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.
The Mindset and the Frame
Both @susanquinn and @henryracette have written responses to my last post, one more favorable than the other. After reading these and many of the comments, I would like to clarify my intentions and proposed strategy.
First, I do not advocate merely some enraged, scorched earth, wild, and unfocused assault on “the enemy”. I emphatically propose that we fight, but we need to do so intelligently. Indeed, we should “choose our battles”, only proactively choosing to actually battle from time to time instead of perpetually using “choose your battles” to rationalize postponing the battle for another day that never comes.
Second, in no way do I advocate that we surrender our principles or “lower our standards”. Instead, I advocate that as we fight for our higher principles of Liberty and Justice that we simultaneously recognize the lower principles of human nature and brute incentives. As essential as correctly discerning how things should be is, we’ve hope of manifesting our ideals only through recognizing how things currently are and acting accordingly. Our standards for what we believe or even how arguments should be conducted should never be “lowered”. However, reality being what it is, pretending that people are more noble than they are and thus exclusively resorting to wise proverbs in verbal smackdown contests renders us impotent.
The first of two related issues I’ve been addressing is mindset. To the Left, virtually every political fight immediately boils down to an urgent question of life and death. Whether discussing health care, the greenhouse effect/global warming/climate change/climate disruption, race, or allowing the transgendered to use whatever bathroom, they equate opposition to their policies with oppression and death. Thus, as saviors of humanity, they feel not only justified but compelled to use whatever tactic possible to stymie us at every turn. No issue is too small or unimportant to use as justification for political war. Despite occasional setbacks for going overboard, this mindset puts them perpetually on the offensive. Not coincidentally, note how difficult we find it to roll back nearly anything they’ve done.
Conversely, our mindset is one of relative passivity. As the left fights monsters, vultures, and demagogues, we merely disagree with people who just need to learn a bit more about economics. As they ferociously struggle to avoid any loss on any issue either political or cultural, we give the impression that we’re used to coming up short, content with possibly recouping our losses sometime a few years down the road. We meet the ferocity of their insults with either dignified responses that strike supporters as weakness or indifference, inspiring leftists to insult us even more. Or we just criticize other Republicans.
We can have good faith disagreements over how best to retaliate against these cultural and political onslaughts, but we’ve got to discard the “let it roll of our backs” passive mentality that so many of our leaders exemplify. Although the aforementioned Henry Racette and I may disagree over how we should respond, at least we agree that we’ve got to respond with more force than we’ve been using.
However, I don’t advocate that we ever become like our rabid counterparts on the left. There’s a balance between indifference and obsession, that mental space from which you recognize the importance and urgency of doing what needs to be done while simultaneously avoiding the desperation that both turns off potential supporters and precludes the possibility of actually having any fun. If you’re searching for employment and really need a job, the most effective approach is to do whatever you need to do to find one without being so desperate that you subconsciously repulse anyone who might employ you. That said, caring too much (like them) accomplishes more than not caring enough (like us).
The second issue is that of framing. Ideas and individuals currently “win” political debates based on side-issues like coolness, motivation (sensitivity and caring versus wanting people to die), who’s able to keep the other side from even making its point, emotional sob stories, whichever variation of shut up! (“Check your privilege!”, “only scientists who believe in man-made global warming have a right to speak”, etc.) “how much he cares about people like me”, the year (“You believe that in 2017?”), and a host of other inanities that have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not a given politician, policy, or idea has any merit.
Nevertheless, those who (correctly) reject the objective legitimacy of these frames frequently render themselves irrelevant when confronted with them. “Being more likeable than my opponent shouldn’t determine whether or not anyone votes for me, so I’m neither going to try to be more likeable, make my opponent less likeable, nor find a way to ensure my lack of likeability keeps people from voting for me. I’m just going to pretend it’s not an issue because it shouldn’t be one.” An example of this is our hesitancy to match the pro-Obamacare sob stories with our own (of which there are plenty); we prefer statistics and studies to tears, then retreat when public opinion turns against us.
