|
Debating Conservatives
|
||
|
Don’t ever debate a conservative on his terms. You’ll lose! His terms are carefully-chosen emotionally-loaded labels designed to trigger a reflexive response. When you touch a hot stove, you don’t stop to think about it; you jerk away. That’s the kind of response the conservative’s labels are designed to trigger. “Partial-birth abortion,” “Clean Air Initiative,” “Tort Reform,” “Tax Relief”: Think about it. You don’t have to know what the terms mean. They automatically evoke an emotional response that either attracts or repels you. There’s nothing to debate. Partial-birth abortion is not the issue. Who would advocate killing a partially-born baby? The debate is not about PBA or any abortion. This is a stand-in issue designed to impose “strict father” morality on all citizens. The debate is about the power of a strict father to make decisions about his wife and daughter’s bodies—in this case to decide if, when, and under what circumstances his wife or daughter may terminate a pregnancy. But ultimately, it’s about who controls female sexuality. So it’s an issue of human rights and freedom, an effort to maintain a society in which women are subject and subservient to men—second-class citizens. So what the progressive or liberal proposes is equal rights for all citizens, not just men. Therefore, never use the term “partial-birth abortion,” that only triggers a negative emotional response. Talk about “equal rights.” Let’s hear why conservatives are opposed to equal rights in a free society. “Clean Air” is not the issue. The debate is not about clean air. The debate is about the right of manufacturers to profit at the expense of human beings and the planet. The Clean Air Initiative actually allows manufacturers to pollute the air even more. But “clean air” is an emotional term that everyone favors. Who in his right mind would oppose clean air?! So what the progressive or liberal proposes is “poison-free communities” (not even “environment”; “environment” is too abstract and impersonal) and for those who poison them to be held accountable. At the very least, they have to pay to clean them up. “Healthy forests” sounds good. What it means is the opportunity for the timber industry to clear-cut national forest lands, including old-growth forests, destroying not only the trees but also wildlife habitat. How healthy is a forest once it is destroyed? Progressive and liberals have to talk about “natural heritage.” We propose keeping something for our grandchildren and their grandchildren to enjoy—and to help protect the environment in which they will live. “Tort Reform” to curb “trial lawyers” and eliminate “frivolous lawsuits” is not about “torts” or “frivolous lawsuits.” It is about two things: (1) Enabling corporations to be free of any consequences for harming their employees, customers, or investors, and (2) cutting off progressives and liberals from their primary source of funding—significant donations from public-protection attorneys.
|
What conservatives label a “trial lawyer” is in reality a public-protection attorney, one whose duty it is to protect the public against corporations and their “corporate attorneys” who get $400-$500 an hour to see to it that their clients avoid all consequences of harming you or your loved ones. The aim of “tort reform” is to close access to the courts and juries to citizens injured by corporate irresponsibility—if not maliciousness. Lawsuits against corporations are lawsuits about public protection. Progressives and liberals have to debate “public security,” not “tort reform.” You “reform” an “evil.” Who would oppose reforming an evil? Don’t argue against “reform”; it’s a losing effort. Argue for “public security” or even “personal security.” “Tax relief” is not really about reducing taxes—except for the very wealthy. It’s about eliminating social programs to aid the poor, the sick, the infirm, and the helpless. It is about reducing the amount of money the government has so there’ll be only enough for the programs conservatives do want and never enough for the ones they don’t want. So the debate has to be about people. Do we want people to have free, fulfilling, productive lives? If so, we have to invest in the things that will enable them to have them—along with infrastructure: streets and highways, airports and harbors, fire and police protection, good will and respect of the international community, adequate nourishment and health care, employment safety and security, as well as personal and residential safety and security. We have long known that people make decisions on their emotions and then think up logical reasons to justify them. So don’t ever debate a conservative on her terms. As soon as you use her term, you’ve lost the debate, because anyone who’s listening will decide on the basis of the emotional words used. Never even say “partial-birth abortion”; say “equal rights.” Never even say “clean air”; say “poison-free communities.” Never even say “healthy forests”; say “natural heritage.” Never even say “tort reform” or “trial lawyers” or “frivolous lawsuits”; say “public-defense attorneys,” “public security,” and “corporate responsibility.” Never even say “tax relief”; say “people protection” and “personal safety” and “opportunity for fulfilling lives.” With conservatives, the debate is never about what the words they’ve chosen imply. The words are chosen deliberately and specifically to trigger an emotional response in their favor! Even if you should be successful in getting them to define what those words actually mean—which they would never do, as that would reveal their true intent—you would still be playing into their hands by using the words that cause people to respond in their favor. You’ll never get at the truth using words intended to deceive! --Bob Hartsell, Ph.D. |
|