 |
|
| Coldheart's Truth |
 |
| Why the liberals are losing the battle |
| To Home Page |
| To Discuss this and other Truths...... |
| Even though many do not want to admit it� the liberals are losing. They lost the Presidency; they have lost seats in the House and Senate; they have come up short on the legislative issues of the day; and they are losing in the polls. Most importantly, however, they have been losing the debates. They lost the tax-cut debate in 2001, they lost the homeland security debates in 2002, and they lost the Iraqi war debate in 2003. But, leave it to the hardcore left to come up with a change of pace solution that will ensure them plenty of victorious debates in the future� Rather than debate actual conservatives, they will simply leave them out of it all together, and hog the whole debate themselves. Why bother with those pesky real life views, when it is so much easier to make up the opponent�s views yourself in such a manner that it is easy to discount. It is really quite clever, ladies and gentlemen. It is the straw man argument taken to a whole other level. And it has become increasingly popular recently at all levels of debate� from Yahoo message boards, to journalists, to politicians. You don�t need an opponent, you don�t need any real evidence, and you don�t even need to be intellectually honest. An example?? How about the recent attacks on Bush and Blair over the WMD?? Lets travel back in time to the debate about whether or not we should go to war with Iraq. One of the main criticisms coming from the liberal crowds was the multiple reasons given for war. I read one journalists comparing it to Baskin Robbins flavor of the week. First it was human rights violations, then it was evil dictator, then it was links to terrorism, then it was WMD, then it was failure to comply to UN inspections, then it was humanitarian issues, etc� etc� �They cannot make up their minds on why to go to war with Iraq� was the oft repeated theme. Many conservatives attempted to explain to these thick headed debaters that it was actually possible that you might find more than one reason to do something. That, in fact, multiple reasons might make a stronger case than one single reason. Unfortunately those responses fell on deaf ears. Now these same intellectual elites have determined that the �only� reason Bush gave to go to war, and the �only� reason that conservatives backed war was the possibility that we would find WMD. The inconvenience of bringing the debate head on to a conservative who supported the war� is that they may not actually fit the narrow description described in this particular debate. So they simply skip the whole head on deal all together. This allows them to argue the hypothetical amongst themselves, lumping the conservative debated into one simple little argument that they can all take turns tearing apart into little pieces. And my, oh my, it is backslaps and high fives all around when they actually defeat this made up opponent. With such dominate performances, surely they will convince the convincible that they were right, and conservatives were wrong?? Or will they?? Problem, boys and girls, is that unless the person witnessing the debate falls into this made up category, all they see is an argument between two views that do not correlate to their own view. If you are one of the 80% or so that support the war regardless of whether or not WMD are found� it really doesn�t matter to you that people who only supported the war contingent on the finding of WMD might be wrong. Since most reasonable people remember several reasons given by the administration to go to war, they are not going to fall into line with an argument that ignores that reality and creates a new one where there was only one reason given. Another example. The other day, I saw Michael Moore talking about conservatives. He called them RINOs� as in �Republicans in name only�. He explained that most conservatives actually agreed with liberals on pretty much all the core issues, but were simply Republicans because they are selfish and wanted a tax-cut. Suppose he could find a few RINOs in the real world to debate with?? Probably not� but it wont stop him from telling us why these made up people are wrong, much to the pleasure of the far left liberal crowds. Of course, he won�t change anyone�s mind about the issue� unless of course there happens to be a few pro-choice, pro-entitlement, anti-war socialists who are simply voting Republican for the tax-cut. Bottom line�. If you find yourself spending time defining both sides of the debate instead of spending that time listening or reading what the other side is actually arguing� then you are wasting your time, and you might as well not bother. It may make you feel good to actually win one for a change, but the coldhearted truth is that it is a hollow victory at best. |
| 6-2-2003 |