Yet as ridiculous as these frames may be, they do set the current “terms of debate”, and we can’t pretend them away. Hence my call for a bit more “brutality”, for the first and most essential way to stop somebody from doing something is to punish him for doing it. Our societal consciousness isn’t going to change in a week, so until society no longer determines the merits of a policy based on sob stories, we’ve got to come up with more and better sob stories than the other side. For once let’s frame them as the heartless bastards who want people to spend ungodly percentages of their income of health insurance that doesn’t even help them because deductibles are so high. Why should the big-city aristocracies that perpetually accuse us of wanting to keep blacks poor and oppressed be exempt from having their motivations called into question, especially when nobody benefits more than Democrat elites from blacks remaining poor and dependent? If Democrats want to play the politics of envy, why should we allow Washington elites to focus everyone’s envy on successful small businessmen, especially when nobody merits envy more than those very Democrats themselves? If reporters can ruin our lives for saying something controversial on Facebook, why shouldn’t we be able to ruin theirs? There are innumerable ways to turn the rules that they establish for us back on them, and unless we do, they’re going to keep those rules in place.
Thus, although I agree with most of Racette’s bullet points and believe we should use them whenever possible, as it stands now it’s only possible if and when we successfully attack their frame. No matter how well-argued our points on the minimum wage, decrepit urban schools, or vote fraud, you’re just racist! is currently an effective retort that immediately puts us on the defensive and de-legitimizes our views in the hearts of too many observers. Therefore, we’ve got to be prepared to attack anyone using that accusation so mercilessly that neither the person who used it nor anyone who witnesses the interaction wants to use it again. Until and unless we do, we’re just nibbling around the edges of the “does he or doesn’t he care?” frame that serves Democratic interests so well.
During personal interactions, when I hear whatever variation of Republicans are stupid and/or evil I make it clear to my conversation partner that he or she has made a grave mistake. I may or may not proceed to attack the very mindset of anyone who would say such a thing and immediately follow up with a mix of triggers both emotional (insults) and intellectual (facts and arguments similar to those listed by Racette) so disconcerting that they either immediately retreat or make slobbering fools of themselves, but I make it abundantly clear that I could. How I calibrate myself varies depending on too many particulars to describe here, but I’m usually successful at inspiring some sort of contrition. I then switch back to the “high ground”, setting a rational and reasonable frame that benefits our side instead of theirs.
Obviously, how to attack the frames that so benefit leftism will vary considerably depending on whether we’re doing it at a backyard barbecue, as a talking head on CNN, or while orchestrating an ad campaign; how we re-frame issues as individuals will differ in some particulars from how we re-frame in the aggregate. Nevertheless, it needs to be done, and until we do it far too many of our well-reasoned arguments will fall of deaf ears, if on any ears at all. Thus, we don’t need to descend into some rhetorical gutter (we’re already in one), we need to get out of the gutter, but we’re only going to get out if we give those holding us down here a swift kick or two. Once we’re out and able to redeploy to the proverbial high ground from a position of strength, then, and only then, can we once again re-establish the norms of noble and reasoned decorum so many of us crave.
Published in Education
I’ve been looking forward to this, “Charles.” I’ll sit down and give it a serious reading this evening. — H.
Well done, Martel. I want to ponder this OP just like Henry, but I’m about to go off line for the Sabbath. I did want to mention one specific strategy; I don’t know if it fully aligns with your thinking. On sawatdeeka’s OP she spoke of a statement in HuffPo that said all whites are racist. I suggested to her that if a person said that to me, I’d say in return, “Well, since you are a white person (assuming that person is), tell me when you last acted racist or made a racist statement.” The person will probably dodge my question, so I’d ask it again–“I don’t think you answered my question: when did you last make a racist statement, and when did you say it?” At that point, they will probably mumble something, get really nasty, or walk away. But I will have made the point.
To the Left, virtually every political fight immediately boils down to an urgent question of life and death. Whether discussing health care, the greenhouse effect/global warming/climate change/climate disruption, race, or allowing the transgendered to use whatever bathroom, they equate opposition to their policies with oppression and death. Thus, as saviors of humanity, they feel not only justified but compelled to use whatever tactic possible to stymie us at every turn. No issue is too small or unimportant to use as justification for political war.
