I've cited John Hawkins a couple of times at various points during the recent debates, but this comment sticks out:Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.
Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince
Everybody in the conservative movement does not have to be an Ann Coulter, which is fortunate, because few people have her biting wit, talent, or fearlessness. But we need people who aren’t afraid to go for the throats of our political enemies.It takes a while to figure this out, but when debating leftists, conservatives will never gain points for civility, grace, honesty, and respect. These folks will cut your heart out given the chance. You will be hated equally, no matter your disposition. Stand strong for your values, my friends. You will not betray them in defense of your goodness.
10 comments:
Donald, I couldn't agree more! I was thinking of adding a comment to my blog banner: "We Play Rough."
Yes, it's time to go for the throat. Civility and fine manners have never been reciprocated by the Left. Now it's time to kick their asses.
I have been noticing that.
Due to the majority of media bias toward the left, we certainly have needed Rush Coulter, Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly - and they can play rough.
I contend that the intellectual ones, Dick Morris, Ginghrich, Krauthammer, Barnes Dennis Pregar and Michael Medved do not need to resort to rough. I have been trying to debate without attacking. I certainly know how to defend myself, and would, if attacked. However, my question is, what is gained tossing out civility first?
...come to think of it, I think we all should have our own style. Donald is hard-wired for well-informed, edgy wit - well suited to roughness with the opposition. Some of people can't operate on that level. The witless nastiness of the likes of Pelosi and Boxer fall flat, for example.
It takes a while to figure this out, but when debating leftists, conservatives will never gain points for civility, grace, honesty, and respect. These folks will cut your heart out given the chance. You will be hated equally, no matter your disposition. Stand strong for your values, my friends. You will not betray them in defense of your goodness.
I couldn't disagree more. Neither side has a monopoly on "civility, grace, honesty, and respect" or "going Ann Coulter" in approach and tone.
Civility and fine manners have never been reciprocated by the Left.
Great. Then what we're left with are two sides shouting at each other with their hands plugged to their ears.
This is why the right can never claim to take the high road- be just like the left: lie, distort, shout, be what you hate, out-Kos Daily Kos.
"Going for the throat" is keeping one's cool and rebutt with sustained facts and logic.
Rusty,
The problem I see with the Rushes and Coulters is they have limited appeal: The amen chorus.
They do not win over new converts by being sledgehammers all the time.
It's like thinking Randi Rhodes and Michael Moore are the way to go in tone and rhetoric.
If it's not true for the left, why on earth would you want to adopt such tactics for the right?
Rusty and Wordsmith:
The Wimp Approach hasn't done much for us. McCain is the best example that comes to mind. He would not attack Obama and preferred the "fine gentleman" approach. He lost.
George Bush would never defend himself against constant slander and open hatred by the Left. It only stoked the liberal hatred to greater heights. His "being above the fray" did not help us -- it hurt us.
For dedicated leftist, talking nice will accomplish nothing. I prefer to attack and counterattack with wild abandon; my goal is to give maximum psychic pain to leftist pundits and talking heads, to embarrass them, to ridicule them, to shut them up. In other words, I will use their own tactics against them.
My goal is to win, not to feel good about myself as a fine gentleman (a la McCain) while losing my ass in the election of more Democrats.
Word, you will always be an honorable man, no matter how much I may disagree with you on an issue or two (or almost all of 'em).
Bomb-throwers left and right will always have their appeal, but once they've rallied the base that devours their every thought, word, and deed like manna from heaven, you realize that they're offending pretty much everyone else.
Being mean, loud, or obnoxious will never increase one's intelligence or ability to reason. In fact, it may decrease it, because once people tune you out, you might as well be talking to yourself, and no one will know how intelligent you are.
If you're secure in your ideas and ideals, you can afford to be civil even to those who disagree with you.
Really,
The Wimp Approach hasn't done much for us.
It's not about taking a "wimp" approach.
McCain is the best example that comes to mind. He would not attack Obama and preferred the "fine gentleman" approach. He lost.
"Paling around with terrorists"- Sarah Palin.
Did that turn moderates and independents onto the Republican candidates? We lost because we lost their votes to an uber-candidate who campaigned on tax cuts, was surrounded by the halo of excitement of the glass-ceiling-breaking first non-white president hyped as the second coming of jfk/mlk rolled into one, a gushing media giving him pop-star celebrity status. We lost because McCain ran an inconsistent message in his campaign (thanks to those who wanted McCain to be less gentlemanly), was doing well until the timing of the economic collapse. He also had to contend with being linked to 8 years of a Bush-fatigued nation.
Introspection can be healthy or it can be destructive. This soul-searching that leads to a RINO witch-hunt amongst conservative purists, however, is not the answer. McCain is a scapegoat.
George Bush would never defend himself against constant slander and open hatred by the Left. It only stoked the liberal hatred to greater heights. His "being above the fray" did not help us -- it hurt us.
Defending yourself and engaging in hate and slime are two different things. I agree that the Bush Administration did a piss-poor job in defending themselves on the PR front. It doesn't help when you have a media that tilts liberal, and whose inclination is "if it bleeds, it leads" journalism.
