Skip to comments.How to Argue with a Liberal
Posted on 06/14/2009 10:54:24 AM PDT by yetidog
I am generally reluctant to argue politics with friends or acquaintances in social settings, but was pushed to it last night at my daughters house
and probably lost the friendship of more than one or two people who observed the whole thing and were disturbed by the intensity and mean-spirited content of the comments I directed to my liberal adversary
1. Dont avoid the arguments. I used to, but the times in which we live, the malignant character of American governmental leadership and the irresponsibility of the American media demands confrontation with liberal ideologues who may be friends , coworkers or relatives etc. No longer will I be an agreeable conversationalist and consensus-seeker on matters political, but a forceful advocate of conservative fact and opinion who has absolutely no problem denigrating and ridiculing the point of view of others when I know it to false, ill-informed or indicative of liberal group think (i.e. Bush Derangement Syndrome or BDS).
2. In framing your arguments, dont bother to defend conservatism with arguments of smaller government, low taxation and the like; instead, spend your energy attacking liberalism using sarcasm, ridicule and parody to the fullest extent possible. In response, liberals will usually emote. For example, my adversary last night told me he didnt need know things, because --in all seriousness-- his heart told him what to think . Emotional rationales often self-embarrass liberals with silly counterpoints.
3. Likewise, lead liberals into the world of fact and they will try to follow very unsuccessfully. Learn some (not all) relevant facts (and their origins) and use them judiciously and only when they substantiate a point that you have raised. Contrawise, always ask a liberal for facts and they will generally be embarrassed by their incapacity to do so in a precise and convincing manner.
4. Bush Derrangement Syndrome should be aggressively faced with moral equivalency and the apt comparison is not the incompetent Jimmy Carter, but Lyndon Johnson, the big-spending liberal Democrat who knowingly took us into a war he manufactured and that resulted in the deaths of 59,000 American soldiers. This is a very credible approach if you are a veteran,-- particularly of the Vietnam era variety --who can speak eloquently to an experience most do not have and with which any detrimental effects of Iraq and Afghanistan pale by comparison. I find bringing up LBJ mutes liberals with BDS as any retort that LBJ is not longer president is obviated by the fact that neither is Bush.
5. Do not be apprehensive that a liberal knows more about politics that you do. This is a mistaken artifact of American education that presupposes liberalisms intellectual superiority. If you are not familiar with the incidence of Marxist class theory in the social science disciplines of American higher education, you should become so in order to argue eloquently (1) the group-think intellectual poverty of liberalism and (2) an explanation of American voting behavior amongst so the so-called educational class of America.
6. Never accept the argument of Republican wealth and by inference greed. Never say, well I know some wealthy Democrats, too. Point out big names Soros, Spielberg, Buffett etc. that have aligned themselves with liberal causes. And the notion that conservatives give more to charity that liberals can also be worked in here as well.
7. Lastly, always conclude with this question of something like it: What circumstance, condition or consequence would have to develop in the United States that might cause you to consider that the election of Obama was one big--- mistake? I find this question compelling on two counts. One, the question will sometimes provoke a response that is part of the conservative narrative. Second Amendment issues come to mind. Secondly, the question may not provoke any response, a situation which makes self-evident the narrow intellectual, conceptual and behavioral parameters of liberal ideology.
Get mean, show your teeth
just dont get them knocked out.
7 great points, Thanks for the post!
Your post hits close to home.
Had it out with a iberal reletive (by marriage) this week-end.
What was his wifes main complaint?
I was “mean”.
All I did was point out that Obama was not “saving” anyhting or anyone. That his bailouts were paid for and borne by the TAXPAYER - ME and others like me.
The truth is I was too angry and I don't like anger between family members.
“Get mean, show your teeth ”
Reminds me of the end of “I was a Teenage werewolf” when the dad growled at the principal who had been his classmate.
The principal wet his pants! Yes! SHOW YOUR TEETH! Politeness has been thrown out the window by the liberals and we must fight their way.
Your suggestion of sarcasm as a sword and shield is absolutely correct. One of the greatest defenders of free speech in the past 100 years...was Will Rogers. Will could tear apart any political argument with sarcastic wit and cynical charm. The failures of almost every CNN “talker” is because of a absolute lack of sarcastic ability and the total lack of strength on facts.
