Whoever controls the language of the debate controls the debate. It's hard to control the language when the Left monopolizes virtually every lever of journalism, social media, and education. However, that doesn't mean that we conservatives need to help them by preemptively surrendering the moral high ground before the debate even begins. Here are a few self-defeating debate tactics that conservatives, myself included, have been guilty of deploying.
While not perfect...
When conservatives speak of historical figures they admire, they qualify their admiration with an acknowledgment of those figures' human flaws. We will say, "George Washington, while not perfect," and then go on to list his achievements. Why are we saying "while not perfect"? Of course, they're not perfect. They're human.
Conservatives do this, I think, to maintain an air of fairness and objectivity in the debate. But by opening with a focus on these flaws, we give the Leftists a point of concession at which they direct all their vitriol and make that "flaw" the center of the debate.
And if you've ever attempted to have a civil discussion with a Leftist, you've learned the hard way that they make ZERO concessions about anything, least of all any personal shortcomings in the pantheon of their heroes. Castro? Mao? Khomeini? They were all larger-than-life demigods who stood up to the West and whose only "flaws" were that their body counts weren't higher. Meanwhile, all our concessions are seen, rightfully, as moral surrenders. Stop doing it.
Of course...
Neither Left nor Right is above making generalized, stereotypical statements about external groups. The difference lies in the methodology the groups apply and the conclusions they draw. For example, conservatives examine the statistical and sociological evidence that strongly suggests a correlation linking fatherless homes with poverty and criminality. Though the focus is usually on inner-city black families, the correlation holds true across all races, cultures, and regions, thus negating any "racist" intent behind the observation. The correlation affects all groups wherever it is applied.
But to fortify our anti-racist credentials with listeners, we hide behind what Mark Steyn jestingly calls the "obligatory 'of-courses.'" When conservatives observe a negative and recurring phenomenon or pattern among a group or subgroup of people, we trot out the "of course" to let people know that our observations aren't intended to hold every single person in that group culpable.
"Of course, not all Muslims are terrorists... Of course, not all drag queens are pedophiles..." and so on. We do this because we're so pathetically terrified of the Left calling us mean names that, again, we concede points that don't need conceding. And rather than take our concessions in good faith, the Left smells the blood in the water and focuses like a laser on our aversion towards being seen as "hateful."
So when Leftists accuse you of making racial or religious generalizations or other such crudities, don't hide behind a meek, wobbly "of course." Reiterate your point, and ask the leftist why he immediately assumed that you meant the entire group. That's what psychologists call "projection."
I have (insert minority) friends...
"I have black friends. I have transgender friends. I have Latino friends." That's so cool. Now please tell me how that bolsters your argument.
Let's use the most egregious one used by conservatives and liberals alike, the "black friends" boast. First off, a black co-worker with whom you occasionally hobnob over the cubicle divider at work doesn't count as a "friend." He's a work acquaintance. Have you ever hung out together, just you two, after work? No? Ok, then. You're not friends.
And even if you had twenty black friends, this means at best you have a vague grasp on the political opinions of twenty black people from the same geographical location as you with lifestyles almost identical to yours. As of 2022, there are approximately 47.9 million black people in the United States. Your hypothetical twenty friends would only account for 0.00000042% of the total black population. So having twenty black friends wouldn't exactly give you an accurate pulse of the overall black community. And that's assuming you have twenty black friends, which you don't.
I don't know anyone from North Korea, but that doesn't disqualify me from critiquing their government. I can credibly express revulsion towards Islamic supremacism without having any friends in ISIS, al-Qaeda, or Dearborn, Mich. I don't need a "friend" in any given category to make a rational, objective argument about cross-segments and subgroups within that category based on consistent, long-term evidence, to include past and current behavior.
Leftists don't play the "friend" card because Leftists don't have friends. I don't mean that as an insult. Their worldview is understood entirely as relationships of power and exploitation between people. They don't believe that genuine friendship is possible. Rather, they have alliances of convenience which they betray at the first sign of dissonance. Just ask J.K. Rowling or Matt Taibbi.
I'm fine with it, so long as...
So long as it's in your own home. So long as it's consenting adults. So long as they're not hurting anyone.
This is a lame argument, and it's one conservatives hide behind far too often. We'll say, "Listen, if grown men want to put on mermaid costumes, lather each other up with peanut butter, and beat each other silly with rubber hoses, I'm fine with it so long as they're not pushing it on our children in schools." This evasion comes from the good intention of trying to be tolerant, as well as refrain from morality policing. Pragmatically speaking, you'll travel far and wide before finding a cop willing to don the latex gloves to make that arrest.
But to say you're "fine with it" — are you really? Or are you just saying that because you don't want to be seen as one of the prudish town elders in "Footloose"? It is no contradiction to accept the legality of a behavior while opposing it on ethical terms. But to say you're "fine" with a certain behavior gives it moral legitimacy, which makes confining that behavior within the four walls of a private home that much more difficult to defend. To say you're "fine" with something helps to normalize it.
In Japan, single women are marrying themselves in "self-weddings." Why? Because they've forgone marriage for the sake of their careers but don't want to miss out on all the fun on what would have been their special big day.
Does this make these people morally reprehensible? No. But is it downright bizarre? Absolutely. At the very least it's psychologically and culturally unhealthy. Human beings are social creatures designed to select a mate and pair up. To intentionally not do so, for the sake of materialism and status no less, is abnormal, counterproductive, and dare I say, selfish. You're not a bigot for observing that.
If you walked in on a family member engaged in an activity you're supposedly "fine with," would you feel any differently now that it's a family member and not just a hypothetical stranger? If your leering, bearded uncle was the aforementioned mermaid cosplayer with the peanut butter and the rubber hose, would he be a regular invite to babysit your kids? If your daughter was the one self-marrying, would you go along with the charade and happily walk her down the aisle to an empty altar? No? Then you're not "fine" with it. Stop saying that you are.
There is no deep-seated prejudice in stating that single women marrying themselves and grown men dressing as women and seeking the companionship of kindergarteners are outlandish behaviors that should be actively discouraged. There is no systemic discrimination in observing the undeniable correlation between fatherlessness and social degeneracy in young males. There is no phobia in recognizing the inherent violence in certain ideological or religious systems.
We conservatives need to stop pausing to explain ourselves for simply recognizing self-evident reality. We need to stop the moral qualifiers we offer before stating the obvious as if stating the obvious implies an underlying hatred from which we need to distance ourselves. Don't cede the initiative, certainly not willingly and unnecessarily. Any inch we give the Left will, by the end of the interaction, stretch to a mile. If leftists have a point to make, don't make it for them. Make them earn it. Give them nothing.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member