| « | "Stop! Pay Troll:" Thoughts On Vileness And Insult In Discourse |
»
|
|
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Effective Political Argumentation and “Good Intentions”
Among the more obvious things one might say about conflict is that, to win a battle, you have to get yourself to the battlefield. That necessitates knowing where the battlefield is. One cannot prevail in an argument without addressing its core issues -- and it is all too often the case that the core issues are not the ones overtly being discussed.
In witnessing today's exchanges between liberals and conservatives, your Curmudgeon is bemused by so many conservatives' befuddlement about where the battlefield is. Conservatives argue for their convictions and candidates by talking about economics, national defense, geostrategic considerations, and constitutionalism as if those were the things at issue, which for persons in the conservative base is so. The typical voter of conservative views is fairly rationally oriented; he's likely to demand to see the logic and evidence behind a policy prescription before he'll accept it as sound. But for many other Americans, this is not the case, and hasn't been for a long time.
Many of today's voters are not swayed by rational argument. It's possible that the majority of voters of all places and times have been indifferent to it, but the past century of American history is particularly striking in this regard.
In the early part of the Twentieth Century, the electorate appeared to respond more readily to brainy politics -- that is, to claims of intellectual elevation -- than anything else. Look at the presidents of that time:
- Woodrow Wilson, a former college professor.
- Calvin Coolidge, a professor of law.
- Herbert Hoover, "the Great Engineer."
- Franklin D. Roosevelt and his "Brain Trust" of socialist theoreticians.
In five of the six presidential elections from 1912 through 1932, the electorate chose the man with the more credible claim to high intelligence and an advanced education. This pattern came to an end with World War II, after which the supposedly brilliant Adlai Stevenson lost twice to retired general Dwight Eisenhower. A transition from brainy politics to fearless politics had occurred; voters leaned toward men who appeared resolute in the face of the Soviet Union's program of Communist expansion. Had John F. Kennedy, a notable anti-Communist and Cold Warrior, not been assassinated in November 1963, the Democrats might have continued to contend for national hegemony in that vein, but the ascension of Lyndon Johnson heralded an era of Democrat compassion politics.
Compassion politics got off to a rocky start because of the Vietnam War. Johnson was far more interested in his "Great Society" social engineering plans than in the conflict in Southeast Asia, but when there's a war on, it tends to draw all other matters under its shadow. The war eventually unseated Johnson in favor of Richard Nixon, himself a Cold Warrior of note, whom the voters hoped could bring the war to an acceptable end. He did so, but his disgrace in the Watergate Affair proved to be the final nail in the coffin for fearless politics. The voters turned to soft-spoken Jimmy Carter, in large measure for his unceasing emphasis on compassion and love and the contrast he made with the plain, practical conservatism of Gerald Ford.
Carter's version of compassion politics was more emotionally palatable to the voters than Johnson's social engineering had been, because Carter himself was a more approachable figure. Had he been a more effective president, he might have forestalled the Republican renaissance, with its emphasis on national defense and a return to limited government, that arrived with Ronald Reagan. Of course, one might argue that that could never have been the case, given how fuzzy and ill-formed Carter's goals were, but the contention stands even so.
Compassion politics hasn't been a war-winner for its Democrat promoters. It's earned them a base that amounts to perhaps 40% of the electorate; the remainder of the Democrats' vote totals comes from single-issue voters and favored special-interest groups. Note that Bill Clinton, the most successful Democrat of recent years, eschewed it almost completely. But the magnetism of compassion politics is an issue of the greatest interest, for it is an explicitly emotional, non-rational stance.
Note how consistently liberals attack conservatives on their "motives." That's a rhetorical giveaway if ever there was one. "Intentions" are connotatively neutral; "motives" reek of sinister, even criminal associations. Note also how seldom Democrats argue about the comparative effects of their policy preferences versus those of the Right, where the logic and evidence favors us.
