Not Gone Yet

I apologize to my burgeoning fan base for my recent dearth of posts. This will cease tomorrow. Things have come up that bode very well for me, but they've taken time from this blog.

However, I am happy to report that my first prediction looks like it was rather off base. We're not responding quite like I hoped we would, but the response has been far from impotent.

I hope I get such egg on my face more frequently.

This Is Why I'm Not Hot

All of us fall into the trap of me vs. the world. On a day when your boss unjustly yells at you, your suit comes back from the cleaners with a hole in your pants that you notice right after your wife takes the car, and your puppy gets diarrhea, you might find yourself tempted to think that the world is ganging up on you. Despite the painfully obvious fact that your puppy has never met your boss (and neither know what cleaners you frequent), both might become part of an amorphous "they" that's oppressing you. However, eventually the day ends, and you realize how ridiculous your thoughts were, or at least forget about them.

But you don't have a political movement continually reminding you to keep thinking that your puppy is in league with that rude Chinese lady. Blacks do. When the world is viewed through the lens of Power Narratives, slights by every "oppressor" and nearly every injustice one encounters that can't be directly attributed to a fellow victim are all connected by the Racist Power Structure. It matters not if you have never personally encountered a single specific instance of the racism that your forbears encountered daily--you know that they're just hiding it, and the proof is in your rotting neighborhood.

As I've discussed before, as difficult as it may be to believe, many injustices against blacks were rectified in the 1960's. Things weren't perfect, but a lot changed, and it became a crossroads for the black community.

I would compare this to the moment when a formerly abused child recognizes that it isn't his fault that his father abused him. After being victimized by forces beyond his control and taking the first steps to rectify that which he can, he can either heal the pain and take responsibility for his life, or he can remain bitter and make his father the permanent reason he can't succeed.

Freedom is both wonderful and horrifying, and as the War on Poverty failed to eliminate ghettos, it succeeded in altering the definitions of "freedom" and "justice." Things didn't seem to be getting better fast enough, and if you finally get the freedom you always wanted and still find yourself going nowhere, if you're not especially courageous it's perfectly natural to claim you're not really free yet.

At this juncture the Civil Rights establishment could have attempted to inspire its followers to appreciate their new found freedoms (which by definition contained some pitfalls and was always going to be far from perfect) but instead chose to make itself more indispensable through enumerating new needs. Gradually, the new grievances became more amorphous, and therefore more insurmountable.(for an in-depth discussion of this see Shelby Steele's White Guilt

As "racist" became a label almost nobody wants ascribed to them its definition changed. Since white people wrote the dictionary, simply viewing somebody as inferior because of their race no longer suffices. Racism is now either prejudice mixed with power or a system that keeps racial hierarchies in place. As blacks became less likely to point to specific incidents of racism, to keep the nightmare alive racism had to become something even more insidious, and something that can never be wiped out.

It's much easier to confront Don Imus is he's just an arrogant windbag. If you see him as landlord/cop/corporation/low-paycheck/expensive-groceries/doctor-bills he's a bit more formidable, and almost as bad as a slave driver.

Hence the new Power Narrative, only one more similar to the Vanguard of the Proletariat. People fail, and other people tell them that there's so much stacked up against them that failure is all but inevitable. Even those that succeed are reminded that they should not have had to have been so exceptional.

In one sense, this is true, but in another sense, it's most definitely not. In my next post I hope to contrast the liberal inability to distinguish between "should be" and "is" with the more productive conservative perspective.

Heroism, the only remedy to our predicament, can grow under either set of assumptions. However, only through conservative values can it spread.

Swing and a Miss, Again

Before I get back to my regularly scheduled diatribe, something has to be addressed. I haven't been able to watch the news in the last couple of days (and what I've seen has been Cho, Cho, Cho), but I have the sinking feeling that we haven't been addressing this enough. I know that a couple of representatives have criticized the Honorable Senator Reid, but if your'e not a Montana hermit you should have repeatedly, over and over, and redundantly heard an actual barrage of criticism like:

"I know the Senator means well, but after he said that Zarqawi must be doing backflips in his grave."