How can you argue with that total state of denial?
great post, thanks
Lately I have tended to just point out that Democrats are racist in every policy they espouse, and that everything a Democrat advocates is based on theft. Everything. There is no Democrat policy that is not based on taking something away from one person to purchase the loyalty of another person, which destroys the person from whom they steal, and the person to whom the spoils are given. All of this is done at gunpoint, and if you don’t believe me just try not paying your taxes and see how fast the people with guns come knocking at your door.
>>he didnt need know things, because —in all seriousness— his heart told him what to think
Most arguments with liberals eventually reach this point. You are giving them facts and they are telling you that they “feel” that you are wrong.
When they say that, I say that I “feel” that I am right AND I have verifiable facts. Once our feelings have cancelled each other out, they will just claim that they have “better feelings” or “more humane feelings” or some similar claim to moral superiority.
That’s where you need to have read and understand The Communist Manifesto and The Law. Start comparing what they “feel” to what’s in those two 150 year old books and prove to them that their feelings are consistent with Marx and that it was disproven by Bastiat long before the first communist ever shipped the first counter-revolutionary off to die!
But, sadly, you still won’t win because you are arguing with an insane person. It’s amusing, so enjoy the fun, but their minds are already spoiled.
You can only LAUGH at them.....flagrantly, in front of them...hilariously....and let them try and figure out why you are laughing....
You can only LAUGH at them.....flagrantly, in front of them...hilariously....and let them try and figure out why you are laughing....
We heard that we were ‘mean’ too, when we sponsored a Yes on 8 (Traditional Marriage) booth at the Farmers’ Market. Ohhh, cut to the quick. Well, yes, we were spat upon as well and frothed at. Really got the libbies’ ire up. One guy baited ME, sitting quietly in the background — “Why don’t YOU come up here and argue with me?” “Because??...”
I've never liked the phrase that Rand chose. But I think it's basically that You and people like you ought to pay the costs and bear the burdens of the policies that are put in place by the people who despise you. And you ought to do so willingly -- you are so strong and capable, that it is just "mean" of you to show reluctance in stepping up and doing your patriotic duty of paying taxes.
My daughter is a true believing feminist. She gets nasty and mean. My other three kids are conservatives.
But I’m in a master’s degree class on multiculturalism of all things, where the crap is so thick, my instructor actually enjoys reading a point of view that is diametrically different from dogma. So I’m getting straight hundreds so far.
There’s no set way to argue with a liberal because some of them are misinformed, others are absolutely brainwashed, and you never really know whose mind might open a little bit when exposed to something different. Mostly, it’s pointless.
At some point during the conversation, you will have to decide whether you want to drag this out tooth and nail-- or just back away. Just like at the bar, or when fighting for a parking space, or at the Department Store during the Holidays-- sometimes it's not worth it.
Liberalism is a state of denial.
Perpetuating that state is not helpful to them.
“Most arguments with liberals eventually reach this point. You are giving them facts and they are telling you that they feel that you are wrong.:
My favorite retort?
“Children feel. Adults think. Please grow up.”
"Sure the Republicans are the party of big money, but the Democrats are the party of really big money." - Noam Chomsky
At least your other kids are conservative! lol
Think twice before you use that LBJ analogy. George W. Bush (w/ 6 years of Republic control in Congress) is the 2nd biggest domestic spender (adjusted for inflation) in all of American history. Number 1? LBJ with his Great Society programs. No wonder the Republicans lost control in 2006. Fiscal conservatives stayed home. Though I suppose W has been or shortly will be bumped to the #3 position by the big O.
I bet she is not in denial....just trying to justify why she is sending her child to private school;o)
Start by asking questions of fact. Liberals have one thing in common they are just ill informed.
After they reveal their ignorance then make fun of them.
No, this doesn’t change their minds, but at least it shuts them up.
Democrats are racist in every policy they espouse, and that everything a Democrat advocates is based on theft.
Correct; however, liberal BDS rearely has anything to do with Bush’s fiscal programs, rather centers on Iraq and “lying about “WMD. It is difficult for liberals to argue fiscal responsibility given the tradtional platform of the Democratic Party, principles of socialism and their advocacy of big government. Bush’s fiscal irresponsibility is more a conservative criticism than is is a liberal talking point or public policy criticism. The guy last night tried that one on me, but quickly went down in flames when I traced the economic policy history of the Democratic Party from the New Deal to the present time.
