Featured Post

Abortion is The Evil of our generation

So yesterday I came across a rather  appalling article  that tried to make it sound like states having increased abortion restrictions were ...

Friday, July 6, 2012

Obamacare - Know Thy Liberal

This is the second article in my series about Obamacare.  The first explains why Obamacare is important to the upcoming elections in 2012.  This next article briefly covers understanding how liberals do battle in arguments.  This isn't a comprehensive list by any means.  Nor is it something I stole from a book.  From my observations in dealing with liberals over the course of my life, these are the general observations I have made.  Granted, what's described below isn't necessarily exclusive to liberals, as they can be attributed as common tactics among any debate, but liberals, given that their agenda isn't very popular in the US and that they're more accustomed to having to defend the indefensible, are commonly seen using these tactics - especially against common no nonsense conservatives.

With that in mind, one thing I want to set clearly:  We are in a battle, folks.  It's not the type of battle you may be used to hearing about.  It's an ideological battle, one that's been waged ever since the inception of this great nation. One that conservatives have been slowly ceding ground.  One that, if not for the foresight of the Founding Fathers that recognized the inevitable slide to corrupt central power by inserting fail safes into the DNA of our nation, we'd have succumbed to socialism/communism/progressivism a long time ago.  It's a battle that pits individual liberty against "group think" central control.  

The battle itself is going to take place in the homes across America.  The battles between you and your liberal relatives and friends.  It's important for us, as conservatives. to be ready for these battles.  And unfortunately, due to conservatives generally having an honest, straight forward, no nonsense nature, we typically haven't been doing that good in this front.  Below are some basic tactics liberals are known to use in these battles...

What to expect from Liberals - Know Thy Enemy

As Sun Tzu said in The Art of War:
If you know both yourself and your enemy, you can win numerous (literally, "a hundred") battles without jeopardy.
Seem a little harsh to call your friend or relative "the enemy", right?  And I agree, you should not treat them like your enemy.  But understand that yes, as a liberal/progressive, they are your ideological enemy.  There's plenty of liberal minded people that I love dearly.  It's important to make this distinction.  The battles we're waging are conversations and debates.  They may get heated, but also remember there's a person on the other side and not just some nameless enemy.  Though knowing that, if you want to win the battle, knowing what to expect from them can help you tremendously.

Here's what I call the "4 D's" that liberals commonly employ in a debate.  In these examples, I thank Attorney General Eric Holder and the Departmentof Justice for providing examples of them during this Fast & Furious debacle.

  • Distract - When a liberal is confronted with an issue that they know is indefensible or shaky ground at best, they'll try to redirect the debate to something more solid for them to work with.  It's usually an issue where they believe they'll have the moral upper hand or where it'll damn the opposition of doing the same "bad" thing.  A prime example of this is how Eric Holder tried to get the Oversight committee to talk about Wide Receiver instead of Fast & Furious.  In essence, he was trying to move away from talking about him onto someone else.
  • Distort - Liberals love to distort the truth.  It's what more commonly referred to as "spinning".  In their mindset, it's not really about the truth, it's about the perception of it.  So by distorting the truth, but not outright lieing, they can shape the perception to something that's favorable to their agenda.  AG Holder in this example, attempts to claim that the letter on Feb 2011 that falsely claimed the DOJ had no knowledge of F&F's gunwalking tactics wasn't exactly false.  He tries to take a simple truth, that the letter was a lie, and twist it so it doesn't look like a lie any more.
  • Deflect - The little brother to distract.  Deflecting involves taking a potential "hit", but mitigating its damage by being as vague or ambiguous as possible.  By deflecting in this way, it shields them and also allows them to draw upon that deflection later to either distort or distract afterward.  The DOJ's attempt to cover Holder's distraction tactic by blaming a previous AG under the Bush administration by claiming it was inadvertent (despite being quite explicit) is an example of deflection.  They tried to downplay Holder's obvious attempt at distraction by claiming he didn't mean to do that (when in fact that's exactly what he tried to do).  
  • Discredit - This tactic is commonly woven into other tactics, but can stand alone on its own.  The premise is simple:  By reducing your opponent's credibility, it makes their arguments, no matter how much truth they have behind them weaker.  By damaging their credibility, they can also question the validity of even the simplest statements.  Sticking with the F&F motif, all the democrats claiming chairman Issa is just out to score political points via witch hunt is an attempt to discredit him despite ignoring the time table and the gravity of the Fast & Furious scandal.
As you'll see in the next article, these tactics are employed in a variety of ways when liberals argue with someone opposed to Obamacare.  It's important to recognize these tactics to avoid falling into their trap.