"If Reid were alive during WWII, he would have declared that the start of the Battle of the Bulge meant D-Day was a failure."

"Yes, what happened in Iraq was awful, and I share the Senator's sense of mourning, But the Honoralbe Mr. Reid needs to recognize that he's saying exactly what the bombers hoped he would."

And after Reid responds, we should repeat it again, making sure the debate is about American defeatism helping the enemy instead of "Bush's failed policies."

I've gone over this before, but I'm sure our experts in Washington have a better plan in mind.

After all, considering the current sky-high support for the war, who could possibly quesiton Republican political strategy? Just because people like Harry Reid say exactly what terrorists want them to say without any sense that there might be a political consequence, why should anyone be concerned?

Yeah, after they make egregious comments like this, let's just have three or four of us say we disagree, find ourselves accused of heaving forth a "barrage of criticism," and then let it drop. Why should Harry Reid suffer any political blowback for inspiring our enemy? After all, his intentions are noble, and we're sure he really supports our troops, so it's much nicer to be gentle with Senator Reid than to actually support our troops by sticking up for them.

Most Democrats are dumb enough to think that playing nice will work with terrorists. Most Republicans are dumb enough th think that playing nice will work with Democrats.

Wrong on both counts.

Us us us us us us us And Them them them them...

He hath disgraced me, and hindered me half a million; laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies; and what's his reason? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villany you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.

The Merchant of Venice, Act 3, Scene 1
(emphasis mine)


To avert accusations that I was simply making stuff up in my last post about the us-versus-them mentality prevalent in the black community, rapper Cam'ron came to my defense in an interview with Anderson Cooper (link probably won't last long enough for anyone to read it).

Rap star Cam'ron says there's no situation -- including a serial killer living next door -- that would cause him to help police in any way, because to do so would hurt his music sales and violate his "code of ethics." Cam'ron, whose real name is Cameron Giles, talks to Anderson Cooper for a report on how the hip-hop culture's message to shun the police has undermined efforts to solve murders across the country. Cooper's report will be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, April 22 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.

(emphasis mine)


I understand that I previously linked this behavior to slavery and Jim Crow, and I stand by my statement. However, it's a little more nuanced than that.

For a very long time in this country, if a cop came looking for a black guy because of a rape accusation, there was every reason to believe that the cop was actually looking for some white guy's scapegoat. There was little way to ascertain the truth of the matter, for frequently before making it to his unfair trial, the black guy could very well find himself hanging from a tree. On the other hand, if a white raped a black, the odds he would get lynched, or even face rude stares in the street, were minimal at best.

It therefore makes perfect sense that blacks would develop a "code of ethics" favoring hunkering down and keeping as much information as possible from the white man. Police, lawyers, judges, and most of the institutions in the Old South thrived on an us-versus-them mentality, only the "us" was white people. "They" learned it from "us." Hence, the root causes.

Yet there's more. Anti-violence advocate from Harlem Geoffrey Canada says:

in the poor New York City neighborhood he grew up in, only the criminals didn't talk to the police, but within today's hip-hop culture, that's changed. "It is now a cultural norm that is being preached in poor communities....It's like you can't be a black person if you have a set of values that say 'I will not watch a crime happen in my community without getting involved to stop it,'" Canada tells Cooper.

(emphasis mine)


I have no idea how old Mr. Canada is, but whatever his age, during his youth not as much time had progressed between then and slavery as has passed today. However, according to Canada, Cam-ron's anti-authority ethos is stronger now. Were slavery indeed the root cause, shouldn't it be waning instead of increasing with the passage of time and Civil Rights legislation?

We see the same phenomenon with illegitimate births and crime rates, all of which peaked several years after the Civil Rights movemment alleviated much (but admittedly not all) of the institutional unfairness prevalent in our country. (Thomas Sowell discusses this in great detail.)

