How Liberals Win The Talk Show Wars

Election time is near, and liberals will be out there saturating the airwaves with their propaganda—and many Americans will fall for it. Over the years, liberals have honed a number of proven talk-show techniques to deceive the voters. Here are a few to watch out for.

Liberals know they can´t win a debate on logical grounds, so they fight to keep it on an emotional level. Few people have time in their busy lives to consider the logical side of an issue or whether a more cost-effective and efficient way will accomplish the same goals or more.

When a liberal argues that Congress must pass a Save Our Children from Going Hungry bill, he launches into an emotional argument rather than a logical one, even submitting anecdotal evidence that can bring an audience to tears. “Jenny Smith is a sweet child in a poor neighborhood with a disabled mother who can´t work. Jenny´s hungry. She´s hungry because an uncaring Congress took away her school lunch.” Anyone who argues that the bill is so full of bureaucratic oversight and unrelated expenditures that Jenny´s lunch will cost more than a gourmet meal in a fine restaurant will have viewers shouting at the TV, “What difference does it make what it costs? I´ll spend a few dollars more a year in taxes so she won´t go hungry.”

Never mind that we´re talking about more than a few dollars if such programs are implemented. Never mind the long-term “collateral damage” to the recipients and society from these programs. Never mind that Jenny´s mother isn´t really disabled, she´s a drug addict living with an ex-convict, and Jenny has more problems than just lunch. With such emotional issues as children, families, health care, hunger, homelessness, poverty, and gun control, anyone who argues against liberal proposals risks being seen as uncaring, the first step to losing the hearts and minds of the viewers. “You people just don´t care enough to solve the problem of (fill in the blank) in America” is an effective way for liberals to put the other side on the defensive in a television debate.

Once the debate has been diverted to emotional issues, liberals can solidify their position on the emotional high ground by emphasizing the uncaring position of their opponents. “Well, I care about women´s issues,” they may say, the implication being that the other person doesn´t, or, more directly, “I can see you care nothing for the children of America.” These statements can succeed because viewers assume that such distinguished liberal spokespersons would never publicly make such statements unless they were true. The liberals are considered distinguished only because an adoring liberal media characterize them that way.

When a conservative gets the upper hand, the liberal changes the subject to interrupt the flow. Before the impeachment of Bill Clinton, how many times did we hear them say, “I´m more interested in Social Security, health care, and jobs than personal sexual behavior”? Before a conservative can finish showing how the Save Our Children from Going Hungry bill is full of pork, bureaucracy, and waste, and just a cover for funding other liberal programs, the liberal will interrupt and change the subject. “Well, what about the bill you supported last month to increase military spending by four billion dollars? We can feed a lot of Jennys for four billion dollars. Can´t we do without a couple of high-tech airplanes so we can perform wonders for all our children, for all the Jennys of America?” The debate has shifted from the cost of the bill to whether military expenditures are more important than feeding hungry children.

Americans are too busy with other things dear to them to have the time to unravel the complexities of all sides of the issues. To help bury a factual argument, liberals must make it even more difficult for people to understand an issue by complicating it. In a debate on military spending, a conservative may summarize three or four reasons why we need a strong military. The liberal opponent will hasten to complicate the debate. “Explain to the American people why they should pay for another aircraft carrier instead of creating more jobs and providing health care for sick children. Why does a single F-14 aircraft cost taxpayers more than the school lunch program?” The questions seldom reflect anything factual, but such deception plants a seed of doubt in the viewer´s mind.

Soon, viewers throw up their hands in frustration and say, “This is getting too complicated to understand. I wish someone would simplify it for us.” And how do liberals come to the rescue? They do so with buzzwords and catchy slogans. In the midst of a debate on how to divide up our national budget, some viewers will even be grateful that the catchphrase, “Our children are more important than another aircraft carrier,” saves them from understanding why we need a strong military. Muddying the waters really is an effective technique.

Liberals try to identify an enemy for the public to blame for a perceived wrong in society. The demonizing of Linda Tripp diverted public disgust from Bill Clinton´s behavior to a whistleblower. The demonizing of Cuban-Americans was a diversion to save Janet Reno´s hide in the Elian González fiasco and gave liberals an opportunity to try to humanize the inhumane Castro regime. “Greedy corporations” are a perennial target, as are “right-wing Christians, ” cold-hearted Republicans, and the National Rifle Association, among others.

