Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Bryan Preston

Bio

April 1, 2014 - 10:14 pm

Draw and STRIKE! (love the blog name, btw) paints a true picture of what argument with the average liberal has become. Leftists tend to behave like this.

Take the issue of ObamaCare. Remember during the years ObamaCare was debated, how many times Progressives said the following:

OUTRAGE STATEMENT™ #1: “Why do you HATE sick people and want them to die??!!!”

OUTRAGE STATEMENT™ #2:  ”Why don’t you want to do anything to fix the health care problem? What’s WRONG with you? Why don’ t you CARE?!”

OUTRAGE STATEMENT™ #3: “How DARE you keep lying about what ObamaCare will do! No one will lose their health insurance plans or their doctors, you creepy lying liar!”

Starting to remember, aren’t you? Probably because the Left is still making OUTRAGE STATEMENTS™ in defense of ObamaCare right now.

Starting to remember? When was there time to forget? President Obama himself uses this form of argumentation, all the time. Which leads me to my next point.

Conservatives can construct all the logical cases on a given policy that we want. The logic can be airtight. The facts can be presented so clearly that no one could possibly argue with them.

So liberals don’t argue with them. They just play the OUTRAGE card to put conservatives on defense.

You can be OUTRAGED all you want, folks. But when it’s time to make a case for the actual policies you want to enact or defend, stop it. You can’t build public policy or agitate for change just based on the outrage you feel. You have to have an actual argument. Running around all the time screaming about how outraged you are may make you FEEL good, but it’s not an agenda for fixing problems and addressing important issues.

You want to keep abortion legal up to 26 weeks or even beyond? MAKE AN ACTUAL ARGUMENT then. Stop the constant misdirection & man up.

You want to defend ObamaCare? Quit issuing blanket denials & insisting ‘nobody’ has lost plans/Dr.’s due to the new law you passed.

Want to defend what 40 yrs of welfare policy did to the black family in America? Quit screaming ‘Racist!’ at people who address it.

Why? Why would any liberal bother building a case involving logic and facts when preening outrage will do?

Building a case based on logic and facts takes effort. Spewing angry talking points does not. Building a case takes thought. Spewing angry talking points does not. Building a case based on logic and facts takes cleverness. Spewing angry talking points does not. You have to know things to build a factual case. You don’t have to know anything to toss around smears and outrage statements. Well, in MSNBC’s case you have to know how to construct a good smear every now and then. But you don’t have to know much else.

As I said earlier, President Obama uses the same childish tactic all the time. To hear him speak, resisting Obamacare’s abortifacient mandate means that you are a bad man and want to deny access to contraception to women and we just can’t go back. His supporters take that argument and run with it. To hear Obama speak, resisting his vision of “comprehensive immigration reform” means that you are racist and anti-immigrant and we just can’t wait. His supporters run with that one, too. And so forth. If you believe in the sanctity of life at conception, or at any point prior to birth, this president says that you are anti-woman. Even if you are a woman.

It doesn’t have to make sense. It’s dishonesty married to false urgency. It’s liberalism.

As frustrating as it is, all that Obama’s tactic has resulted in, are two terms in the presidency and passage of a law that fundamentally transforms the relationship between citizen and state while also possibly wiping out the freedom of conscience that we all took for granted a few years ago.

That’s not too shabby an outcome, from a liberal’s point of view.

If the ends justify the means, and to liberals, they do because true right and true wrong do not exist, then there is no point to building a logical, factual case for anything. Ever. Just smear and OUTRAGE your way to ultimate power.

It works for Barack Obama. Or at least, it worked long enough to get him most of what he wants.

I don’t know what the solution is. Over the dozen-odd years I’ve been blogging I’ve seen online debates with liberals devolve from real discussions to the childish outrage game, to the point that it all has no point. I’m not sure that we will ever get back to the point that politicians believed that they had to build a case for their preferred policies based on appeals to reason, and facts laid out clearly and step-by-step. We’re a very long way from the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Maybe we will get back to a point where reason and facts matter, but probably only after liberalism has so utterly failed that its appeals to emotion become ineffective. But imagine the pain that we will all have to go through before we get to that point.

And then consider that hardcore liberals haven’t even learned from the experiences of the 20th century, that collectivism centralizes power in a few hands, and turns government into a machine of horror.

Bryan Preston has been a leading conservative blogger and opinionator since founding his first blog in 2001. Bryan is a military veteran, worked for NASA, was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the Laura Ingraham Show and, most recently before joining PJM, was Communications Director of the Republican Party of Texas.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
The problem is that conservatives (and some Republicans) refuse to fight back (with a few exceptions).

For example, I remember an interview with a pro-life supporter. This supporter let the biased reporter redefine her as anti-abortion. Why? Why did the person not say, "sure, if I'm anti-abortion and you are pro-death?"

Though an engineer by degree, I know that in order to persuade you must also use emotion, and conservatives don't do that (or at least most of the conservatives who appear on TV or radio don't). It is beyond my comprehension why we cannot frame liberals as baby murderers (abortion), child haters (school choice), haters of the poor (for giving amnesty to millions which will depress wages and throw many out of a job), thieves (wanting to increase taxes), corrupt officials (giving contracts to cronies), hypocrites (for being tied to rich liberals who want to screw over the poor).