The above says it all, and so well. Martel, you had it right in your first post and in this one. Don’t listen to pompous windbags. Hold your ground.
Let’s be clear that Mona doesn’t feel this way about Trump. So, it’s not a general approach that she is suggesting — it’s one aimed only at the left. Her opponents on the right get the exact treatment that you are suggesting we use everywhere and especially on the left.
I look forward to your response.
In the meantime:. Bono, Rihanna, Stendahl, Buckethead, Nimrod, Madonna, Pocahontas, Buckethead, Cher, Montezuma, Bjork, Moliere, Slash, Nena.
Sometimes just one name’s enough.
I’m just curious as to how you all would handle this cute little anarchist Yvette Felarca who is the sociopath behind By Any Means Necessary (BAMN).
She led the riot on Berkeley campus that shut down the Milo event a few months back and here she is seen attacking the most peaceful, passive white supremacist I’ve ever seen. She was arrested yesterday for inciting the riot seen below, but she’s out today. Make no mistake about it, when she says “fascist” she means you. Nothing you can do will placate her or her antifa foot soldiers. She wants you dead. Did I mention she’s a middle school teacher?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuWoQfZgW7M
This is the natural progression of what Martel was talking about. The left has so thoroughly demonized everyone with a differing point of view that their followers feel it’s not only okay but actually righteous to commit violence against us. If the assassination attempt at the Republican baseball game didn’t wake people up, then I don’t know what it would take.
I know one thing: Sitting around in silk smoking jackets pontificating about the Marquess of Queensbury code isn’t going to cut it.
Agreed on all acounts.
Fact: The white nationalist being beaten in the video above had a permit to protest on the Sacramento Capitol. Felarca and her thugs had no permit, but they seized the initiative and you saw what happened.
But no one wants to answer the following questions:
Is it permissible to stand one’s ground and defend oneself against these violent antifa brown shirts?
In essence, what I’m asking is do we have the right to protest, or can they just shut us down?
Is it worth fighting over, or should we trust in the California justice system to adjudicate Ms. Felarca and her thugs?
As far as she’s personally concerned, I think at the time somebody should have beaten the snot out of her. (Sorry, but certain behaviors negate that “never hit a woman” thing.)
But more importantly, it’s how I would handle the rest of the Left in relation to her. Are we forcing them to renounce her? When reporters try to associate us with David Duke, are we throwing it back in their faces that they’re not associating Bernie Sanders with her? Do we have an easy to access record of every reporter and politician who’s blamed Palin for the Giffords shooting ready to go so that we can blame them the next time a fan of one of their shows gets violent? Are we policing Democrats like Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi for their incendiary rhetoric about Republicans hoping to deprive people of health care so that when global warming fries them it will make their rich buddies even richer?
Until Rush Limbaugh stops getting blamed for whatever nutjob hurts a Democrat (who never even listened to his show), we should do everything in our power to associate Rachel Maddow with what her actual fans do to us.
That’s a decent approach if you’re talking to a white person.
If talking to a black, I’d ask if Andrew Goodman or Mickey Schwerner were racists (Or John Brown or any other white who died for Civil Rights, bonus points if she doesn’t know who they were). If she says that they were, I’d reply “So even if you die trying to help African-Americans, you’re still a racist. Do you maybe understand why people aren’t as worried about being called “racist” as they used to be?”
I know that’s not a serious question. Maybe it is how do we force the California justice system to do their job? Trust but verify, right?
Note the neutral description of the event by Wapo:
Violence “erupted” and it’s not clear who the agent of the violence was, despite the “video and still images” (linked above) and Felarca’s quote reported in that very same Wapo report:
The indefensible ideology of the white nationalists involved is described in detail in the Wapo piece, but the indefensible actions of the antifa thugs is described in neutral prose. Wapo knows what happened. They don’t care.
In most cases, the right is entirely to blame. When it’s beyond impossible to lay the entire blame on the right, then “both sides” need to tone it down.
Until the next possible opportunity, at which point blame it all on us again.
