I have often observed that political liberalism, as
practiced by the rank and file liberal, is a philosophy of emotion rather than
thought. This is observable easily enough when you look at the propaganda they
pass along.
Picture of a starving child; we should use the government to
take money from the taxpayers and feed the child. Picture of a drowning polar
bear; we should use the government to take money from the taxpayer and save the
polar bears. Picture of a homeless person; we should use the government to take
money from the taxpayers and buy homes for everybody. Picture of a child who
can’t read; we should use the government to take money from the taxpayers and
fund public libraries and teacher’s unions. The list goes on and on. They use any
big crisis followed by a plea to use government to take money to fix the
problem. The pattern is obvious and simple. Never let a crisis go to waste.
It’s also quite obvious and simple to someone who has the
slightest inkling of human history and human nature that such emotional pleas
are started by the true driving force behind all liberalism. The hardcore radical
liberal is an angry person who seeks to take over and destroy anything they can
get their hands on. This is evidenced by the many great historical examples of
unfettered liberalism where genocides always seem to happen. Notice that every
example I gave above includes an increase in government power with a
corresponding decrease in the freedom of the taxpayer to control his own money
as he pleases.
The primary difference between rank and file liberalism and
conservatism is that a conservative takes the time to think things through. They
don’t just shoot from the hip in a fit of emotion; rather, they look at the
longer term consequences of having the government, which has minimal
qualifications to handle anything with expertise, in charge of handling
everything.
The problem becomes a matter of how to handle a liberal. You
can put any sort of statistical fact or study or well based analytical opinion
in front of them and it will simply bounce right off. Even if you get them to
acknowledge the point you’re making and recognize the validity of the data they
will usually say that they, “just have a feeling,” that whatever they are doing
is for the best of all of us. Most often they will just tell you that you want
children to starve, you’re a racist, bigot, etc., for not supporting what they
do. Never fail to have the sense to recognize that what you are dealing with is
not an analytical argument; it’s based on nothing but pure emotional stimulus
response.
The problem is that when you approach a rank and file
liberal, or someone who is on the fence, you have to approach them and make a
basic, easy to understand and factual point which also appeals to the emotions
of an unthinking person. Don’t bother giving them data from someone like the
Heritage Foundation or Freedom Works or any obvious conservative source of data.
No matter how valid it is they will simply mock it as data from partisan hacks.
These sources make good points, but for the person who is paralyzed from the
neck up it is useless because it requires that they do something that they can’t
usually do. Think. It is a waste of time to send them something of that nature because
it will go so far above their heads they’d never even see it.
Unfortunately there is no hope of easily handling the hardcore
radical liberal and you will likely never win them over. Should you find
yourself confronted by a rank and file liberal there are easy ways to handle
them. You simply stick to only the very basic points that they cannot deny and
appeal to their emotions as they relate personally to them.
Whether you are liberal or conservative, there is one thing
inherent to the nature of all human beings. Emotions are universal. We all have
them. If you show me a picture of a starving child I will have the same feeling
as a rank and file liberal. The hardcore radical liberal looks at picture of a
starving child and has an emotional reaction as well; they are gladdened by it.
However, if you are bothered by something, a rank and file liberal is most
likely bothered by the same thing and has the same emotional reaction. The difference
is that a conservative sees many different ways to solve the problem which don’t
interfere with the freedoms of other people. The rank and file liberal becomes
consumed by the desperation of the situation and being somewhat hypnotized by
the radical liberal’s propaganda, thinks the government is the only way to
handle everything. That’s the only choice which does not require them to think.
I’ll say this again because it is important; you have to get
below the level of thought, into an area where they can immediately observe a
fact on an emotional level. If you give them a choice that causes them to have
to think ahead in the slightest degree you will lose them.
To this end I give some examples. There are too many
approaches to list out here but if you understand the basics you’ll be able to
move things along nicely.
Basic truth; either you control your money or someone else
does. So ask the rank and file liberal, “Either you control your money or
someone else does; isn’t that correct?” Do this with manners and good
communication skills. You wait until they answer it, even if this takes
forever. If they never answer it, they never answer it, but it is your best
chance to get them on to the lowest possible rung of the ladder towards
thinking for themselves.
