Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Cocktails With the “Reality-Based Community” — Oblomov
I attended a wedding recently. It was a very high-end, mostly New York crowd, with lots of lawyers and investment bankers.
Here is a nearly verbatim transcript of a “conversation” I had with one banker. This guy was not yet drunk.
Me (to a friend): …so, in my experience, the Russians and others we negotiate with have palpable contempt for us.
Him (butting in): It’s not just them, everybody has contempt for us. We should just mind our own business and not try to solve everybody’s problems.
Me: I agree, but we are a superpower and we have certain responsibilities.
Him: Why do we have responsibilities?
Me: Our friends rely on us to do certain things around the world.
Him: Eff them. The only things we should be doing is things that benefit American taxpayers.
Me: I couldn’t agree more. There are some advantages to the taxpayers from living in a superpower though.
Him: That’s effing BS. The government is run by the big corporations. They’re the only ones who get any advantages. I know, I work in that world. And I’m something of a world affairs scholar.
Me: So why did we fight the Cold War? Was it to benefit the big corporations?
Him: Yes. They’re the only ones who benefited. And it was totally based on paranoia.
Me: What about the Nazis? And Imperial Japan? Was that all paranoia too?
Him: The big arms manufacturers are behind all wars. They control all governments.
Me: Well, I think all those powers were threats and we responded like any great power, for geopolitical…
Him (cutting me off): And I’ll tell you another thing. Those effing right wing Tea Partiers. I hate those right wing mother effers.
Me: Why do you hate them so much?
Him: They’re effing ignorant. They want to get rid of the Fed!
Me: I think what they want is to curb government spending and return to constitutional principles like limited government. They’re just Reagan conserva…
Him (cutting me off and moving closer): There is no intellectual content to any of that. Bunch of morons.
Me: There’s no intellectual content to constitutional principles?
Him: Listen, I’m a naturalized citizen, and let me tell you, Americans are the stupidest effing people on the planet. Your average American is an effing moron. Just think, they shut down the government! And for what? Because they’re afraid of Socialism? They just don’t want people to have healthcare! Me, I care about other people. Mother effers. You know the big insurance companies? They are my clients and they love Obamacare.
Me: How is that an argument for Obamacare? Anyway, didn’t Obama have something to do with the shutdown? He loves these crises. He could have stopped the shutdown any time he wanted. But he benefits politically, so he let it drag on as long as possible.
Him: That’s BS. They’re all just a bunch of Baptist religious fanatics with no education.
Me: That’s not true, and isn’t that just religious bigotry? Anyway, I’m sympathetic to them, I have plenty of education and I’m an atheist.
Him (moving closer, yelling and sticking a finger in my face): I’m sick and tired of you right-wing nut jobs. Let me tell you, it’s the people like me, the people who make over a million dollars a year, that carry all the weight in this country.
Me: I’m not a spokesman for the Tea Party. And if you’re complaining about taxes, why do you keep voting for Obama?
Him (yelling): What’s your problem with Obama? That he’s a Socialist?
Me: Get your finger out of my face and don’t yell at me.
Him (yelling louder): Why do you hate Obama? Because he’s black?
Ah yes, the lovely face of our enlightened rulers.
This experience and others like it remind me that, odious as Obama is, he is ultimately merely a symptom, not the cause, of deeper problems. I am even willing to listen to any reasonably informed person making the case that he is not the worst president we ever had. We have had bad presidents before and muddled through. The system was designed with sufficient play in the joints to withstand the stress of bad leadership. However, it cannot survive an ignorant and corrupt leadership class.
Published in General
I am flabbergasted at the utter incongruity and illogic to his line of “reason”. It’s so true, the Left don’t see their blind spots because they rarely hear anything that questions their worldviews. The only consistency in his view is that the ruling elite should make all the decisions. They know what’s best for everyone. All others should just sit down, shut up and be grateful for what their betters send their way.
No, because she’s defended by people like you.
Can you identify him in this photograph?
I’ve had several of those conversations with liberals. They all end the same way.
The sort of people who will butt into another person’s conversation also seem to be a personality type. A couple of years ago my family and I were walking through a public park in San Francisco, and my wife and I were explaining something about politics to our kids (who had asked, BTW.) It was basically an explanation of the disagreement between the two parties on some issue. This guy, who’d been walking five feet away from us then began loudly and angrily disagreeing with us. My wife turned to him and said calmly but forcefully, “well, we’re not talking to you about this, we’re talking to our children.” He then stomped on, angrily ranting about politics. These folks don’t seem to realize that everyone in the world is not waiting on tenterhooks to hear their opinions.
As already mentioned, I usually just walk away, but sometimes I simply keep silent when one tries to goad me into a debate.
It’s great. I look right in their face, with a bit of a grin, and say … nothing.
The uncomfortable silence drives them absolutely bonkers.
I mean really, if they aren’t interested in having an intelligent conversation, why should I?
Sometimes in those situations, I lose patience, and mess with them.
Tactic 1: Become everything they’re ranting against. That is pretty fun. They are then forced to try to argue with someone who is merely assenting to their worst accusations. “You’re a fascist!” “Well, it’s gotten kind of a bad rap, but it’s efficient, and we’re bringing it back!”
Tactic 2: Play dumb. This probably would’ve been effective with this guy. Inquisitively, but seemingly uncomprehendingly, just repeat back what he says. If you can drool a bit, that heightens the effect.
Tactic 3: In this specific case, I might’ve played to the audience. I’m guessing this guy was a white South African, and if so, might’ve said cheerfully something to the effect of “well, your politics are a bit different, but you seem to embody the very spirit of debate of the Apartheid years!” (Bonus points if you can name the regime that was the most oppressive. I can’t.) Warning: Be ready for fisticuffs if you go with this one.