I like this approach, of asking questions and exposing the liberals general lack of knowledge and facts.
This can defuse a confrontation, and, in some cases, actually get the liberal to think about what you said and think more deeply about some issues he/she has “knee jerk” liberal views on.
The more people actually think and use reasoning ability, the more they see merit in conservative views. And while they may still have a liberal opinion, such as with healthcare for example, they may come to realize that socialized medicine won’t be free, and that as much as they love the idea, they will realize somebody has to pay for it.
Then they may start to question all sorts of big government solutions to social problems and realize they all have a cost, no matter how well intentioned the liberals are by favoring such programs.
I agree with you Ditter. My brother is conservative but works for a government agency and disagrees with articles I send him from here! Stands to reason because he gets all his info from .... government agencies!!
Besides, I've found that you cannot change the mind of a hard headed person who thinks they are always right. You just upset yourself trying.
Thanks for the comments and the ‘heads up’ when talking with a liberal.
Reason is the only universally accepted means of determining truth. You can’t find reason with these moon crickets. Their ability to misremember and misinterpret the past is absolutely legendary. My sugar count drops to near-coma levels when I talk politics with a uber-liberal hack.
Instead, I say to my liberal friends when going to a Chicago Cubs baseball game: “hey, you make more money than me so pick up my Cub tickets. They say, ‘why should I do that?’ Whereupon, I say, “cause you make more money than me and you should be able to help me cause I make less than you.... where they say, “that’s crazy, the fact that I make more money than you doesn’t give you a right to live off my spoils... buy your own ticket” And then I say, oh, ok, well, (fill in the blank yourself _________________)....
They don’t grasp the connection. It’s pathetic.
Depending on how set somebody is I prefer and have had good results with a more diplomatic approach.
Acknowledge their fears/concerns as legitimate. Calling them an idiot, demeaning them will just make them hostile and defensive. Ask them about their concerns fears and that may well bring up BDS or other liberal half-truths/legends. This is usually due to media representation, not a conscious effort at slander - here present them the facts in a direct and tactful manner.
Find what they are concerned about: the economy, jobs/industy, national defense, etc., and use that to your advantage.
One thing that I often do when talking with aquaintances is bring up the typical liberal line, but then say - but did you know - and then introduce the facts demonstrating the conservative approach. Don’t tell them what to think, but then ask them what they think.
Several of my friends, who were your typical college liberals have changed their views and it’s kinda funny to hear them defend gun ownership and our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan now.
Most liberals are not. To that end I am reminded about the warning about wrestling pigs in the mud...
The best way to argue with a liberal is to ask them questions with answers already known and grounded in facts. Don’t tip your hand of your position, just ask more questions. They will expose themselves and you’ve saved yourself energy and strife.
“Bush got us into Iraq, JFK into Vietnam. Bush stole the election in Florida; Kennedy stole his in Chicago. Bush outed a CIA agent; Kennedy left hundreds of them to die in the surf at the Bay of Pigs. Bush lied about his military service; Kennedy accepted a Pulitzer Prize for a book written by Ted Sorenson. Bush was in bed with the Saudis, Kennedy with the Mafia. Oh.”
David Mamet converted to conservatism and writes about in an article called “Why I Am No Longer a ‘Brain-Dead Liberal’”:
Though this quote may be kind of hard on Bush and open for disagreement, the liberals will sympathize. Mamet also makes some excellent points about the psychology behind the fairly tale land of liberalism.
I agree; you should not call anyone an idiot, fool, unpatriotic etc...but you can cerainly frame your comments in such a way that those hold liberal beliefs may for good reason be deserving of such appealations. And I would not back away from calling Obama something like an “inexperienced charlatan,” Harry Reid a forlorn fool, Nancy Pelosi “her nastiness” or whatever provocative and sarcastic names come to mind. I think last night I may have called a certain Massachusetts congressperson “a piece of pus” or something equally awful. Another thing on names and personalities; If the comment is made that “you just hate every Democrat or liberal politician” it is easy enough to reply with a litany of “Blue Dogs” that you admire and quote the wisdom of the pre-Clinton Democratic Party estaqblishment such as Daniel Patrick Moynihan who noted that “the central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself.” My liberal friend agreed wholehearedly with the first part of this statement when I quoted it to him but looked quite perplexed when he tried to digest the second part. So much for liberal intellectual superiority.
