“You think that the US shouldn’t take in Syrian refugees because you just hate people that don’t look like you,” the young liberal (still dependent on her parents) pretentiously chided at me. At that moment, I was taken aback at the arrogance of her statement.
Somehow, this young woman was able to disregard all of my reasoning for my stance, and assume that she knew exactly what was going on in my head. She was able to bypass all my arguments, such as “terrorism will increase because we have no way of vetting these people,” or “people that come from Muslim dictatorships have historically had a very difficult time assimilating into western cultures,” as lies. She believed that my valid objections were completely fabricated and therefore irrelevant because they were just a front for my hidden racism.
After this woman proclaimed this unfounded and false accusation, any additional argument that I made were in vein. She smirked at me, like a two-year-old who gets her way, as I tried to defend my position. I said “It’s not racism, I want the US to help and believe that the best course of action is to set up safe havens within Syria. This way we get to let them stay in their country, and we keep them safe!” But it was too late. She had convinced herself that she had won the argument, even though she never was able to successfully negate any of my points.
I came to the realization that I had fallen victim of the ever popular, leftist tactic of, “attack the person not the argument.” For years, the left has been able to evade having to negate valid points, by simply attributing some false motive or attacking the character of their opponent.
When a progressive exclaims that the only reason anyone would oppose affirmative action is because they’re racist, they don’t have to explain the obvious flaws in the policy, or why it hasn’t help the black community. When a democrat proudly states that anyone who wants taxes and regulations reduced secretly just hates the poor, they no longer have to discuss the ever-expanding, wasteful federal government and its failings to serve the people.
The right, for some time, has known about this tactic. But for some reason, most of the time it’s used, it allows a dimwitted progressive to undergo the mental gymnastics of being the victor of the argument. Sadly, they do this without having argued one point that was made.
I suppose the biggest question that the right has to face is, “why haven’t we come up with a good defense against it?” Why haven’t we been able to successfully shut this onslaught down and force the progressives to provide valid arguments?
A big reason is that, when most people are called something evil like a racist, they want to immediately get rid of that stigma. However, the moment that you begin to list reasons why you are not an evil racist, it makes it seem like your opponent’s arguments has some validity. While you are rattling off points on why you aren’t an evil person, it is only enhancing their argument, because you are responding to such an invalid criticism with a serious response.
In order to turn this franchise around, I believe that I have a defense to a play that has been killing conservatives for years. Whenever someone is confronted with some false character assassination, they need to immediately identify and point it out. After identifying the tactic, one needs to throw it right back by saying, “I believe that you are using the trick because don’t’ have a valid defense to my point.”
For example, conservatives like to make a point like, “socialism doesn’t work because it not only strangles the free market, but it gives too much power to the government. This is why 99% of socialist regimes in the past have turned into violent dictatorships, that starves its own people.” A usual leftist response is, “you don’t like socialism because you hate the poor, and you don’t want to help other people.” If you start responding about why you don’t hate the poor, you give them validity. But if you respond with, “you are trying to attack my character because you can’t negate what I’m saying. You have no idea my motive behind my stance, so in order to continue, please argue where and why I’m wrong.”
Do I believe that response is going to make your leftist opponent see the light and convert to conservatism? No. But I do believe that it forces them to have to argue their points and further think out their inconsistencies. More importantly, some people that are watching the argument take place, will realize that leftist are just shallow thinking, emotional driving, narcissist who couldn’t construct a valid point of view if it hit them in their hollow heads.
Fortunately for conservatives, we have truth and logic on our side. Unfortunately for conservatives, the left are masters at evading and avoiding true arguments. They are masters at emotional and mental manipulation and the only way we can win this war, is if we have valid defenses against their onslaught.