We therefore have the following sequence of events:

1. Unjust historical circumstances create understandable thought and behavioral patterns, some defensive (us-versus-them), some destructive (crime).
2. As the unfair circumstances gradually alleviate, the patterns remain but lessen.
3. A movement drastically reduces the number of injustices.
4. The initial thought and behavioral patterns increase in scope.

Huh? Acoording to Dr. Sowell, for a period earlier this century, blacks who knew actual former slaves had lower illegitimacy rates than whites, but now we're supposed to blame the effects of racist institutions for the number of blacks without a father at home. Our society is far from perfect, but it no longer sanctions auctioning off somebody's kids, and the days when it did sanction such awfulness are fading farther into the past every second. Time is linear, after all.

(I know that Vyan, among others, blames black incarceration rates. Although I wholeheartedly agree with him that our drug policies are patently unfair, I also know that when I was fifteen I had a job with about twenty Detroit high schoolers, none of whom were in jail or married but nearly all of whom already had kids.)

Pardon my knee-jerk reactionary impulses, but I suspect that something other than the meanness of white society is at work here, for white meanness has decreased substantially since 1957, but in 1957 more black kids interacted with their fathers on a daily basis.

So what is at work here, and what can conservatives do about it?

In my next post, I will expand on the problem (the leftist manipulation of understandable defense mechanisms through the overprioritization of motivation--it's a mouthful but very effective), and hopefully get to the solution--heroism.

Keeping It Real

Before I explore the possibility (or lack thereof) of expanding our appeal while remaining principled, I think it's important to point out how we're already not living up to our principles. To illustrate my point, I'll be using this diary entry at The Daily Kos.

Near the beginning of his diatribe, Vyan says that he's "skeptical that she could acually name specific song or lyric by these artists that matches the comments made by Imus." When we seen the interview in question (first one on the page, h/t Protein Wisdom), Michelle gives us no reason whatsoever to doubt Vyan's assertion. Furthermore, Vyan points out the incontrovertible fact that the Reverends Sharpton and Jackson have quite recently criticized violent and mysogynist rap lyrics.

Malkin has fallen into the "fake but accurate" trap for which we so rightly condemn Michael Moore. Indeed, her overall point that Imus is receiving a disproportionate amount of their outrage is valid, but if she can't get her facts straight, her opponents have every right and every incentive to call her on it, thus clouding issues that should remain clear.

Those already inclined to agree with her will probably unquestioningly accept the "accuracy" of her assertions (not unlike those who stand by the Dan Rather memos), but anyone who does't already see things her way will get caught up in her ignorance instead and never digest her overall point.

Besides, getting your facts wrong to prove a truth is unethical, even if it's accidental (as I susupect it probably was in Michelle's case).

This is one of the reasons I so strongly advocate understanding the other side. If Ms. Malkin cited specific lyrics or compared Al Sharpton's mild chiding of rap artists with his fervent attacks on Imus, she would have been far more persuasive. Frequently, blacks see conservatives as painfully ignorant of their culture and way of life. Just a small amount of research can deny our opponents this ammunition.

That's not to say that those like Vyan won't immediately switch the subject from what it's okay to say to how many blacks are in jail. The left will always do this, for to them, every oppression issue, from high incarceration rates, to Jimmy the Greek, to affirmative action is the same issue. They have a point, from a certain point of view, but it's a point of view that simultaneously uplifts leftist victim culture and degrades blacks.

Black America has been trained to see every specific incident of unfairness as evidence of an underlying racist culture infecting our entire society. Imus is more harmful to kids who've never heard of him than Snoop Dogg because Imus isn't Imus, he's the manifestation of an oppressive power structure. It's ridiculous to think that a great basketball player with a bright future ahead of her should be scarred for life by the comments of a dumb old white guy, but he's not just a dumb old white guy, he's them, and he slipped up to show her what they really think of her.

Likewise, this "us versus them" mentality keeps blacks from criticizing their own too harshly if others are likely to hear. I've encountered numerous blacks who agree with me on the importance of black America getting its own act together, regardless of what the rest of the country does. However, I've only heard such comments after I've really gained some trust over a long period of time--they've got to "keep it in the family."

