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.
Causing Offense from the High Ground
In recent passionate, well-written, and engaging posts, Susan Quinn and “Martel” (I can only assume his first name is Charles) call for a new boldness, a kind of rhetorical trench warfare that rejects the strictures of nobility, decorum, and the high ground in favor of what the left has demonstrated actually works: insults, personal exposé, and relentless attack.
There’s a lot to like in this. I agree that timidity is a signature trait of conservatism, ill-suited for engaging an opponent only too ready to abandon any pretense of reason and moderation and dive down into the muck. Calls to meet our political foes on their own level are growing more common and more strident – largely, I’d argue, because the left has sunk to such depths of discourse that effective yet principled engagement seems impossible.
Something needs to change, with that I absolutely agree. But I wonder if perhaps, by calling for a lowering of our own standards (and that is how I see it), we are taking the easy road, sparing ourselves the discomfort of doing what is consistent with the call to boldness yet also in keeping with our higher standards of reason and discourse.
Whatever happens in the political arena, we conservatives are losing the cultural battle and, with it, the war for western civilization. And we’re losing it with hardly a metaphorical shot fired, because of that very timidity that I’ll join with Susan and “Charles” in decrying.
Before I encourage any conservative to abandon reason and decorum and surrender the high ground, I’d first ask him this: Have you spoken plainly and boldly about the cultural battles we’re losing, without regard to whom you might offend? Have you really tried to engage the cultural enemy bluntly, and in a way that might risk making you unlikable?
Here are some fronts in the culture war, and the stands I think conservatives should take, loudly, plainly, and boldly:
- Men and women are different, with different strengths and interests and needs. Telling men and women otherwise is setting them up for unhappiness and failure. We’ve been misleading our kids about this for decades, and we’re paying for this in broken homes and broken lives.
- Homosexuality isn’t normal. That isn’t to say it’s evil, or wrong, or bad, but it isn’t normal human sexual conduct. Portraying it as as normal as heterosexuality is misleading and confusing. Timmy may have two mommies, but that’s the rare exception, and not how humans normally function.
- The “trans” movement is a destructive farce, and a barrier to dealing effectively with mental illness and sexual confusion. When it involves children, it’s particularly abusive and destructive.
- Global warming alarmists are being ludicrous when they pretend that their weak models can even begin to predict climate change, much less the cost of climate change, a half a century in the future. Impoverishing the world now to address this poorly supported hypothetical crisis is bad for everyone – and most particularly for the world’s poorest people.
- High minimum wages rob the weakest, least employable members of society from the necessary opportunities for advancement, while simultaneously hurting businesses, slowing the advancement of the marginally employed, and destroying jobs. No one actually benefits from high minimum wages.
- America does not a have a racism problem. America has a racism industry. Racism is being kept alive by those who profit from victimhood status, and it’s time to stop treating the race-baiting profiteers of hate as if they were on the side of the angels.
- The teachers’ unions are destroying education in urban America, particularly for our poorest and most vulnerable children. It makes no sense to be pro-choice about the life or death of an unborn child, but anti-choice when it comes to the next 18 years of that child’s life. Let parents pick their schools, and let failing schools fail.
- If requiring a photographic ID for voting is racist and discriminatory, then requiring a photographic ID for a gun purchase must also be racist and discriminatory. So why are liberals in favor of making it harder for black people to own guns? What’s with that?
- Letting boys in the girls’ locker room is ridiculous, dangerous, and a frankly stupid idea. It isn’t going to happen.
- America’s universities are afraid to let young people hear conservative ideas because the faculty know that conservative ideas are better than progressive ideas, and that the latter can’t compete on a fair playing field. Suppressing the competition of ideas keeps students ignorant.
You get the idea. There are all sorts of things that we can say that will make people uncomfortable and get us talked about, but that don’t require us to embrace anything distasteful. The left says so many stupid things, it’s easy to find ways to contradict them that are both truthful and sure to upset someone.
I think we can cause plenty of offense without surrendering the high ground. I don’t think we’re trying very hard.
Published in Culture
I’m not sure you and Susan are in reality that far apart but I endorse this. One can be forceful without being a boor. In the long run the rise of Bro conservatism won’t accomplish much.
I think many of us are trying to figure out how to engage an increasingly lawless adversary. I agree that a more muscular approach is required. I simply don’t want to lose what we’re fighting for through the very process of fighting for it.
