On Throwing Bombs

No, I'm not yet at the point of advocating any sort of armed domestic upraising--I'm metaphorically referring to harsh language.

Before I return to topics of substance, I'd like to respond to commenter myofacial release who recently stated, "Good blog though, rare for a conservative to reach out to people instead of creatively insult people." Not to deflect one of the only compliments I've received here on this blog, but I'm not alone. Neo-neocon and Ed Morrissey are two others who spring to mind off the top of my head.

However, the only reason I've refrained thus far from launching verbal assaults is that I've not yet had the need. "[C]reatively insult[ing] people" is a necessary rhetorical tool, although it's one most pundits of all persuasions use too often.

The purpose of this blog is to examine how to reach out to people, most especially those who've either not put much thought into politics but pull the lever for the Democrats out of habit, or those who vote that way because they sincerely believe that Democratic policies will benefit the country. I believe that those who are sincerely mistaken can be persuaded, unlike those who have made leftism an intrinsic part of their identity, most of whom will always disagree no matter what we say or do.

I've spent a great deal of time trolling around websites like The Daily Kos, and I've come to the conclusion that the most effective ways that the left has refuted our points by is distorting or ignoring them. I've also engaged in many debates on comment-boards, in chatrooms, via email, and in person, and rarely have I encountered a proud leftist who deals directly with the actual points I'm making. I've observed the mainstream media simply not report on much of what we have to say.

This has led me to the conclusion that the most effective way for us to persuade the apathetic and sincere lefties is to spread our actual message--if there were effective refutations to what we have to say I would have heard them by now.

This entails several types of persuasion, all of which require that we not allow the opposition to either evade or distort out message.

Those who sincerely disagree ought to be engaged in honest discussion. I consider leftism to be a Lie, but like all effective lies, it's based on certain truths (the poor have an unfair shake at things, healthcare is too expensive, peace is preferable to war, etc.). We need to discover the truths behind their erroneous beliefs, emphasize our agreement with the truths in question, and then elaborate on how leftism will make the problems they (correctly) identify worsen. Yes, minimum wage fails to support a family of four, but no, raising it won't help the poor but will instead increase unemployment.

But we don't always get the chance to do that. If we're up against a representative of the AFL-CIO on Hannity & Colmes, we will likely face an opponent who has no interest whatsoever in exploring Truth but instead has every reason to beat you. In such a case, you can't let him, and that may very well mean "creatively insult[ing]" him. (Understanding why he has supporters can be a great way to make yourself more effective at this, which is why I advocate trolling around on the leftward side of the blogoshpere.) I never engage in a discussion hoping to make somebody look like an ass, but if my opponent insists that one of us looks like a moron, it sure as hell won't be me--any third parties watching are unlikely to find themselves convinced by someone who's just been humiliated.

That said, there's another use for harsh language--the confident affirmation of one's own views. Exposure to the left, which can be quite hard to avoid, can get rather exasperating. After a while, it all starts to sound like this, and it feels good to make fun of it. Even though I'm no great fan of Ann Coulter, it's hilarious watching her castrate Colmes--it feels great to see one of them get what's coming to him. I'm not particularly proud of this, but I am part human.

The danger comes when we replace what feels good for what works. By and large, the conservative movement is full of bomb-throwing pundits (Coulter, Hannity, O'Reiley) and mealy-mouthed politicians and political parties that allow themselves to be routinely mocked while trying to "build bridges" with opponents who have no intention of letting them.

Both groups are one-trick ponies. I have no reason to suspect that Ann Coulter could engage a sincerely mistaken lefty in honest discourse (I've seen O'Reiley try but he's awful at it). No matter what Harry Reid says about Bush, Bush replies rather meekly.

We need to get softer and to toughen up. I've already begun describing how I think this should be done, and I will continue to elaborate as this blog progresses. In the meantime, I can lead by example. Thus far my only critic has been in sincere disagreement, and I've responded in kind. Someday, I'll have an earnest troll, at which point you can see how I think he/she should be disposed of.

And as far as an opponent who's actually right about something...Frankly, I doubt this will ever happen, but if it does, I must keep my future reaction secret so as to keep y'all coming back.