It’s either just the right or in extreme cases both sides, but never never never just the left.
I don’t like the Traditional Worker Party’s racist ideology, but as the Sacramento Mayor said they had a right to be there. Also, they were clearly not the aggressors. Using your strategy described above, I’d like the Washington Post to answer for their reporting on this incident. Who was the aggressor? Please tell us more about Sacramento Antifa and the By Any Means Necessary group. That second one sounds pretty suspicious, don’t you think, Mr. reporter?
Hammer, I appreciate your passion, and your eloquence. And you’re correct, I think, that you and I would like to live in approximately the same world, whether or not we differ on how best to get there.
We agree about the general debauchery of the left, about its dishonesty, its willingness to break any rule to make its point, and the corruption of its various enablers. We agree that the right (and I’ll just use “left” and “right” in this note, to keep it simple) needs to be more engaged, more productively engaged, and more aggressively engaged. I knew we agreed about that from the outset, and that’s why I mentioned in my original response to you that there was “much to like” in what you’d written.
This is where you would expect a “But,” but there isn’t going to be one. Having twice read this latest post, I remain uncertain about how, exactly, we differ. You use phrases that hint that perhaps we don’t differ at all.
You say “I don’t advocate that we ever become like our rabid counterparts on the left.” Bravo! We are in accord.
You say: “[I]n no way do I advocate that we surrender our principles or ‘lower our standards’.” Again, we agree.
What you *don’t* say is how you and I differ. I gather, from your post, that you think I want a gentlemanly exchange with my counterparts on the left, preferably over a decent glass of brandy and a fine cigar. We’re all civilized people here, obviously. Surely we can come to some amicable agreement acceptable to all parties, what?
Nothing could be further from the truth. I think the left is as broken and dysfunctional as I said above. I think we should pick fights with them, contradict them in ways they find painfully offensive, use every trigger word we can to get our points across, crowd their safe spaces and make the fragile little pansies face the vapidity of their views. And, if in such an encounter, one of the melting snowflakes lashes out, then deck him and call it self-defense. I’m good with that; more of that has to happen.
(cont’d)
You are all missing the single crucial element of the media. They have the high ground and they are the ones who are defending and protecting scum like this fascist woman. It must be fought on the higher level to work. Street skirmishes won’t change a thing for the better. Why? Because the truth won’t come out. Trump and the elites at the top need to fight this battle because that is where it is coming from and who are protecting it.
Our conservative elites don’t or won’t fight in an effective way. These present elites were selected using a different set of principles and we need to find Churchills not Chamberlains, Pattons not Petains.
(cont’d – part 2)
But I’ll be clear, in hopes that, if you and I do disagree about something, you can tell me what it is.
I do not want my side to prohibit free expression, even to teach the louts on the left a lesson.
I don’t believe we should because the respect for free expression is one of our sacred values, and I don’t want my side compromising on that. I don’t mind breaking their stupid speech codes. I don’t mind saying things that make their little toes curl. I don’t mind being blunt and disagreeable and loud and emphatic. I’m good with all of that.
But I don’t want to do the single worst thing they do, which is prevent the expression of ideas — even ideas I find contemptible. I don’t ever want them to be able to say “you did it too!” and have to answer “well, yeah, but you did it first!” I want to be able to say “no, I never did.”
I do not want my side to abuse the innocent in order to put pressure on the guilty.
That’s a high-sounding way of saying that I don’t want to go after the children of contemptible people. This is something the left does — see Sarah Palin as a classic example. I want no part of it. [I don’t think Sarah Palin is contemptible.]
I do not want my side to initiate violence.
Make no mistake, I don’t mind provoking violence. I don’t mind being in-your-face, blunt and offensive. The left is often unhinged and irrational, and relatively easy to provoke. By all means, provoke them. But don’t initiate violence.
I don’t want my side to lie.
Again, that’s the left’s schtick. I don’t want to do that. I want to be able to say “we want people to understand us. We don’t want to lie our way to power.”