What began as a healthy way to protect their community has morphed into an excuse-ridden culture of protecting the predators in their midst.

This is undeniably a direct result of the atrocities of slavery and Jim Crow. But, not unlike denial or any other defense mechanism, if not grown through, it can take on a life of its own, and it can kill you.

They've Warped the Playing Field--So Do We Play?

The final comment in my last post was somewhat ironic (I made the number up), but I do think that conservatives have been awful at getting their message out to the black community. The black community has by and large followed the likes of Jesse Jackson, so I'm not absolving it of responsibility, but conservatives have let certain problems go unaddressed. The left has addressed these problems, poorly, but when somebody feels beaten down, he'll pay attention to the guy who seems to sympathize and ignore the one who doesn't seem to understand anything other than that he needs to get his act together.

To the right, sympathy and understanding are beside the point. To the left, sympathy and understanding are the point.

I would argue that assessing all the stumbling blocks in one's way are perfectly healthy if it's done for the purpose of transcending the blocks. I'm sure that psychologists disagree as to the necessity of confronting such issues, but whether or not it's useful to do so, it certainly feels good, or at least pretty comfortable.

However, analyzing the difficulties on one's path can all too easily become its own point, as we see with the numerous African-American studies departments that exist only to list grievances, claiming that no progress can be made until damn near every single historical injustic has been addressed and rectified. Although there are movements within the black community that focus on taking responsibility for one's own actions, there is a perfectly human tendency to want to shift blame for despair. We don't want to blame ourselves, and the left continuously tells us we shouldn't have to.

Yet most of us on the right know that this blame shifting makes progress more difficult, if not impossible. But as it stands now, the black community sees the right as the voice of get over it. Of course, getting over it is the best way to get past it, but they'll never listen to us as long as they think we have no idea what it is.

The left obviously understands the plight of the black community; the right does not. Regardless of whether or not there's an objective connection between understanding societal ills and being able to do anything about them, an apparent connection is firmly embedded in most of our minds.

Perhaps this connection should not be there, but if vasts swaths of our people think it's there, we have to recognize that reality to have any hopes of changing it.

It's usually the left that brings up descriptions of the evils of slavery or Jim Crow, followed by an excuse for ineffective behavior on the part of poor blacks or a call for more economic redistribution. This has helped to cement a connection in most people's minds between the acknowledgement of some very ugly realities with leftist/socialist victim culture.

On the right, we don't bring up that stuff very often for two basic reasons. First, we believe that regardless of how badly somebody's great-great-grandfater was beaten (or even father, for that matter), the point is what one does with his or her life today. Second, we too have heard the citing of past grievances so frequently followed by more leftist claptrap that we sometimes inadvertently also assume that the very connection the left wants us to believe in is much stronger than may actually be.

There is a case to be made that the very fact that we're still ennumerating racial grievances means that some of us would rather shift blame than improve our lives. To this I reply only that I agree.

Nevertheless, the left has been so successful at getting folks to believe that we need to "heal the past" in order to create a decent future that when we talk about individual initiative, it seems like we're skipping a step. As artificial as that step may be, it's there and has taken on a life of its own.

So, by not overtly referencing the injustices felt by blacks, are we taking a principled stance against victim culture, or are we giving the left free rein in the black community? If black America continues to suffer from victim culture, obviously black America bears ultimate responsibility. However, are those of us who understand the greatness of America adequately presenting our case to our own people?

Is there a conservative, principled, healthy, way to address racial injustice, and if so, how do we proceed?

When They Harness Their Power

This interesting article in Time ends with a quote from Kia Vaughn of the Rutgers basketball team with which we can (I hope) all agree:

I'm a woman, and I'm someone's child...I achieve a lot. And unless they've given this name, a 'ho,' a new definition, then that is not what I am.

I refuse to defend Imus, and I don't want to make the same "rappers say it all the time" argument we've been reading so much of on the conservative blogosphere. However, rappers do say that all the time, and this does raise certain questions in my mind.

According to some, our society has experienced the "death of outrage," but the Imus and Michael Richards fallouts clearly demonstrate this isn't so. Outrage is alive and well in this country. It's incredibly effective, but also selective.