Liberals would have us believe that Americans die from lung cancer not because they refuse to quit smoking but solely because of greedy corporations. People die from gunshot wounds because of evil guns, not because some evil person behind the gun pulls the trigger, an evil person who can be as deadly with a switchblade knife or a baseball bat. There isn´t money to spend on social programs, they say, because greedy generals and admirals in the Pentagon siphon off money for unnecessary weapons. Bill Clinton wasn´t wrong to sexually harass Paula Jones and lie under oath; Paula Jones was wrong to file the lawsuit because she was just “trailer park trash.”

They have tried to link conservative Republicans with demonized “greedy” tobacco companies, but failed because their own campaign chests are swollen with tobacco donations (and the donations of trial lawyers who became multimillionaires suing tobacco companies). They´ve tried to blame the NRA and gun owners for every school shooting, but thinking Americans didn´t buy the illogical connection. They´ve tried to link conservatives with every extreme “right wing” group, from racists to Nazis, but found believers only among the most naive of citizens. They´ve tried to link pro-Second-Amendment conservatives with some radical “right-wing militias,” but Americans have only to hear such spokespersons as Charlton Heston, Tom Selleck, and Wayne LaPierre, among others, and replays of Ronald Reagan´s speeches, to realize that the two groups may as well be from different planets.

Liberals use a blend of these techniques to win over naïve viewers. They win because of their techniques rather than the strength of their positions, but winning now on talk shows can bring rewards in the next election. Our challenge is to get the American people to understand our side of the debate. Heaven help us if we have to resort to the techniques of the other side, but maybe we should.

To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Allan at acstover@comcast.net .

When I say sloppy, I mean that it is a turn-off to sit there wanting to hear an answer, only to have someone interrupt the guest. Conservative hosts do it as well, only not as blatantly one-sided as liberals. The only way to get a liberal host to be polite is to have him/her interview a liberal guest. However, I have heard some conservative hosts interrupt conservative guests, as well as liberal ones. It makes me want to yell for them to shut up and let them finish.

Donahue conducts his interviews in the same manner as his old talk show; he introduces a topic, asks a question of someone with whom he disagrees, and will change the subject in the middle of the person's reply. He is also very smarmy when he interrupts. He would be better off just to come out and say he doesn't think the person's opinion is worth anything.

You have 3 choices in life and can change your mind which one of the 3 you want to follow at any time. #1 Bust your ass and make something of yourself. #2 Indenture yourself to a #1 for your basic necessities. #3 Lay down in the street and die.

It's amazing how well that parallels my own favorite slogan: "Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way".

Whenever progress (of any sort) is impeded, it's almost always due to people who won't lead, won't follow, and won't get the hell out of the way.

The American public has been raised on nearly 40 years of being presented with psychotics on TV as entertainment and social commentary/activism, going back to the Abbie Hoffman Bill Kunsler days of the 60s, and recent generations have internalized the mode of thinking.

Right on the money, RLK. Let's consider the political talk shows: Hannity & Colmes, Bill O'Reilly, Crossfire, The McLaughlin Group.....(pretty much name your show). Most (if not all) of them relies on crazed, loud, emotional content to attact viewers. Long gone are the days of Buckley's Firing Line, where people discussed the important issues of the day rationally, sanely, and politely.

Great article and all too true. Another thing the libs do is to spout off a list of lies and distortions in a filibuster. The conservative will usually pick one lie to debate, leaving the impression to those viewers who are less informed that the rest of the lies and distortions must be the truth.

And conservatives are usually more polite debaters and hesitate to talk over or try to out-shout their liberal opponents. To a liberal, whoever shouts the loudest, wins.

The last TV news anchor of any depth or integrity was Howard K. Smith. He retired 30 years ago. I have to ask what people such as Margaret Carlson and Eleanor Clift are doing editing magazines or on talk shows. They more properly belong in mental institutions. We live in an age of insult television where rating are achieved by antagonizing the public. We now have people in their 30s who have grown up in it and have adopted the mentality. They consider mature intelligence a strange form of disease.