And, honestly, I think the progressive approach only works against a timid opponent. So let’s be bold.
Can I do withering scorn?
I think you would be remiss if you did not.
Mockery and humor are also appropriate.
Great line.
I believe we have already witnessed your talents in this arena with the good BLM folks down in Portland who were trying to bait you.
Give’m hell Kate, you are a professional, and I mean that in the most admiring way.
Racist!!!!!!
One can go down the line of your list and the Left will have an epithet or a few to yell at you as you try to make your point with reason and facts. Better yet, they will prevent you from even reaching the venue. Just ask Charles Murray. Of course, what happened to him was justified because, as the SPLC explains, he uses “racist pseudoscience.” Or ask Bret Weinstein, who has impeccable leftist credentials.
This can be repeated for each of your points: Homophobe! Science denier! Transphobe! Your topics are not open for discussion, respectfully or otherwise; they are open for punching and Molotov cocktails.
Right, they will get so uncomfortable and upset that they’ll punch your face. I don’t know what the right answer is. But it’s clear that what we have been doing so far is not working. Your prescription seems like more of the same. Been there, done that.
Oh, we’re causing offense alright — just by existing. Causing offense is not the same as winning the argument, or even making your case. Or did you think that people like Charles Murray aren’t trying hard enough?
Lowering standards is hardly the question. The real one is, do we want to fight?
Your post seems confused. You want forthright truths told in the public arena with boldness. But you don’t want to offend anyone.
I agree with drlorentz; you have offended them just by declining to carry their water for them.
I am all for good manners, until it comes to a dispute with the Left. The Left has ruined everything they touched, and one of the things they ruined is the capability of Americans to conduct a dispassionate reasoned discourse.
So you may find yourself trying to separate two brawlers, only to discover that both of them only wanted to brawl without your interference. When you find that to be the case, rather than holding the conservative back, if you won’t help him, at least please get out of his way.
This post merits a well-reasoned response, and if I don’t get the chance to so in the comments here, I’ll do it as a post of my own soon.
Sure. But most people — most conservatives — are reluctant to say the kinds of things I said. When was the last time you heard a conservative, a normal person, not a rabble-rousing pundit, say those things? I think we’ve allowed our own unwillingness to seem impolite to stifle us.
Do we really worry about that? Or do we worry that people will look at us like we’re Neanderthals, and think less of us — those who don’t secretely agree? I’m not afraid a leftist is going to take a swing at me.
No, not “just by existing.” That isn’t good enough, to exist silently, inoffensively, like sheep with bad thoughts we never speak.
Charles Murray is a hero, a true gentleman and scholar who has spoken boldly and caused plenty of offense. He is trying hard enough. I don’t think most of the rest of us do.
MJ, I’m not finding the part of my post in which I say I don’t want to offend anyone.
I do want to offend people. I want to offend the BLM people, for example, by pointing out that they’re a bunch of race-baiting thugs misrepresenting the facts to further their hateful agenda. I want to offend the trans-fetishists by pointing out that sexual dysmorphia is a psychological problem, not a lifestyle choice. I want to offend the gender studies people, by pointing out that they’re flakes peddling nonsense to a gullible and frankly dim-witted population of accolytes. I want to offend people who think “the problem is religion,” when in fact the problem is Islam. I want to offend feminists who think men and women are the same, and that therefore women should behave like men — an idiotic and destructive notion.
I look forward to it, Hammer.
Good. Very good.
I must have misunderstood. You are headed in the right direction.
I was probably unclear.
And, honestly, the differences are subtle. I don’t want to embrace the lawlessness, vulgarity, and gratuitously insulting character of the left. I want to say true things at which the left chooses to take offense. There’s a line I don’t want to cross, but it isn’t the line of bluntness and uncomfortable speech: I welcome those things.
So Charles Murray and Bret Weinstein are rabble rousers now? I mean, Weinstein isn’t even a conservative. These are normal people trying to do their work in peace. True, they did step out of line slightly. If you do the same in any public way, the same will happen to you.
That’s because nobody knows who you are and you’ve never been booked to speak on a college campus to address any of the topics you listed. Sure, posting on Ricochet or talking to a leftist friend won’t get you punched, probably. If you don’t take those risks then you aren’t in danger: self-evident.