The aforementioned Time article agonizes over where the "line" is in regards to controversial statements. Well, for one thing, we know where it's not:

All women should be respectfully addressed in public discourse unless their actions indicate they deserve otherwise.

I would wholeheartedly approve of such a line (through societal condemnation and voluntary broadcasting decisions, not governmental censorship), and I think most conservatives would agree. According to the Drudge Report, the Rev. Al Sharpton feels "that this is only the beginning. We must have a broad discussion on what is permitted and not permitted in terms of the airwaves..." Does he plan to launch a concerted effort to purge Snoop Dogg from radio? I doubt it.

I know that many in the civil rights establishment have criticized rap lyrics (as well as members of the Rutgers basketball team themselves). But what has been missing from their attacks is the outrage they reserve for the likes of Imus.

This is further evidence that the left cares much more about motivation than results. Were the concrete prevention of the denigration of black women the goal, would not gangsta rap receive as much indignation as Imus? After all, who affects the lives of these women more directly, someone whose music they and the males in their lives hear every day, or an old radio host they've never heard of?

I would love to see black women treated more respectfully, and I humbly argue as an member of another ethnic group (but fellow human being) that the most effective way to encourage respect for black women is to discourage anyone from labeling them "hoes." Old white guys do it occasionally and loose their jobs. Young black guys do it repeatedly and meet with senators.

But for obvious reasons, we can't accuse Ludacris of hating black people like we can Don Imus. Racism is a motivation, and an ugly one at that, and that's what's at stake in the eyes of the left. Concrete results are secondary.

I agree with them that racism is awful, abhorrent, disgusting, and primitive, but I also believe that warping the values of young blacks is worse than being a racist. Jimbob Redneck may hate blacks, but rich celebrities inspiring a generation of kids to slap bitches upside the head does America far more harm than Jimbob ever could.

So, lefties, you wanna fight racism? As long as you stick to the actual definition of the word "racism," I'm with you all the way.

But if you really want to improve young black lives, perhaps you should consider at least seeming like you're a little bit disappointed in certain aspects of urban culture, too.

I know you do, but you're "keeping it in the family." I'll deal with this and a couple more of the 48,262 reasons why we need to be gentle with black folks in my next post.

Ulterior Motives

We help them because we let them frame the debate in terms of our heartless motives versus their noble ones, and if we ever happen to succeed at shifting it, it's only for an instant and we don't press our advantage.

To the casual observer, motivation seems much more pertinent than it actually is. In the first place, it's inherently unknowable. Although we'll theorize about each other until doomsday, we can't ever actually see into the heart of another. I seriously doubt Bush invaded Iraq just to enrich his oil buddies, but I can't ever know that for certain, and neither can his opponents.

Likewise, I can't see into the hearts of the left. I suppose it would be interesting to discover whether or not Ted Kennedy is just an old cynic or if his heart bleeds for the less fortunate, but either way, the policies he advocates are a disaster, so I don't particularly care.

Unfortunately, a substantial portion of the American public is more likely to vote for the candidate who "understands" them the most, even if that candidate is an utter fool.

This "all-you-need-is-love" manner of evaluating policy favors the left considerably for several reasons. First, that's how they wish the country to evaluate them, because that's how they evaluate themselves. Socialistic policies may always result in ruin (yes, even in Europe), but Mao had his people's best interests at heart, so he wasn't all that bad. Hippies can't be blamed for the Vietnamese boat people and the massacres in Cambodia because they only wanted peace. Bilingual education may damn hispanic kids to the fringes of society, but we don't want them to feel left out in school.

Secondly, the right's conception of human nature takes realities into consideration that make people uncomfortable. Sympathizing with a murderer and giving him a second chance won't necessarily keep him from taking another life. However, we know that forgiveness can be a virtue, and we like to think that such behavior will produce favorable results. We're good people and we like to believe we can love away our violent tendencies instead of defeating them. Beating something ugly means having to look at it.