That's a good time to accuse him of not caring because if you do away with electricity for refrigeration and gas for trucks food is just not going to get to the poor.
I pray that she sees the truth, for the lives of your future grandchildren. The highest sacrament of the true feminist is the right to kill them.
One of my co-workers is a lefty who railed at W’s foreign policy yet has a photo of Harry S. Truman tacked to her cubicle wall. When she went on one of her deranged tirades (which I always kept out of), I didn’t have the heart to tell her that Truman is the only leader who has ever dropped a nuclear bomb on innocent civilians.
“the big-spending liberal Democrat who knowingly took us into a war he manufactured and that resulted in the deaths of 59,000 American soldiers”
History, dog, history.
We had people in Viet Nam under both Eisenhower and Kennedy. The reason we were there was to oppose the spread of communism.
Back then, things looked a lot different than they do now. It was widely presumed that the USSR would win Cold War I. They were doing this through “low level conflicts” around the globe.
Those with prescience saw that if Viet Nam fell all of Indochina would fall (the Domino Theory), which indeed came to pass. (When some libtard starts laughing scornfully at the Domino Theory, just ask him if he is totally ignorant of the fate of Cambodia and Laos, and if he never heard of boat people.)
Opposing evil is always a good thing to do, and that is why we were in Viet Nam. What Johnson is guilty of is cowardice: he was afraid to try and win the war. He was afraid that the Chinese and Soviets would come in, as the Chinese did in Korea.
Nixon was elected on a promise to get us out of Viet Nam with honor. He delivered. Vietnamization was a success. The South Viet Namese defeated the communists in two major battles. Then, after Watergate weakened the forces of good, evil slimebuckets in our legislature reneged on our promises to supply the South. That is why the North was finally able to take the South and launch its bloody reign of terror.
We had the war won until Teddy Kennedy and other servants of Satan handed victory to the communists.
And speaking of Watergate, all that crapola about it being some huge constitutional crisis is buncombe.
The dims were treating potential donors to the services of whores, and paying for it out of Democrat Party funds. Some of Nixon’s staff thought it would be a good thing if the electorate became aware of that. However, not being criminals, they didn’t know how to do it. This led them to hire some incompetents, who got caught.
Nixon’s staff, of course, kept him in the dark until the last minute. Until after the last minute, actually: they waited until he had denied it on TV before they told him.
At that point he decided to cover it up, which was not so unreasonable, considering that it was a minor matter compared to the crimes that FDR, Truman, and Kennedy had covered up. Working together, the forces of evil (dims in the legislature, judiciary, academia, and media) were able to exaggerate it out of all proportion.
Rather than put the country through the turmoil of an impeachment (and he would certainly have been acquitted by the Senate), Nixon resigned—unlike Klintoon. This resignation allowed the dims to throw South Viet Nam to the wolves. This, of course, did incalculable harm to the US, and continues to harm us today, which pleases the dims to no end.
How is that any different than folks from our side quoting Limbaugh?
We have no disagreement here. I have taught American History at the college level for over 20 years and agree with most of what you say. My point is that considering Iraq as key feature of BDS, LBJ’s phony Gulf of Tonkin incident was far a more serious misuse of the truth than was Bush’s (apparently) mistaken assertion that Iraq possessed WMD.
Converting a liberal is like seducing a virgin ;-) You gotta go slow sometimes.
Did I quote Limbaugh? In any event, I would hardly call anyone or everyone who might quote Limbaugh intellectually impoverished. On second thought, I might.... as it is liberals who are usually running around quoting him.
I never said you did.
I asked, regarding your statement:
argue eloquently (1) the group-think intellectual poverty of liberalism
How is quoting Limbaugh (as many do) not the same as group-think intellectual poverty?
It's just a question.
It's just a question.
How, then, is quoting Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (as many do) not the same as group-think intellectual poverty?
It's just a question.
It's not like they're quoting some brain-dead Hollywood actor...
Quoting a radio actor is much different, isn't it?
You compare Limbaugh to Jefferson and Madison?
FYI, this poster you’re conversing with appears to DETEST Limbaugh. He comes on every thread, Limbaugh related or not, and denegrates him.