Yet it is the Right that keeps dropping the rhetorical ball. As conservative voters are rationally oriented, the conservative base is staunchly Republican. They won't defect unless Republican officeholders defect first, as appears to have occurred in the 109th Congress. When conservatives and Republican partisans argue for a strong national defense, free-market economics, limited-government constitutionalism, et cetera, they fail to reach the battlefield of the compassion-oriented voter. Therefore, they fail to extend their appeal beyond their base.
There's no comprehending this unless one accepts that the compassion-oriented voter isn't necessarily concerned with the results of the policies he favors. He might be more concerned with his own self-concept as a good person, or with remaining in the good graces of the social circle he prefers; both these things are known to influence political allegiances. In any case, he gravitates almost automatically toward the candidate or policy that reinforces his subconscious notions about compassion. For many, that means accepting a party's rhetoric at face value, rather than soberly assessing the consequences of its policy preferences.
Power-seekers cannot help but be aware of this, which is a complete explanation both for Democrats' posturings and for the rise of "compassionate conservatism" talk on the Right. Democrats hold the advantage in head-to-head contests of this kind, because of their greater ruthlessness about impugning their opponents' "motives." Worse, in recent years Republicans have undermined the loyalty of the conservative base with profligate federal spending, much of which has been propelled by the desire to enhance their standing with the compassion-oriented voter.
In this light, David Limbaugh's column of today casts a poignant shadow. Limbaugh presents every significant factual and logical counter to the economic policies being advanced by the new Democratic majorities in Congress. Yet a compassion-oriented voter, if we assume that he might be persuaded to read a Limbaugh column, might well be unaffected by these arguments. His battlefield is compassion for the "less fortunate." He will automatically and subconsciously subordinate all other considerations to that one.
Psychologist Peter Breggin has opined that the Democrats have succeeded in defining themselves as the Party of Good Intentions. The ironies here are many and powerful, as Democrats' policy preferences have incontestably deepened human misery and dependency whenever and wherever implemented. But as William E. Simon wrote in A Time For Truth, the veneer of Good Intentions allows the compassion-oriented voter to feel emotionally validated by the act of voting, as long as the actual results of his vote are morally painless to him.
Conservatives must find a way to trump liberals' compassion card. Given the cost it imposes upon us electorally, no other obstacle is nearly as significant.
Comments
The Democrats have succeeded in defining themselves as the Party of Good Intentions because people have bad or no memories or are utterly unaware.
Posted by og on 01/09/2007 at 07:10 PMGrrrrr. No. Not merely the battlefield. Knowing the enemy.
I say: Know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are sure to be defeated in every battle.—Sun Tzu
The typical voter of conservative views is fairly rationally oriented; he’s likely to demand to see the logic and evidence behind a policy prescription before he’ll accept it as sound.—CE today.
Leadership gets along its opposition better than it does with its principled base. We’re ready to stake our battles on principles, and the leadership consistently pulls up our stakes.
—FR’s Avoiding_SullaPosted by Pascal Fervor on 01/09/2007 at 07:16 PMAnd yet…
If you challenge a leftist on an intellectual basis, he will attempt to assert that leftism is founded in logic, principle, and a firm grasp of the facts.
The successful didactic destruction of that notion, coupled with an unambiguous demonstration of the lie of leftist compassion ought to sound a death’s knell for the entire movement.
In truth, conservatism and liberty are the most compassionate causes. There is no conflict.
M
Posted by Mark Alger on 01/10/2007 at 12:05 AMThe Republicans must retain their base, so they must continue to credibly stand for things like small government, reduced taxes, etc. But if those policies are seen (by the compassion-driven voters they want to entice) as uncompassionate then they’re in a bit of a pickle.