Tactic #4: Try agreeing with him in a way that takes him into the weeds. This can be hard to do convincingly and with a straight face, and without succumbing to Godwin’s Law.
Him: We should just mind our own business and not try to solve everybody’s problems.
Me: I agree! I mean, who are we to say that things wouldn’t be better if China took over the Far East and Russia took over Europe?
Him: The only things we should be doing is things that benefit American taxpayers.
Me: I couldn’t agree more. It is about time we annexed Canada by force.
Him: The government is run by the big corporations. I know, I work in that world.
Me: I totally agree. It is time to end corporate welfare.
Him: You know the big insurance companies? They are my clients and they love Obamacare.
Me: I totally agree. It is time to end corporate welfare.
Him: Let me tell you, it’s the people like me, the people who make over a million dollars a year, that carry all the weight in this country.
Me: I totally agree, it is time for a flat tax.
cont…
Him: What’s your problem with Obama? That he’s a Socialist?
Me: It’s true that I disliked him at first, but I’ve really grown to like Obama. Guantanamo’s still open, the administration is staying on Wall Street’s good side, and drones are a really efficient way to kill terrorists.
This strategy will still get the subject more and more angry, but it’s more fun. Also, whenever he gets angry you can plead, “dude, I’m agreeing with you!”
I’ve often thought that criticizing Obama for failing to keep promises is often a bad idea. It just gets the left’s back up and they support him more. Instead, conservatives should be over-the-top praising Obama for things like drones, Wall Street, and Guantanamo.
What else would make the left turn against him faster than support from conservatives?
Just look at Bill Clinton. His presidency was the era of anti-globalization and anti-free trade protests, and the left of that era (led by magazines like Adbusters) complained constantly that there was no difference between the two parties.
You wanna kill Hillary’s chances with the left? Support her!
Last one, I promise:
There’s another tactic I sometimes like to use that sorta only really works in a parliamentary system like Canuckistan. The separation of powers in the US makes it much less applicable, cuz it’s so much harder to repeal legislation in Washington than it is in Ottawa. On the other hand, I bet most Democrats don’t have the slightest understanding of the legislative process, so it might work anyway!
Now, Liberal & NDP supporters rarely attack my guy on the big issues. Instead, they’ll attack on some individual decision or some little piece of legislation. It’s usually something that, admittedly, I’m probably not actually a huge fan of myself, but I’ve gotta defend my guy cuz for the most part I think he’s pretty awesome.
My reply in those instances is, “yup, not a huge fan of that one, but you know what? When your guys are elected, they can easily repeal it, and I’ll bet you $50 right now that they won’t repeal it, because when they’re the ones in power the legislation will work to their benefit.”
Nobody ever agrees to the bet.
The conversations at my Men’s Book Club are as irrational and heated as your example, minus the profanity. It probably wouldn’t be that way if I weren’t a member because I am the only conservative among 12 highly successful intelligent wealthy men, many of whom are internationally known in commerce, politics, education and the literary world. Without me there would be no political discourse. They would commiserate on the general lack of appreciation of the global warning threat, supplemented by dismay at the lack of respect that Obama’s efforts are getting in Congress, followed up by disdain at the Tea Party and other right wing radicals. Not surprisingly, in the discussion of our last book, The Zealot, it turned out I was the only member who actually attended religious services on a regular basis. We have tried very hard to build a bridge in communication, which I appreciate, but I don’t ever expect to change anyone’s opinion much less their vote. It is sad. We have become a very polarized society where no one can feel at home.
I’ve switched from any hope of persuasion to my side, to simply the hope that maybe I can convince them that there is a non-evil and non-stupid opposing view.
I applause your effort, and I think that is what I try to do, but so far I think I have only convinced them that my efforts are not evil but just stupid.
It appears as if all bearers of the conservative torch must undergo this “rite of passage” at some point even if we choose to abstain. (A recent dinner party I attended with childhood friends mirrored Southern Pessimist’s experience.) Unfortunately, I learned in the middle of a 4**** restaurant that the most infuriating thing you can do to a group of liberals is to refuse to respond to their diatribes and attempt to change the subject.
Warning! This approach makes them positively rabid; I was an eyewitness to a couple of cases of foam at the mouth.
You could try the Billy Bob Thornton method in an attempt to baffle them:
(He was mad that the host had even mentioned that he was an actor, so he retaliated via bizarre obfuscation. At a dinner party of liberals, this might be somewhat effective. “Why do you hate Obama?” “I don’t know what you mean.”)
@Misthiocracy: Now you tell me! :)
Ah yes, the emotional and vulgar argument from authority. It’s the equivalent of a rhetorical answer in that a response isn’t solicited, only outrage affirmed.
Of course they reacted that way. Just like human beings have a deep-seated need to be valued, liberals have a deep-seated need to epater la bourgeoisie. It’s right up there with hunger and thirst. I’m surprised they didn’t die of apoplexy on the spot.
I live *near* this world of the masters of the universe (not in it, alas) and in my experience it is inhabited by three types of people:
Rational thought, good judgement and humility are necessary characteristics only of Type 1 people. Type 2s and Type3s can be crazy as jaybirds, have every personality defect in the book, and believe just about any nonsense. This is why so many successful people are liberals.
I’ve got to make it a habit in these cases to remember the audience. It really isn’t about convincing the rabid lefty that he’s wrong (about me, about conservatism, about reality!!); it’s about making the case to the listeners.
Personally, I think it’s about making sure you have a good time at the wedding.