Some might argue that we should turn the motivation game back on them, to question their patriotism, out them as race-hustlers, and expose environmental hypochrisy. I agree that this can be useful as a secondary approach, but it brings me to the third reason we should sever the caring=effective association in the minds of the American public--when we're talking about motive, we're extremely unlikely to win.

Because their entire collective self image depends on wanting peace, harmony, etc., they've developed a much keener defensive instinct in this regard than we ever will. As Dr. Sowell points out in his latest column, Democrats have mastered the art of indignation, the "how dare you question my patriotism/racial bonifides/environmental awareness?!" I'm not particularly interested in hearing about how much Barbara Boxer "supports our troops," and you shouldn't be either, unless you want her to look good.

Instead, I recommend we overtly grant them their pure hearts and then attack their effectiveness. Vice President Cheney almost actually executed what could be an immeasurably effective talking point for Republicans everywhere.

I would argue that his initial claim that the Democratic plan would "'validate the al-Qaeda strategy'" was correct but too easily allowed for a counter-attack, which inevitably came in Pelosi's strident defense of her patriotism.

In response, however, Cheney did not allow the debate to shift to the purity of her motives. "'I didn't question her patriotism. I questioned her judgement.'"

This is what needs to be done, with two caveats.

First, he should have made clear, as all Republicans should make clear before launching an attack, that we're not calling their sincerity into question. For example:

I know that Senator Moonbat cares for this country every bit as much as I do, but the simple fact of the matter is that every time he gets in front of a camera, al-Qaeda's morale goes through the roof.

This keeps Sen. Moonbat away from his "how dare you question my...!?" comfort zone, saves us a news cycle, and allows us to get straight to the point--they're helping the enemy.

You may want only peace, but you're inspiring murderers. You love America, but they're using your soundbites in recruiting videos. You support our troops, but you give terrorists reason to believe killing them will get them what they want. Your heart's in the right place, but let's talk about the harm you're doing instead.

The GOP has not done this, nor does it give us any indication that it will. Cheney allowed his master stroke to remain buried in old newspapers and the memories of the few who heard about it. I'm sure it was repeated, but it wasn't REPEATED.

Nice motives don't necessarily mean nice results, and the association between the two must be forever severed in the minds of the American public.

The Weapon

Some might argue that I overprioritize understanding the other side, believing I'm not unlike the multiculturalists who wish us to deepen our understanding of the root causes of terrorism so that we become less apt to kill terrorists. On the contrary, I advocate understanding their vision because I see it as our potentially greatest weapon, for its one they'll never be able to possess.

I reiterate that the hardcore lefties like Chomsky, Jesse Jackson, and the trolls who make rude comments on conservative blogs have almost no hope of seeing the light. Fortunately, they don't make up a very sizeable portion of the electorate.

The "war for hearts and minds" instead lies among those who only peripherally pay attention to politics, those who may or may not consistently vote for either party (or even at all) and who don't necessarily equate their sense of self with a political viewpoint. (This is supposedly conventional wisdom, but I see the GOP spending much more time identifying Republicans than creating new ones.)

It's therefore we who care about this stuff on the right and they who care about this stuff on the left competing for the hearts of the relatively apathetic, and as I argued in my last post, they control most of our educational system and popular culture, hence their long-term advantage.

But the left's inherent disadvantage we fail to exploit is their total lack of understanding of our point of view. They either blithely dismiss what we really have to say, distort it in their own minds before allowing themselves to consider it, shout over us when we come to speak on their campuses, or simply let the matter remain unconsidered. "The debate is closed on global warming."

Were they able to challenge our views on their own merits, I highly doubt they would spend so much time and effort to keep us from expressing them (speech codes on campuses, speakers getting shouted down, cyber-attacks on blogs, crimes prevented by private citizens with guns not mentioned in the newspaper, etc.)

Therefore, if we can get our perspective heard within favorable parameters, they will loose their advantage, and they seem to know this better than we do.

However, the very nature of their vision gives them some exceptionally effective tools to prevent this. We need to understand their vision because we must to know why certain conditions favor them so heavily.