You have no idea. Time and again, those who step even slightly out of line get into trouble. Sure, Brendan Eich didn’t get punched as far as I know. No, just his life’s work was taken away from him for having, many years before, made a campaign contribution. It’s not as if he had been an activist, or even spoken out on the issue. I found myself on a climate change enemies list for having exchanged some emails with fellow APS members. Of course, this had no substantial effect on me because of my professional circumstances. In fact, I felt honored to be on the same list with Freeman Dyson.
If you have some time, I urge you to check out the Rubin Report interviews on YouTube. Specifically, in this interview Eric Weinstein, Bret’s brother and himself a distinguished scientist, recounts his experiences.
So is your point, D, that speaking truth to power is just too dangerous? Because you seem to be offering a lot of reasons for not speaking up: you might lose your job, you might get punched, you might get discredited or attacked in your field. I get it: taking on the dominant paradigms has risks associated with it.
So, what? Better we should be silent? Help me understand the point you’re trying to make.
I hope you’re listening to – and supporting – Jordan Peterson. He’s an important and fearless voice on all those issues.
Nope, never wrote any such thing. Read my comments again. I merely pointed out that there are consequences to speaking out. Nowhere did I say to stay silent. You, on the other hand, claimed there was no risk of violence from speaking out in a publicly. Obviously, some lefty pal is unlikely to punch you one-on-one. They are chicken, preferring the anonymity of the mob.
There are several. Sorry if I was unclear.
Finally, if you are going to use cliches like “speaking truth to power” then please understand what they mean. The people who attacked Murray, Peterson, Weinstein, etc. aren’t part of the power structure. They are thugs, a mob, albeit abetted by the university or social media structure. The tactics required are different from those that might succeed in the classic truth-to-power scenario because the adversaries are different. Tom Wolfe, in his classic book Radical Chic & Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers, explains how it works on political power structures. Such methods do not work on Antifa, nor do they work on college student thugs.
No. I expressed skepticism that it’s a fear of violence — as opposed to, for example, a fear of appearing intolerant or being rude — that keeps conservative people from speaking out. And I pointed out that I, personally, am not worried about violence. I know some violence occurs, and that’s all the more reason for more people to join in the public ridicule of progressive idiocy.
Slow down. I didn’t call them rabble rousers, as a more cautious reading of what I said will make clear. I didn’t say that no one who isn’t a sensationalist conservative pundit says these things. Shoot, I say these things, and I’m no kind of rabble rouser — and certainly not a pudnit. Others do too. But the reality is that most people shy away from skoffing at progressive nonsense, for fear of causing offense.
I guess “distasteful” is a matter of taste. I don’t mind causing offense, and saying things that leftists find outrageous.
But, yes, I do like the “making arguments forceful, using reason and logic to make your case, and urge others to do likewise” part. I think that’s a terrific idea.
D, you’ve expressed concern that people who speak out might get punched, might get fired, might get blackballed or marginalized professionally (if I understood your comments). That sounds to me very much like what happens when someone challenges the power structure. (Doctor Murray will also tell you that he has experienced losses as a result of his challenging the dominant narrative.)
However, my comment about speaking truth to power was intended as a small taunt, because you were expressing the concerns of those who fear — perhaps for good reason — that speaking up was dangerous.
Speaking truth to power is usually dangerous. But I think that’s what we should do.
What we shouldn’t do, in my opinion, is adopt the worst practices of the left, including the Rules for Radicals stuff. Let’s go back to what you were talking about:
That. And let’s not be shy about it.
But here’s the short version.
Before we…
we should…
You mean like Murray and Weinstein? No violence threats there. I think it would slow you down some.
Yes you did. You were responding to a paragraph in which I specifically mentioned Murray and Weinstein. Who, if not them, were you referring to as rabble-rousing pundits. I mentioned no one else. Please, be honest enough to own your statements.
Not at all. Antifa and Evergreen students are not part of the power structure. As explained above, the attackers of Weinstein and Murray are thugs. Arguing with thugs is pointless.
Maybe some do. I don’t. But it doesn’t matter because I don’t possess a megaphone. The progressives go after prominent people because it makes sense to do so. There’s no need to hit everyone; just make an example of a few to intimidate everyone. In any case, you will often be shouted down with epithets. Progressives don’t respond to reason.