That’s really it. Beyond that, we might quibble about optics, about what kind of outspoken opinions from the right do the most good and which tend to backfire. We might disagree about tone. But there’s room for all kinds of debaters, from the fierce soldiers of the right (as I suspect you are) to the, now what was his phrase?, “pompous windbags” of the right. Like, I guess, me. We all have our role. Some people are persuaded by the call to battle, and others by thoughtful and persuasive essays. There’s room for all of it, because all kinds of people need to be persuaded.
There. I’ve stated my parameters, my limits, the sina qua non of what I think is a decent and honorable discourse.
Are we in agreement? If not, help me understand, specifically, where we differ.
Thanks. I do appreciate your thought and effort. And, of course, we’re on the same side.
— Hank
If you are a powerful politician whose 24 y/o son takes part in political violence, and you excuse it with the wave of a hand, I’m A-okay calling you and your son out. Adults should be held accountable for their actions.
Blood, you understand, don’t you, that this isn’t an example of what I’m talking about? The son isn’t innocent — he engaged in political violence. His father isn’t innocent, in that he’s condoning it. (If he’s in a position of authority, this may be worse than a simple moral failing.)
I’ll stand by my original statement:
I do not want my side to abuse the innocent in order to put pressure on the guilty.
If you want to come up with an example of abuse, punishment, etc., being directed at an actually innocent person that you’d like to defend, I’ll be happy to respond.
Then we are in agreement on this point. I have no such example. Attacking innocent people, be they minor children of execrable people or lawfully protesting people with execrable beliefs. None should be attacked for political advantage.
This is a good example of how you are doing the same old thing.
Be aware that this will be used against you. To them you are already a liar. So, you will be called one and they will convince many people that you are a hypocrite because you say that lying is bad and yet you are a liar on this or that.
The first rule of politics is to craft a method to win. Don’t talk about your virtues and never tell these people things you will never do.
Okay. So….
What I’m saying is pretty simple: I don’t want my side to lie. I hope it was clear from the context: I don’t want us to lie to the voters, to America, to the people we’re trying to persuade to our cause.
If you want to encourage our side — conservatives — to lie to people to persuade them, say it. Come out and say it. Then we can simply disagree. But have the guts to say, “yes, I want us to lie to people to convince them to embrace our views,” if that’s what you believe.
Because I’m say it isn’t what I believe.
There you go getting all posturing about it.
My advice is just don’t say what your values are — keep them guessing and never apologize for things you didn’t do. For example, I knew that Jeff Sessions is a sucker when he recused himself. He was so anxious to show the media that he’s a reasonable guy. He’s not perceived that way now — he’s just a mark, a sucker. What a stupid thing for him to have done.
“But, he can look himself in the mirror, Larry. He can stand tall.”
Good luck with that — it hasn’t worked for the last 100 years so don’t expect it to work now.
Why wouldn’t I want my fellow conservatives to know what my values are? Why would I want to keep them guessing?
I’m talking to my fellow conservatives, here on Ricochet, about what I think we should do, and why.
However, even if I weren’t, I think your advice is wrong-minded. Talking about our values is exactly what we should be doing.
Tell me where it’s worked. Show me some positive result from this, please.
Feeling good about yourself is not a policy nor a strategy — it is a way of doing something, anything but what needs to be done.
So, if I understand you correctly, you’re objecting to the fact that I’m cautioning my fellow conservatives to be non-violent, to not trod on other people’s Constitutional liberties, to not abuse innocent people, and to be truthful to the people they’re trying to persuade.
Got it. Your objection is noted. Have a great night.
The side willing to fight in the streets always ends up winning in history.
Exactly, the revolution starts out with legitimate grievances expressed by reasonable, ordinary people. Then those grievances are distilled into an ideology by a radical but highly organized fringe (Bolsheviks, Nazi’s, Muslim Brotherhood, etc.).
I’m afraid not. You’re not accounting for the self-hatred of people like that. The person would enthusiastically and passionately declare that he/she has never, throughout his/her life to date, made any statement that was not racist. The very existence of white people is racist. But he/she is so, so, superior to benighted you, because you don’t even realize it! You are “in denial”. (That retort, btw, is the last refuge of the passionately stupid.)
straw man