Basic truth; either you believe you should control your own
money or you believe someone else should control your money. This is where the
emotional point comes in. Most people, by far, inherently recognize at an
emotional level, the connection between their own freedom and control of their
bank accounts and pay checks. People don’t like to have things taken away from
them. “Do you believe you should control your own money or do you think someone
else should control your money?” Most people will follow the basic truth
at the emotional level and admit that they’d rather have control of their own
money. There are some that will hedge and try to dodge all along the way but if
you persist and get this question politely answered there may be hope for them.
Basic truth; either a politician believes you should have
control of your money or he wants control of your money for himself. Do not
point out which side is which! Remember, you are dealing with a person who has
been programmed at an emotional level to support the left. If you at any point
mention Democrats are bad they will react emotionally. Just stick to the
question and let them observe for themselves. If you’ve handled it smoothly
enough, and if the person is capable of thinking at all, you should see the
lights come on to some degree.
There is a difficult part that not even a lot of people who
support Republicans get. Basic truth; if a politician says he is justified in
taking any percentage of money from you, for any cause at all, without
your own personal consent; you do not have control of your money. I
know that is a radical statement as some people would see it. I’d challenge anybody
to disprove its factuality on the basis that even if the politician says, “I’m
only going to take a paltry five percent and you won’t even miss it,” it is the
politician who is deciding that you can only control the remaining ninety-five
percent of what is yours. If he changes his mind tomorrow and says he’s going to take seven
percent, ten percent, twenty percent or like most European Socialist countries
a whopping seventy-five percent, it is him who is taking it and making the
decision that whatever is left over is yours to do with as you please. It is a principle
that leads back to my first basic truth; either you control your money or
someone else does. The government, backed by any number of people, taking money
against the will of the person who is giving it, violates the basic definition
of having control of your own money.
The preceding paragraph is more than you could explain to a
person who isn’t thinking. There is also the point that the government of any
country does have valid expenses that do need to be covered. And there are
certainly people who would wish to not contribute to the cause at all. For
myself, I have never understood why the government can’t have its own source of
income, rather than feeding like leeches off of the income of others. But that’s
not the point of this article and setting my own tendencies towards digression
aside we have to impress upon the fence sitting rank and file liberal that less taxes equals more
freedom. The above basic has the flaw of being stated as a
rather complex absolute.
In keeping with the need to make the appeal to a liberal an
emotional one that would tend to get him to change his mind a very gentle
approach on a gradient works best. “Do you feel that you would have more
freedom if less of your money was taken from you?” You are not appealing to his
sense of logic or compassion for others. You are directly asking for his
emotional feelings on the subject. If you can move him down a single percentage
point in his support for taxation, you’ve moved him in the right direction.
Tomorrow maybe you’ll move him another point.
There is one problem that is very difficult to handle. Class
envy. If he’s not a person who understands the wealthy of this country, which
he isn’t one of, carries the economic circumstances of both the rich and poor,
there is only one argument I can think to use on him, and this is a very
long shot. Again, this argument needs to be stated as an emotion and needs to
be directly related to him. “Do you feel it would be easier for you to move
from being poor or middle class if the government has less control of your
money as you progress?”
If the person you’re talking to is complaining about
unpatriotic corporations moving overseas don’t bother pointing out to them that
the United States currently has the highest corporate taxes in the world. They
will have no sympathy for this point at all, even if you explain to them that
they are paying higher prices for it because corporations will only pass the
expend of the tax on to their customers. It is far too complicated and does not
have the personal emotional appeal they need to understand. So again you stick
to simple and personal. “If the town you’re living in requires you to pay forty
percent of your income to taxes and the next town over only requires ten
percent, where do you feel would be the best place to live?”
Hopefully these points and principles will give you the
ability to make some headway. While they may not change the viewpoint of the
person you are having the conversation with they will usually convince other
people who might incidentally overhear the conversation or read it in social
media if that’s where you are having it. Frequently I hear accolades from
someone who wasn’t even in the conversation about how it was handled. Be polite
and have good manners and most of the time you’ll pick up some support.
If all else fails there is still one very good thing you can
do to make your point. Basic truth; liberals love the Beatles at a personal and
emotional level. Send them a link to the song, “Taxman.” If that doesn’t win
them over nothing will. Either way you’ll have the benefit of getting a great
song stuck in your head. And that’s better than arguing with a liberal any day.
Follow the links below for the rest of the series:
The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part One
The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Two
The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Three
The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Four
The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Five
The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Six
The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Seven
