.
They have their own lexicon, which our side ignorantly and stupidly adopts, giving it credence and an unexpired shelf life.
Leftists don’t need persuasion as much as they need narrative removal. Having one’s own “news” outlet, one’s own narrative factory, one’s own “truth” bending machine…reinforces daily the instant rejection of real world evidence.
It’s not the cultists, it’s the Svengalis and their operatives that need the talking to. Focus on the source of the problem…the cultists are usually the visible symptoms…not the disease.
I just came across an article in El Pais (Spanish newspaper/website)that was like an epiphany on this. Please read it! (don’t worry, it’s in English). We don’t need to change people’s votes, or minds, at least not directly/immediately…the goal should be to get them to OPEN their minds. To do that, we have to change the culture, not politics/ideology in the first instance. Please read this article – we can all learn from it – both “sides”, although frankly I think it will be harder for progressives to really grasp because the author (Nobel Laureate) is not a conservative per se…he’s an intellectual in the true sense of the word…and if you’re paying attention, you realize this piece is deeply subversive of the “liberal” order (which has only a thin veneer of intellectualism), while not “conservative” in the way we typically think. I hope this book is translated…the more people absorb the message, the better off we will be. http://elpais.com/elpais/2012/05/07/inenglish/1336392783_365628.html
The essential thought missed here in all of these excellent posts is that the lumpen proletariat who mindlessly will vote for Obama actually do no Thinking. They simply don’t think issues through the more balanced way that these posters here are doing. That’s why we seem to be preaching to our very own choir. We can “extra-think” among ourselves….and…to others who’re willing to hear.
But, our liberal opponents are only locked into their own “inter-think”
The monumental task that we conservatives face is changing the way non-thinkers behave at the voting booth.
How do we change our lumpen non-thinking friends into Thinkers?
I don’t know……so, we’ll continue the way we are now. We seem to have separate but circular agendas.
Choir members that sing the praises of Obama.
I don’t know how much life there is left in this comments section; But, here is a video that should be spread all over the internet:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e3b_1332104666
I suggest posters showing our Mombasa Messiah with the words:
“Forget wagyu beef.
Just don’t leave him alone with your dog.”
My wife and I live in a very liberal neighborhood ( though it wasn’t always) as a listener I have learned that virtually all of them will go to their grave as liberals. I have never been a liberal but at one time I was a democrat. I believe that liberalism began revealing what had already existed to the public with our good friend president jimmy Carter. It was then that listening to both sides taught me to abandon the crazies, and I did. they ramble on with their puppeted propaganda repeating only that that was told to them. they as a whole are unabe to think. Between 2008 to 2012 have have asked numerous libites why do you support Barack Obama and I have yet to get an answer. Yet ask a conservative why they support a conservative runner for office they will reel off a number of reasons, most of which are good……. I do not hold much for our future.
Try telling them about “Agenda21″ – or even better tell them just enough to scare them and then advise them to look it up for themselves on the Internet. It’s working like a charm around these parts where about 90% usually vote Democratic. A very small number of us began mentioning it, not very hopefully, to our lefty friends and neighbors, and for the first time ever got some of them to listen and even find out more- and of those who do, quite a few are shocked by what they learn.( Our Democrat-run town is implementing “Agenda 21″ with zeal.) They may admit that much, if not yet say (it takes courage round here to say) that they will vote for Romney as being all we have now between us and inchoate world government – but quite a few of them will, we believe.
I too worry that all of us are preaching to the choir.I believe that cartoons are the best way to reach the uninformed/ill-informed. The ability of a good cartoonist to expose the stupidity of the liberal position makes the reader think “this must be common knowledge if they are already making jokes about it”. Human nature makes us not want to be the butt of jokes, even by extension. This will make the reader “think”.
Once you have them thinking, they will convert.
Way up the thread, SunSword suggests YouTube. I would add Tumblr, which requires considerably less technical expertise. Make up some pithy/snarky graphics (there was one I saw with side-by-side pics of Warren and Zimmerman, captioned ‘redskin’ and ‘redneck’ respectively, that was perfect). Give them the appropriate tags, and turn them loose. Find everything similar you can find and reblog like crazy. If conservatives can kick leftist @ss on twitter, for sure we can do the same on Tumblr.
(you can post videos to tumblr, too …)
Bill Whittle is our best answer to the MSM Sense and HUMOR. We always have to be on the offensive in media because the MSM designs the game. Whittle is remarkably free of all that, or gently pokes fun at it. He’s not the stereotype most Liberals have in their heads.
CBS SUNDAY MORNING COMEDY OPINION PIECE – BILL WHITTLE
Wouldn’t one of his YouTube videos be fantastic as a humorous exploration of a current topic a la Mo Rocca or the African-American lady with the cool voice? Sorry don’t know her name off-hand but she is a great comedienne. She is engaging and makes me laugh even though I disagree with her most times.