Your approach works only in select circumstances: if there are undecided observers (not the disputants) who may be swayed by reasoned argument. Even then, the epithets retain their power. These epithets have to be neutralized, perhaps with ridicule, humor, or other means. This is a work in progress for me. But please understand its limited utility.
See above.
This is where we part company. I’m not necessarily advocating any specific prescriptions from Alinsky. Nevertheless, new tactics along those lines are required. You may think that quoting von Hayek or Burke is simply devastating but the reality is that it’s ineffective. Persuasion doesn’t work this way. I recommend to you the works of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. People principally reach decisions using System 1, whereas you are appealing to System 2. If you fail to understand this, you will fail at persuasion. You are trying to persuade people, amirite?
Short version: Been tried. A fool’s errand.
Better check first with Thoreau on that one.
Agree. The left is nasty because they can be, they have no coherent arguments, they’ve built their narratives on false history, false understanding and error. They get away with it because they control the media, primary, secondary and college schools and do not believe there is such a thing as truth and because we let them. We use their language, reply to their arguments using their premises rather than dismissing them with a sharp sound bite that itself contains solid information, and starting with more solid foundations and our own language. We can’t come up with a set of universal talking points but as the best most articulate of our folks do they emerge and take on life. Mark Steyn for instance, is brutally honest but not brutal or impolite. So is D’Souza. But let’s remember arguments don’t work on the left. We must get control of our schools and our media. For them it’s all about power, So it is necessary to destroy their power but that’s not getting down in the dirt with them. It’s defending civilization from positions of strength.
What you are suggesting reminds me of how Victor Hanson describes the classic Western method of war: 1) Very reluctant to engage in war 2) When war is inevitable, wage it so fiercely and completely the opposition regrets ever starting the conflict.
And out best weapons are not to become like our opposition, but to use the strength and logic of our convictions without fear of the potential consequences.
Conservatives in America haven’t ever really reached the 2nd stage – like a nation of Neville Chamberlains.
I appreciate your post and your reference to mine. I just don’t agree with you. At one time I would have backed you 100%. It doesn’t work. The problem, in part, is that the Left doesn’t care: they don’t care what we think, what we believe, what we promise. They are not open to persuasion, to positive ideas, to moral reasoning. I think one thing that I may not have said in my arguments (and @jamielockett touched on this) is that our efforts to take out the left, if skillfully done, can be direct, tactful and honest. We have the truth on our side. Our goal sounds awful, because we talk of war, of taking them down, but we don’t even have to be snarky. We just need to be willing to say ugly information in a sincere and forthright manner.What rankles me is to point out to people, even when it’s true, that they lie and are greedy and engage in regular hyperbole. It’s not in my nature to attack others. But I believe they’ve left me no choice. Another way of saying all this is that I am not going to tell them why my ideas are better; I’m going to tell them why they are wrong and engaging in deception and misdirection. I want to defend America and conservative ideas; they want to continue their Progressive agenda. They need to be stopped.
I still don’t think you two are far apart. There is a huge difference between speaking truth directly and needlessly hurling insults or engaging in leftist suppressions of speech.
I agree. That’s why I referenced your comment, Jamie. At the same time, Henry is trying to persuade by explaining all the things that are wrong with our society due to progressive strategies. I’m suggesting that we have to attack the “noble instigators” themselves; they are dishonorable people who are misleading the people. The catch is that it’s very difficult to do. It would require a lot of patience to stay in that mode. But I think it’s possible and I personally would want to do just what you are describing.
I agree with Prof. Hanson’s description but that is not what’s being proposed in the OP. Now that war seems inevitable, it must be waged fiercely and completely. That is not consonant with reluctance “to embrace anything distasteful.” Fierce warfare is no garden party; it’s going to be distasteful. Neville Chamberlain was the one who didn’t want to embrace anything distasteful or “surrender[ing] the high ground.” Does anyone remember what went on during WW II?
I like your point, Songwriter. There are two things I don’t understand, however. I’m not saying we must become like our opposition; several people keep assuming that. But we must be fierce and honest, not attack them for the sake of attacking them. Also, we need to be fearless. Perhaps people are holding back because they are afraid. I think people must examine the reasons for their fears–this could be a critical stage. Are they afraid of being rejected, disliked, or discounted? By whom? I know I was afraid to speak up about my own ideas; but there’s a certain liberation in being true to one’s self.