Bush should have defended himself more on Iraq and his record. Doing so, though, doesn't mean one has to be a Coulter or Rush. The ones you want to convince to have listen to you automatically tune out when they know it's Coulter or Rush speaking. They won't listen. But they are one part of the audience that needs to hear the message. A delivery system that's less abrasive and alienating does work. Of course, you will never convince the hardcore true believers on the other side anymore than they will convince our side of hardcore conservatives to change its spots.
For dedicated leftist, talking nice will accomplish nothing. I prefer to attack and counterattack with wild abandon; my goal is to give maximum psychic pain to leftist pundits and talking heads, to embarrass them, to ridicule them, to shut them up. In other words, I will use their own tactics against them.
Ad hominems don't achieve much of anything other than personal self-gratification. Go ahead and attack and counter-attack. I'm all for that so long as the substance is honest and truthful and not spin and distortions. That harms our credibility.
My goal is to win, not to feel good about myself as a fine gentleman (a la McCain) while losing my ass in the election of more Democrats.
My goal is to win as well, and feel good about myself in doing so.
In some sense, I think you're comparing apples and oranges, here. Your point doesn't equate to McCain's loss, for me. His "gentleman" approach wasn't the issue.
Part of the tone and tact to take depends on who you're talking to. There's no "one size fits all" approach.
For DU and KosKiddie true believers, the sledgehammer approach in general works fine. Engage in the ad hominems and shout downs if you're not concerned with winning arguments on substance.
While repsac3 and I generally see political ideals somewhat differently, he actually made a case for what I was trying to say, with his very true statement:
“If you're secure in your ideas and ideals, you can afford to be civil even to those who disagree with you.”
WordSmith, I actually was saying that: "I contend that the intellectual ones, Dick Morris, Ginghrich, Krauthammer, Barnes Dennis Pregar and Michael Medved do not need to resort to rough."
Stogie, I don’t believe the inflammatory “wimp” comment is relevant here. Do we take it out into the streets? I was former AAU boxer, and black belt in Shuri Ryu karate, but I still wouldn’t want to go back to dueling with pistols. Civilized and serious debate takes a backbone and intelletual acumen. You see it among senators very often if you watch the Senate Hearings, where they vehemently disagree with each other and yet as repsac3 commented, do not resort to: “Being mean, loud, or obnoxious.” For the most part, I would say, the majority of senators I have witnessed walk the streets with their dignity; they enter with it, and leave with their dignity in tact.
All due respect, Stogie, McCain didn’t lose because he didn’t attack Obama – McCain’s strong policy on Iraq became irrelevant when the economy nose dived. And Bush didn’t lose because he never defended himself; he lost because he became unpopular. I am a Reagan Republican, and I can still say that Bush got poor advice from Rumsfeld and Cheney, and Rice never stepped up. Colin Powell was walked all over – no wonder he resigned. I voted for Bush, but he was hard for America to like. However, Bush, recently not speaking out against this administration, did put him “above the fray.” Finally it gave him some presidential dignity. History will judge Bush, not the leftists of today. And, history will judge Obama. The jury is still out.
As for “attacking with wild abandon” I think if it is your style, Stogie, great, then it will work for you. Look at the difference between two top president’s styles, both worked, Teddy Roosevelt (tough and tough) and Eisenhower (a former general, yet still, cautious).
McCain attacked the opposition and it didn’t work. To win against a popular culture president like Obama, we will need an experienced candidate, with strong fiscal policies and a confident foreign affairs strategy, not someone that attacks the opposition, in my opinion.
People, the problem is not "playing rough" -- it is the weight of fact and reason behind it.
On the one hand, mere ad-hom attacks do reduce the credibility of the attacker. I usually avoid them ... except when the target is so egregiously obstinate that they are reduced to parroting their drivel in the face of clear, contradictory, comprehensively-evaluated evidence (as opposed to sound bytes and statistics simplistically cherry-picked without regard to their actual significance, which is the ammo of the small-minded).
OTOH, we're bringing a knife to a gunfight if we refuse to strongly assert our own findings, especially in the face of strident opposition, when our findings are backed by the powder charge of history, fact, and reason -- including expressed denigration of our opponents' credibility on those bases, particularly history.
We fall into the relativists' trap when we refuse to stand up and say, loud, clear, and absolutely, "You're WRONG", when history/fact/reason supports that conclusion.
When cornered, some cry out "I'm just expressing my opinion". I say to them ... it ceases to be "just your opinion" when it is about to be applied to human interaction, be that through personal decision or public policy.
Then, it is revealed as either wisdom ... or folly ... and if we value our unalienable rights, we need to treat it as such, to the degree needed to assure the adoption of wisdom and the rejection of folly.
Even if that means stepping on toes or yelling in faces -- for the natural tendency of humanity to follow the perceived "strong horse" has too often led to our detriment, when the voices of wisdom have refused to raise the volume above that of the purveyors of folly.
As the tagline of my old, dormant blog reads:
In the blogosphere, revenge is a dish best served cold -- as in cold logic, cool and collected reasoning, and cold, hard facts.
I say -- order UP!
Post a Comment