To Convert, It's Not Enough to Be Right. We Must Be Persuasive
Too many debates with moderates and the left consist of each side listing the things they believe to be self-evident. We on the right may be correct in most cases, but what does it matter if they are still voting for the other guy? In persuasion, it's often ineffective to list truths, even with supporting evidence, and expect to garner results.
In my field of physics, some phrases we use may not be true in an absolute sense. It is sometimes difficult to convey a point, even if one is using exactly correct language. Thus, on occasion, we must use somewhat ambiguous or technically incorrect language that will cause the listener to understand the underlying truth we're trying to convey.
I think we should employ this technique with those who disagree with us. Our goal is to persuade, not to be exactly correct. This requires formulation of arguments where we appear to say things that we don't actually believe. This can be more effective than a frontal assault, which would cause reactionary fervor.
I employed this approach yesterday during a heated argument on Facebook concerning Obamacare. I'll paraphrase the strong liberal who tried to appeal to the consensus against the law. She argued essentially that, "Health care is run by insurance companies, and they are "bad" for various reasons, and all the law tries to do is force the insurance companies to stop being bad. Sure it's an imperfect law, but it's a start and we can make it better."
This led me to respond in a way that I hope caused her to rethink her position.
Healthcare being run by insurance isn't a market consequence. It's a consequence of government regulation. Companies aren't allowed to offer "insurance" unless it meets regulations. Now, thanks to Obamacare, there are more regulations. And a regulation for everyone to buy an overpriced product that not everyone needs. It's not just the insurance companies fault. It's the government and insurance companies colluding to siphon off as much of our wealth as they can. And you're letting them do it by buying into the evil insurance/good government fable. They are both evil.
To her, I seem to agree that insurance companies are a source of evil, but so is the government. By phrasing it this way, I may have lowered some of her defenses. Of course, the technically correct reason is that it's all government's fault and the insurance companies are only acting in their best interests. But by buying her premise of "evil corporations" and shifting the blame equally to her beloved government, I hope to have initiated a change in her mindset.
It's not enough to be right about everything, we must be convincing, even if it means occasionally pretending we agree with the left's prejudices.
- Comment (21)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (13)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Oct '10
Re: To Convert, It's Not Enough to Be Right. We Must Be Persuasive
Well said, but you haven't gotten to the basis of the argument. When a person is emotionally invested in a belief, whether it is religious, statist, or even environmentalist, you are not confronting their beliefs, you are confronting their emotions.
To communicate your arguments you must first undermine their emotional attachment. "I agree that the insurance companies are evil, but the government makes the rules and they merely concur. They have colluded in making those very rules, and now they accuse the government of making them the way they are."
Government, seeking greater power, engage in this collusion, depending on their greater power should the insurance companies get out of line.
The only person in this equation that has your best interests at heart, is you. By giving your consent to either the corrupt insurance companies, or the corrupt government, you are surrendering your interest to the two most powerful competitors you face. Neither is working for you, and both see you as a subject.
Liberty is the only state that can insulate you from their power. But you alone can slay the monster.
Dec '10
Re: To Convert, It's Not Enough to Be Right. We Must Be Persuasive
Walk together but lead ever so slightly to the right destination. It always helps to start with a point of agreement and build from there.
Dec '12
Re: To Convert, It's Not Enough to Be Right. We Must Be Persuasive
All well said. I used to be a leftist Democrat. I was introduced to Dennis Prager on talk radio. He persuaded me to become a passionate conservative. He's the best at framing the arguments and being persuasive. Listen to him; read his great new book: Still the Best Hope: Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph. Check out Prager University on the web where he has great 5 min talks by fine conservatives on many vital issues. Get your Congressional representatives to speak like him. Howard Sachs M.D.//Wash DC
Oct '10
Re: To Convert, It's Not Enough to Be Right. We Must Be Persuasive
I don't think we can convince them of anything. Libs don't think. They emote. Their opinions are formed from feeling things. So any kind of analytical explanation, no matter how devious or underhanded or misdirectional it is, won't work. I say this from my own experience dealing with more than a dozen Leftists for years.
The better approach, IMHO, is to ask them questions that they must answer for themselves. Only then will they realize how boneheaded they are. Whether they then change how they act and how they vote, well, that's beyond our control, anyway. But at least they'll have wicked cognitive dissonance.
In your FB example, here's what I would've written: (see next post, due to word limit)
Edited on February 13, 2013 at 10:15pmOct '10
Re: To Convert, It's Not Enough to Be Right. We Must Be Persuasive
The point is, government intervention is the problem, and it almost always is. But Leftist/Libs need to arrive at that conclusion on their own. We can help them, but not in the way you suggest.
I think the only way to argue with Leftist/Libs is to ask them questions that get to the foundational basis of their (idiotic, illogical) views. Questions like these.
Edited on February 13, 2013 at 10:14pmDec '12
Re: To Convert, It's Not Enough to Be Right. We Must Be Persuasive
Well put, but...the thing of it is....some men you just cain't reach.