Liberals are unable to argue facts. If we can hit them with emotional arguments that drown out their "boo boo" attacks then they are left with nothing.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
Our problem is we don't use outrage when we are entitled to.

Obamacare is anti-poor as we are finding out most recently per Justice Kagan.

Instead of treating the left's claims with dispassionate reason we should have raised our voices and said WHAT KIND OF FOOL ARE YOU? DO YOU WANT TO GET PEOPLE KILLED????? WHERE EXACTLY DO YOU THINK DOCTORS AND NURSES AND PHARMACEUTICALS COME FROM!!!!??? A BUREAUCRATIC DICTATE??

I remember watching Rush Limbaugh's interview with William Shatner and I found myself getting mad at Rush for letting Shatner, innocently I think, frame the debate as we not wanting the poor to have health care. Rush should have said "Are you nuts? We are against this stupid law because the poor -- and everybody but us rich guys -- are going to lose their health care."
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (10)
All Comments   (10)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Um, it's because Liberals are not smart people. In fact, Liberals border on moronitude. Don't argue with morons. Shame them from the Town Square
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
The only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
What to do about outrageous outrage statements? First of all, remember that regardless of their chronological age, progressives are children, and should be treated as such. You do not respond to a child's outraged outbursts with yelling, screaming, or even a reasoned response. Bemused detachment is your starting point.

Next, you must, at all times and at all costs, maintain your frame. Know what you believe, why you believe it, and refuse compromise. Once you know your frame, and are prepared to maintain it, your response is simple verbal jiu-jitsu... agree and amplify. This may be done in several ways, with varying degrees of sardonic sarcasm as appropriate to the audience and the general intelligence level of those involved in the discussion.

I hate children? Yes, I hate them so much I want to force them to be born and have to listen to your liberal claptrap.

I want people to go bankrupt? Yes, I want it so badly that I'm willing to allow them to choose not to have insurance and go bankrupt if that's what they want to do.

Etc, etc, etc.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
The problem is that conservatives (and some Republicans) refuse to fight back (with a few exceptions).

For example, I remember an interview with a pro-life supporter. This supporter let the biased reporter redefine her as anti-abortion. Why? Why did the person not say, "sure, if I'm anti-abortion and you are pro-death?"

Though an engineer by degree, I know that in order to persuade you must also use emotion, and conservatives don't do that (or at least most of the conservatives who appear on TV or radio don't). It is beyond my comprehension why we cannot frame liberals as baby murderers (abortion), child haters (school choice), haters of the poor (for giving amnesty to millions which will depress wages and throw many out of a job), thieves (wanting to increase taxes), corrupt officials (giving contracts to cronies), hypocrites (for being tied to rich liberals who want to screw over the poor).

Liberals are unable to argue facts. If we can hit them with emotional arguments that drown out their "boo boo" attacks then they are left with nothing.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
Our problem is we don't use outrage when we are entitled to.

Obamacare is anti-poor as we are finding out most recently per Justice Kagan.

Instead of treating the left's claims with dispassionate reason we should have raised our voices and said WHAT KIND OF FOOL ARE YOU? DO YOU WANT TO GET PEOPLE KILLED????? WHERE EXACTLY DO YOU THINK DOCTORS AND NURSES AND PHARMACEUTICALS COME FROM!!!!??? A BUREAUCRATIC DICTATE??

I remember watching Rush Limbaugh's interview with William Shatner and I found myself getting mad at Rush for letting Shatner, innocently I think, frame the debate as we not wanting the poor to have health care. Rush should have said "Are you nuts? We are against this stupid law because the poor -- and everybody but us rich guys -- are going to lose their health care."
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
"You can’t fight unthinking unreason with facts."

That's why the first step is to teach unthinking unreason in the schools and then to reinforce it in the press and in entertainment media and in political speeches ...
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
"And then consider that hardcore liberals haven’t even learned from the experiences of the 20th century, that collectivism centralizes power in a few hands, and turns government into a machine of horror"

We see horror -- they see the opportunity to treat humanity like clay and reshape into what they want.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
The core question here, as in much of political outreach and posturing, is "Who is the audience, and what effect upon it does the speaker seek?" In the usual Outreach Statement case, the audience is other generally liberally-inclined persons the speaker hopes will close their minds to the "evil conservative." The tactic works best when the conservative tries to respond with facts.

"The leap to the meta-argument" -- pointing out what the Outraged One is trying to do and giving him the business for it -- seems to be the most effective response. It's not guaranteed, but when combined with self-confidence and the appropriate degree of ridicule, it has a better record than other approaches.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
The core question here, as in much of political outreach and posturing, is "Who is the audience, and what effect upon it does the speaker seek?" In the usual Outreach Statement case, the audience is other generally liberally-inclined persons the speaker hopes will close their minds to the "evil conservative." The tactic works best when the conservative tries to respond with facts.

"The leap to the meta-argument" -- pointing out what the Outraged One is trying to do and giving him the business for it -- seems to be the most effective response. It's not guaranteed, but when combined with self-confidence and the appropriate degree of ridicule, it has a better record than other approaches.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All