To more quickly defeat leftists we need an deep understanding of emotionalism

I have been a student of human nature and philosophy for many years, even into the kookier side of these subjects. One of the frustrating things I notice from those on the right is they argue well in a rational sense, but many or most punches don't hit home because they are not addressing the emotional content the left worships above rational thought.

1. That their beliefs are shame based; You yourself are of no value unless you sacrifice your life for another, thus to become valuable you have to die. You are not dead, therefore you are of no value. To console them as their eyes roll back in their head I tell them that the whole belief system is wrong, they need to listen to the optimism of Rush!

2. They are only voting their attachments, which are proven meaningless by facts, therefore their votes are meaningless. Then I punch them in the face with a consolation that it is a good theng they havn't invested emotionally in their attachments! Of course they have and they know it. They know I have just told them their lives are meaningless.

The fact is, their political lives ARE meaningless. And since politices is all most leftists have, as they abrogate the living of their lives to being a good altruist, they really have nothing to live for other than the pat on the back for "caring".

And since politices is all most leftists have, as they abrogate the living of their lives to being a good altruist, they really have nothing to live for other than the pat on the back for "caring".

Be a shock jock. Tell them that President Bush is a two-legged animal who needs love also.

I've had lots of Liberals argue with me about who decides what's "wrong", and about how one person's idea of wrong isn't another person's idea of wrong, and who am I to decide what's right and wrong, blah blah blah.

My response is always the same. I deliver a lightning fast jab to their stomachs. While they're laying there groaning and gasping for air I ask them, "Tell me, do you feel like what I just did was wrong"?

Your observation that libs are driven by emotion rather than logic is quite correct, and has been well documented in the past. Thus it does not really matter whether their policies actually work, as long as they are undertaken for the right reason--witness the stubborn clinging to LBJ's Great Society despite billions of wasted dollars and millions of wasted lives. Another example is their resistance to tax cuts despite empirical proof that they result in larger revenues to the govermnet--it's more important to punish the "rich." For a really entertaining look at the inherent inconsistencies of liberalism, read "Atlas Shrugged." She is to Libertoids what Marx and Engels are to libs (conservatives are less enamored because of her raging Atheism).
However, your statement that their political lives are meaningless is not correct. I believe that these fanatics are driven by much more than emotionalism (note that I am talking about the devoted Left, not poor deluded Catholics, union members, etc. who vote Dem out of inertia or because they have a vague notion that libs are for the "little guy" and Repubs are mean and nasty). All humans have an instinctive need for God in their lives; in the case of lib atheists, liberalism itself is thus raised to the status of religion. This explains their disbelief and rage when one of their members is questioned or criticized--these are not politicians you are criticizing, they are gods--and you are blaspheming.

As a former liberal, I would suggest that for at least some liberals the problem wasn't so much that emotionalism overruled logic, but rather that liberalism presents a world view which is fine and more-or-less consistent but is unfortunately doesn't mirror reality. When reality contradicts what liberalism says should happen, however, such contradiction is seen not as a sign that liberalism is flawed, but rather as a sign that evil right-wing conservatives are sabotaging everything.

Many of the proposals liberals put forth would be good if the world worked as they believe it to. Unfortunately, when the world fails to work as it 'should', the liberals blame conservatives rather than re-evaluate their world view.

Your point is correct. Emotionally their lives are meaningful to them because of the altruistic guilt-give-warm'n'fuzzy. I am looking at meaningless from the standpoint of a lack of connection to cause-and-effect.

I am a fan of Ayn Rand, can you tell? :-)

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.