Dec '12
Re: To Convert, It's Not Enough to Be Right. We Must Be Persuasive
You're right. To the left, a liberal, democrat government can do no wrong. A conservative, republican government is just as evil as corporations. The low information voter needs to confront the idea that a liberal, democrat government can do harm. It's a curious thing their mindset. They really need to be handheld on one narrow issue so as to create small fissures in their thinking. Confronting their entire gig in one go won't work.
Like you, I discussed (face to face I might add) with a liberal in SF a few years ago about 3 ways to deal with health care with minimal cost to the government. Our conversation started by her saying that the republicans had no solutions to health care. I said, "Well, here are 3 things they've mentioned over and over: purchasing insurance across state lines, health savings accounts and the ability for individuals to write off costs just as companies do". End of our chat, she was stunned and amazed because she had a reasonable conversation with a conservative. She concluded those seemed like very good ideas.
One a day, one at a time.
Nov '11
Re: To Convert, It's Not Enough to Be Right. We Must Be Persuasive
Of course, how you go about it depends on who you're talking to. The difference between a group-think follower and a hardcore ideologue isn't always obvious on first acquaintance.
As for the whole emotional side of things, liberals are very good at "putting a face on" a problem... much better than conservatives. There are some perfectly good reasons for this related to our contrasting worldviews, but it hurts us.
Thus, the liberal: "See what the evil insurance companies and our broken health care system did to _______!"
The conservative: "Yes, but having the government get more involved is only going to make it worse for everyone in the long run."
We might be able to prove this logically, but it's hard to make the same emotional connection arguing a future theoretical.
Nov '11
Re: To Convert, It's Not Enough to Be Right. We Must Be Persuasive
raycon and lindacon: Well said, but you haven't gotten to the basis of the argument. When a person is emotionally invested in a belief, whether it is religious, statist, or even environmentalist, you are not confronting their beliefs, you are confronting their emotions.
To communicate your arguments you must first undermine their emotional attachment. "I agree that the insurance companies are evil, but the government makes the rules and they merely concur. They have colluded in making those very rules, and now they accuse the government of making them the way they are."
Government, seeking greater power, engage in this collusion, depending on their greater power should the insurance companies get out of line.
The only person in this equation that has your best interests at heart, is you. By giving your consent to either the corrupt insurance companies, or the corrupt government, you are surrendering your interest to the two most powerful competitors you face. Neither is working for you, and both see you as a subject.
The best way to kill any idea that a government agency is more compassionate than the insurance companies is a decent acquaintance with Britain's National Health Service.
Oct '10
Re: To Convert, It's Not Enough to Be Right. We Must Be Persuasive
At that rate it'll take us 54,795 years to convert to the Right the equivalent of 20 million illegal aliens becoming lifelong Democrats with the stroke of a pen.
Oct '10
Re: To Convert, It's Not Enough to Be Right. We Must Be Persuasive
Leigh: Thus, the liberal: "See what the evil insurance companies and our broken health care system did to _______!"
The conservative: "Yes, but having the government get more involved is only going to make it worse for everyone in the long run."
That's the exact wrong response that the conservative should give. The answer shouldn't be theoretical future, it should be actual past. Because we KNOW what "actual past" has given us, and it's crap.
The conservative SHOULD have said, "Yeah, and WHO, exactly, broke our health care system? The government! Don't believe me?" And then the conservative asks the 5 questions from post #5, above.
And when the Liberal, as sure as night follows day, is clueless about the answers, the conservative, as sure as day follows night, knows the answers and provides them and demonstrates that the crap we have today is NOT the insurance companies' fault, it's the government's fault. In one case going all the way back to WWII and an artifact from then that still rears its ugly head today (the answer to #2).
Dec '12
Re: To Convert, It's Not Enough to Be Right. We Must Be Persuasive
dittoheadadt
At that rate it'll take us 54,795 years to convert to the Right the equivalent of 20 million illegal aliens becoming lifelong Democrats with the stroke of a pen. · 10 minutes ago
Rome wasn't built in a day?
Apr '11
Re: To Convert, It's Not Enough to Be Right. We Must Be Persuasive
The time for persuasion is long past. Rhetoric is now the tool of the dominant ideology, progressivism. It's otherwise known as plain old democratic socialism.
There was a time when the progressives weren't dominant. They didn't try to persuade middle class voters. They took over the institutions that influenced those voters. Then, they expanded the power of the institutions and multiplied them. Eventually, gradually, the institutions gained the ability to directly coerce the middle class.
We must copy this strategy. Persuasion won't win elections for us any longer. We have to take back the institutions and dismantle them from the inside.
Progressives have brought us to this: force exerted through institutions will be the dominant characteristic of political action henceforth.
This can come about in only two ways. Either we take back an existing institutions, or we create alternative institutions. Rhetoric is necessary but insufficient. Progressives have proved that institutional subversion is sufficient.
Conservatives have yet to fully realize these facts.
Dec '10
Re: To Convert, It's Not Enough to Be Right. We Must Be Persuasive
Jeff is taking the long term strategic view. I think he's right.