If we can shift the debate to one of facts within the correct context, we can and will persuade Joe Sixpack. Instead, on almost every issue, we allow ourselves to debate within the parameter upon which the entirety of leftism is based.

This can change, if, and only if, we recognize how we've been helping them.

Introduction

At least initially, I’d like this blog to be more about political discourse than an example of political discourse. We have plenty of sites out there from the entire political spectrum that promote their views well.

I have my biases, and although I intend for my audience to be largely conservative, when those of other persuasions come my way, I promise to do my best to be fair. Nevertheless, if you’re here looking for a debate, even though you may get one, this isn’t the blog for you.

I’m here to analyze how the right and left present their arguments, why I believe that in the long term the left is winning, and how the right can regain its advantage. Each side appeals to certain aspects of human nature, and the left is gradually training society to value those aspects of human nature that serve its political ends best--we should do likewise.

Our current conflict is A Conflict of Visions, as Dr. Sowell so adequately puts it. In this book, Dr. Sowell discusses how one’s political views reflect one’s fundamental approach to the world. Perhaps political views should be thought through and logically analyzed, but they are largely felt instead.

Each side of the debate thinks the other illogical and blames the other for emphasizing emotion. To an extent, each side is correct, for the logic of each is based on premises the other rejects, and each emphasizes emotions the other believes to be inappropriate. Both sides claim to oppose using fear to promote one’s agenda, but few of us are bothered by neocon “alarmism” in regards to terrorism and Gore’s Inconvenient Truth. We pick the fear we approve of and accuse the other guy of appealing to our lower instincts.

Furthermore, our definitions of such fundamental terms as “security,” “fairness,” “justice,” “equality,” and “freedom” differ according to our respective visions. Hence, our perpetual talking at instead of to one another.

I would argue that despite the remarkable abilities of Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter at talking at their opponents, debaters such as they have become a disproportionate face of the conservative movement, great at humiliating but not to great at reaching out. Debaters will always have their role (and in some ways their role should be expanded), but we also need more and better persuaders.

There are at least three prerequisites to effective direct persuasion (as opposed to indirect persuasion through humiliation which I‘ll go into later). First, one must be comprehend the underlying vision of one’s opponent, as ridiculous as it may seem. For a lie to be effective, it must subtly distort of a truth. Blacks do have it rough in this country (although they have it rougher everywhere else). Corporate CEO’s often do make amounts of money that seem absurd (but they also create wealth for the rest of us in ways most of us can never comprehend). The Iraqi people do want to be left alone (although I‘m not so sure they‘d like us to abandon them to Al Queda or Al Sadr). Nevertheless, after one discovers that the moderate liberal in one’s midst feels this way, after being exposed to a wider and more realistic vision, they can be persuaded.

The third prerequisite is an “opponent” with whom one can discuss issues in good faith (which requires that you do the same). Some on the left, for a myriad of reasons, have adopted their views with a fervor that will not be overcome short of a Damascus moment (if even that would work). These folks are so thoroughly convinced that they are right that they will not even consider what you have to say. Their entire goal is to “beat” you. They will change the subject, use ad hominem attacks, and evade or lie or do whatever it takes to either prove that they are right or shut you up.

I in no way assert that only leftists can be this way. However, I have encountered hundreds of trolls on other sites that have developed the remarkable ability to argue against a person while never actually addressing any of the points that person makes. I’ve also seen conservative speakers get shouted off college campuses with regularity and haven't seen this happen to many leftists.

Third, one must have access, and this is the left’s greatest advantage. Most Americans go through the public school system, and most teachers aren’t Republican or libertarian. Our universities are even more slanted. Most reporters may have no intention of indoctrinating the American public with their own worldview, but I doubt many of them are even aware of how blithely they overlook perspectives that oppose their own. And despite the occasional episode of South Park, the entertainment industry is leftist, pure and simple. Can anyone name an album as popular as Green Day’s American Idiot with conservative views?

Unfortunately, I don’t see us addressing any of these three points to the necessary extent. How we should proceed shall be the topic of my future posts.