Why not take it to the Gray Lady or the Washington Post? little ads that break the hermetic seal on people’s thinking – not just the weekly op-ed that only we read and Liberals ignore? Advertising works. Attention spans are short.
Sponsor more mass events in the arts, at museums, sporting events, arena concerts, music festivals – things that have been Liberal territory – why? They don’t have to be. People will get used to hearing the conservative message more often especially in Blue, Blue deep Blue professional areas like mine – galleries and museums. The whole hot mess that is the art world these days.
Take back the areas in our culture that disseminate meaning.
We need our own brand of beer/cola/healthy drink. Kudos to Limbaugh on “Two if by Tea”
Cheers! – Cinnamon Sunshine, a splash of color in a Blue State.
re: “Sure we have some internal differences (gay marriage is one area)”
Roger, since you and your wonderful columnists are having a vigorous debate over gay marriage, arguments for and against, I want you to address some of my arguments at your next coffee break. Will you? A very close member of my family is LGBT and I love him dearly. But I am more concerned about how the gay marriage arguments affect society as a whole, than I am about his, usually emotional, arguments.
What do gay couples want?
I believe the majority of states have legalized “civil unions” with property protection, health provisions, and power of attorney protection, and so forth. This seems overdue. I am surprised that some haven’t because it is plainly a fairness issue.
Why is “civil union” insufficient, but “gay marriage” sufficient?
Is this or is this not, at heart, an emotional argument?
Is adoption possible with “civil union”?
Yes, my old “Meals on Wheels” partner had one son, who was gay, and he had a committed life partner. My friend’s son adopted a baby born to a drug-addicted teenage relative. It was an open adoption, and they raised the child until my friend’s son and his partner unfortunately died of AIDS. After that the child went to join he “birth” mother and grandmother and other relatives. All are doing well.
Is foster parenting possible with “civil unions”?
Probably not, and I have grave reservations because of the Harvey Milk/Oscar Wilde meme. Both these gentlemen wrote openly about their love affairs. Most of their lovers were adults, but some were underage boys. In effect, Milk and Wilde were probably no different than the Catholic priests who lured underage boys into sexual relationships. Unless someone can guarantee that foster children will not be given to men who are also attracted sexually to boys, I cannot countenance it.
If none of these arguments gives you pause about gay marriage, then there is one more set of arguments to consider.
Why stop at 2 people in the definition of “marriage”?
If marriage isn’t the tradition one man one woman, why not other non-traditional combinations? Why can’t marriage be 3 people, or 4 people, or 5 people? Do we want judges appointed for life by Jerry Brown deciding this question? Do we want Supreme Court justices ruling on this?
The thing I am particularly worried about is polygamy. Many of our immigrants from south Asia, north Africa, the Middle East, central Asia, and so forth come from cultures and a religion which considers polygamy a personal high achievement, especially as it emulates the founding prophet.
I lived in NY for several years, and arranging a wife for an 18-yr old boy was no problem – teenage first cousins thousands of miles from NY were told by their parents in the home village that they were marrying their 18-yr old cousin in Brooklyn, and for the price of an airline ticket it was done.
What if each foreign-born man in Brooklyn had 4 wives, which is permitted under Islamic religious law? With US welfare so loose, probably the taxpayers would pick up the cost for 4 women, and 20 or so children, per man, no questions asked, and colonization would proceed apace. France and Great Britain already have problems with contrived situations where men have multiple families going and children being born to multiple unofficial wives.
This to me is the biggest national risk of changing the definition of tradition marriage.
I am also waiting to see how the politicians and judges will prevent “married” men (with sexual appetities like Milk and Wilde) from getting access to underage boys. No one supposes that all or even most gay men are attracted to teenage boys, but we know some are, Milk and Wilde are two, and it is apparently not rare either: witness the horrid Catholic priest sex cases and all the harm done to the boys who were victimized.
Thanks for allowing me to make my arguments. I am Catholic and years ago two of my cousins were nearly lured off to a “camping trip” by a priest who later was exposed for pederasty. If “gay marriage” happens, then I strongly urge that there be stiff legal and civil penalties for any man who, in the role of parent or foster parent, uses his home as a base to sexually initiate the boys in his charge. If NAMBLA is not dead, where is it: hiding in the shadows of the legitimate LGBT community?
I enjoy you because of all your efforts on this web site. My mother takes pleasure in engaging in internet research and it is easy to see why. We all hear all relating to the powerful manner you render effective things on this blog and in addition invigorate contribution from other individuals on the article plus my daughter is undoubtedly becoming educated a lot of things. Enjoy the rest of the new year. You have been performing a pretty cool job.