But, lately my focus has been on the personal conversions we're all capable of one person at a time. I was going to write a post (fat chance! no time) about what works, having studied Ray Comfort's technique in the "180" Movie. I'm kind of obsessed with it, I admit.
Here's the secret (and dittohead has it about right): ask people questions they already know the answer to, because they have the truth written in their hearts. Put them in the situation (moral dilemma). Make it personal (connect to emotions) and lead them into revealing the truth to themselves. You don't have to confront. Just appeal to their innate decency and dignity, and the truth they already know. For example, you can't spend your way out of a debt crisis.
Oct '10
Re: To Convert, It's Not Enough to Be Right. We Must Be Persuasive
AT&T was my isp, and I have retained them for email. AT&T has merged with Yahoo wbich has a news feed and allows comments. I use it to interact with liberals in the hope of converting some. Last night I pointed out that at least some of the stagflation experienced under Carter was likely due to Nixon's price controls, so as not to come across as a rabid partisan. I thnk it helps to come across as fair-minded.
Aug '12
Re: To Convert, It's Not Enough to Be Right. We Must Be Persuasive
Great comment, Jeff. WFB's greatest lasting achievements and contributions to the conservative movement are the institutions that he created. We need influence within private & public institutions.
Jeff: The time for persuasion is long past. Rhetoric is now the tool of the dominant ideology, progressivism. It's otherwise known as plain old democratic socialism.
There was a time when the progressives weren't dominant. They didn't try to persuade middle class voters. They took over the institutions that influenced those voters. Then, they expanded the power of the institutions and multiplied them. Eventually, gradually, the institutions gained the ability to directly coerce the middle class.
We must copy this strategy. Persuasion won't win elections for us any longer. We have to take back the institutions and dismantle them from the inside.
Progressives have brought us to this:force exerted through institutions will be the dominant characteristic of political action henceforth.
This can come about in only two ways. Either we take back an existing institutions, or we create alternative institutions. Rhetoric is necessary but insufficient. Progressives have proved that institutional subversion is sufficient.
Conservatives have yet to fully realize these facts. · 1 hour ago
Aug '12
Re: To Convert, It's Not Enough to Be Right. We Must Be Persuasive
Prager is effective because he is so full of life, and so kind hearted when he discusses issues and debates others of opposing views.
Jun '10
Re: To Convert, It's Not Enough to Be Right. We Must Be Persuasive
Healthcare is run by insurance because during/after WWII the government imposed wage and price controls. This led to companies offering insurance as an incentive to prospective employees as a perk since wages were restricted. And thus it began. Your healthcare is provided by your employer. And you don't have a say in who your health insurance provider is; your employer gets to decide. And when you go to the doctor, you aren't paying for it (the health insurance company is). The doctor will bill the health insurance company, and the customer (you), is left out of the transaction. This all is a by-product of government intervention. Obamacare does nothing to solve any of this. In fact, it doubles down on employer-provided health insurance. It also puts price controls in place, which of course, will lead to unintended consequences like rationing, etc.
But I don't believe that government is evil, nor do I believe that insurance companies are evil. Government busy bodies are trying to solve "problems" but often make things worse. And insurance companies are simply responding to incentives or disincentives that are put in place by government.
Edited on February 14, 2013 at 4:17amNov '11
Re: To Convert, It's Not Enough to Be Right. We Must Be Persuasive
dittoheadadt
That's the exact wrong response that the conservative should give. The answer shouldn't be theoretical future, it should be actual past. Because we KNOW what "actual past" has given us, and it's crap.
The conservative SHOULD have said, "Yeah, and WHO, exactly, broke our health care system? The government! Don't believe me?" And then the conservative asks the 5 questions from post #5, above.
...
But conservatives spent the past three years arguing basically as I put it, didn't they?
That's another logical argument -- a superior one, in fact -- but you're still meeting emotion with logic. Which is necessary and inevitable... but sometimes logic loses out to emotion.
Liberals almost always do a better job co-opting events as emotional support for their positions. In part that's because of more ruthless and effective media management, but in part also because they are more prepared to see a problem and make a cause out of it with government as the primary solution.
Jul '12
Re: To Convert, It's Not Enough to Be Right. We Must Be Persuasive
Leigh
The best way to kill any idea that a government agency is more compassionate than the insurance companies is a decent acquaintance with Britain's National Health Service. · 6 hours ag
o
My favorite questions in a government healthcare discussion: Guess how long my 42 year old daughter, diagnosed with a high risk pregnancy, spent in the hospital having my 10 pound, 2 ounce grandson? Six hours, 22 minutes. Guess where she lives? Hampstead, the wealthiest section of London. While they grimace, I point out that I was there to carry the diapers and the sanitary napkins that the hospital doesn't supply. My daughter never saw a doctor during the stay and because it was so short, she had to arrange for the baby's circumcision to be performed later. Due to the hospital's scheduling overload, she opted to hire a private physician who came to the house and performed the procedure on the kitchen table. Again, this was not in a farmhouse in Croatia but a $9500/month flat in London.
My brief encounter with Britain's National Health Service provides me with all the evidence I need to argue against Obamacare.