Yes that is Donahue's shtick. In fact I'm sure he doesn't really care about any intelligent discussion of a particular subject. The conservative opponent is there to be a sock puppet or a stooge for Donahue's rantings about the evilness of conservatives and/or Republicans and to promote the particular liberal "crisis" issue of the moment. Donahue is the worst by far. But other liberals aren't much better. They know that to attract viewers, great theater is needed. And since many women fall for the emotional "I care, and you don't" style of liberal debating technique, this approach has worked well for liberals for many years....until recently that is.

My mother, sisters, and in-laws are prime examples of Democrats who react positively to appeals to emotion rather than logic. They have no facts and do no reading on a particular subject. They simply repeat the latest liberal sound-bite. They do not like to have the cold water of hard facts splashed in their faces.

This report leaves out one of the most important liberal "debating" tactics. They interrupt incessantly when conservatives are talking, disrupting the flow of thought. But if anyone tries the same thing on them they have a snotty retort at the ready. Conservatives, being considerate, usually yield.

Indeed. Another excellent point. The conservative's manners are used against him/her. What I do when a DemoRat tries this, is to block out what they almost frantically throw out to interrupt me, and maintain a continuous stream of thought and logic to end up with a punch line that sticks it right in their craw. It buffs their brain. They usually forget all their silly protestations and interruptions since their usually is no coherence to what they were yapping out during the development of my argument.

But I don't stop there, I give them a quarter note beat to let my hopefully devastating conclusion sink in...(such as "and so any fool can see that Democrats are guilty in spades of all the things they accuse Republicans of")..then I nuke them as sanctimonious hypocrites.

The key point is to maintain a strong sense of internal rhythm and trust that they are NOT cooperative fair play debaters. Don't give them a chance to pot shot at you. And take the fight to the wasteland of THEIR backyard.

Analyze him in front of millions while he whines and rages in indignation.

-------------------------

I'd never be able to get a word in over his bellowing. If things didn't go his way, the mike would be cut off and the tape would be edited.

I might begin the discussion by talking about how Mr. Sensitivity left a wife and kids to play around and end up with the stupid loud-mouthed slut he's taken up with. The program would be cut off and if he took physical measures I'd put him in a wheelchair for the remainder of his life.

You're exactly right. A couple longtime friends of mine are old style democrats from way back when. During the election fiasco last year they wanted to talk.

They started the same thing -- rapid fire about 20 different points, and then when I tried to respond, they cut me off, interrupted, and so on, over and over.

I patiently explained to them that complex issues can't always be reduced to 10 second sound bites, and that if they wished to debate, if they really did want to talk, then they would have to follow some sort of rules that we can all agree on -- I explained that "you have the floor" for example, means that they can talk, without interruption to address the issue at hand, and I would have the same courtesy in turn.

"Liberals" today will not stand for reasoned debate, just censorship, and failing that, shouting down, ad hominem attacks or other juvenile behavior. That anyone takes them seriously today is frankly scary and a reflection of how far our values as a society have slipped.

That's one beef I have with the talk shows -- they let the guests yell and scream and interrupt. Sickening.

Good article!

Especially the section "Keep The Argument Emotional" . That's why "Victimology" is such a religion for Liberals. This is never more obvious than during the pathetic Weepathons that the Dems stage every 4th summer (also called "National Conventions") in front of their adoring, weepy sycophants (also known as "TV Journalists").

I got a good chuckle yesterday at an article in the local paper that quoted an emotional Democrat who was accusing his opponent in the local primary of unfairly running an "emotional campaign". Well, like, DUHHH!

In our heavily Republican county, there are many races with no Democrap challengers, and in fact there was only a single contested Demo primary this year (5 or 6 on the GOP side, though). So the Dem powers-that-be in this county were quite naturally unenthused when contemplating the considerable amount of work and overhead required to conduct a county primary just for one single race.

So they called the 2 candidates into the proverbial Smoke Filled Room to flip a coin to decide the anointed one, with each candidate promising to abide by the result. The coin was flipped and the Demo woman lost to the Demo man.

Well, it turns out the woman broke her promise and ran in the primary anyway. Both of course claimed the right to sit on the Holy Altar Of Victimhood. He was the victim of her broken promise, and she was the Victim of despicable back room power brokers who tricked her into agreeing to the coin toss! The bottom line? She did a much better job of portraying an abused victim than he did, so she won the primary.

What a crock! How pathetic! How Democrat! Highly entertaining yet pathetic.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.