The only way out is to convince the target audience that conservative principles are in fact more compassionate than the policies of the Democrats. This can be done perhaps by noting that in the long run conservative principles lead to better outcomes than progressive principles. But this is a rational argument, and depends on knowledge of history, clear as opposed to wishful thinking, and honest evaluation of the effects of policies implemented by Republicans and Democrats when they had the power. As noted in the original post, this is precisely the sort of argument that will not be convincing!
I suspect that the focus must be on an emotional level propaganda campaign. For example, the “Socialism Kills” graphic (sorry, no link; Samizdata.net is not being nice to me right now) does not try to explain things on a rational level but instead appeals viscerally. Naturally this cannot replace rational argument and clear statements of policy. Rather it serves as the initial attempt to penetrate the conceptual shell of the audience and pique their interest, and perhaps cast a glimmer of doubt on previously unquestioningly held ideas.
Anybody else have suggestions?
Posted by on 01/10/2007 at 01:11 AMAlex;
My contribution has been to float a sort-of question meme in the blogosphere. Gently and subtly encourage leftists to question the real-world political consequences of their policy preferences.
For example: It is an open secret that the Democrats ran conservatives and centrists in red districts as a means to power. Now they have cut those individuals off at the knees by governing from the leftward fringes.
While one may find this an attractive prospect, in that one’s own preferences may march in lockstep with the Dem leadership’s, but…
How can you trust ANYTHING a liar tells you? If he lies to the public to gain power, what makes you think he’s telling YOU the truth?
And there is a bonus here, inasmuch as leftist policies are manifest failures—witness the corrosive effect of the so-called War on Poverty on the black family.
And, as Rush says, you may not get immediate agreement, let alone conversion. But it is a seed that, once planted, will grow resistless.
I believe that low-intensity combat in this vein will eventually carry the day. Or, at least, contribute to victory.
M
Posted by Mark Alger on 01/10/2007 at 09:57 AMAlex and Mark, for the type of gut-level performance you’re looking for, I recommend the wonderous effectiveness of great films with haunting musical scoring.
You are looking for something dramatically affecting but will leave a long lasting impression.
I recommend Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange. Unlike the novel, the thematic climax of the film occurs in DVD scene 34. I suggest watching 34, then 33, then 32 then 34 again. Repeat as needed.
Kubrick, a confirmed Leftist, requested that his own movie be censored in the UK. He claimed it was because of ruffians copy-catting his central character, Alex.
But this movie, contiunuing the theme shared by all but the first two of Kubrick’s movies, revealed corruption and its traits. And the most markedly significant corruption of this movie wasn’t conveyed by the society portrayed. Kubrick undeniably showed it was those gaining the most from societies corruption.
It was not the organic Alex whose singular dependability was assured (as in the novel)—it was ministers of Parliament! And unlike Alex, it wasn’t so much that they came by their traits naturally, but that they slouched into it, adapting as Alex could see he could depend upon.
Do not fail to note the disposition of the liberal but tainted minister and his later treatment of and expectations from Alex. Then compare the Left and its attitude toward Al Qaeda. Repeat as necessary.
Pascal
Posted by Pascal Fervor on 01/10/2007 at 01:05 PMGentle Readers:
Help me make SCHWARZENKAISER a popular moniker.
In keeping with post #2 above, it’s important to unmask the enemy. Help make Arnold’s imperiousness his undoing.
Hard as this can possibly be, “Republican” Arnold, since his reelection, is running to the Left of the California legislature.
And it’s not just his agenda. It’s the way he sounds, his demands and public assertions. To make matters worse, when his declarations are played on local TV and radio (including conservative radio) they go unchallenged!
There is so much evidence of this since his reelection that I believe he’s earned this nickname. Google it. A blackened imperator indeed.
MEVP helped me come up with the alliterative label within 1 minute of my asking him to help me associate Kaiser with this Austrian (still).
Now what is left to do is fill in the blanks as to why the label is appropriate.
Both Fran and M Alper are good at weaving facts into argument. Show me how good. Please.
Posted by Pascal Fervor on 01/11/2007 at 04:09 PM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
