February 25th, 2009
How to deal with liberals. Part one: Learn to distinguish between open-minded liberals and lost causes.
Figuring out the difference between which liberals to befriend and which ones to manage will save a lot of valuable resources, notably time. You wouldn’t date anyone immune to your charms, so why would you talk politics with someone who’s demonstrated no inclination to respect your beliefs? To keep from speaking in vain, learn how to distinguish liberals who may be receptive to conservatism’s message from those who won’t budge. At first, we might assume that includes all of them, if only because our personalities are shaped by an extraordinary range of variables. That may be true, but refusing to recognize the difference between generally tolerant individualists and stubborn idealists will help make real dialogue with the left possible, as opposed to an interpersonal quagmire.
Weeding through the left’s ranks, we can immediately rule out reaching out to people who are afflicted with psychological disorders, not only to avoid cruel exploitation, but also to protect us from their unpredictability. I don’t know who Charlie Manson would vote for, but he would make a terrible political acquaintance. After he carves an elephant into his forehead, the G.O.P. would immediately lose a hundred years of progress.
Those without a conscience should also be vetted out. Develop the ability to spot liberals with a reasonable capacity for empathy. For example, when talking to potential liberal subjects, see if their eyes light up when someone artfully explains what “neo-conservatism” actually is. If they respond by yawning or turning away, they’ve probably made up their minds about “neo-cons,” which makes political conversations with them pretty much useless. But if you suspect curiosity on their part, you may be sensing an opportunity to delight them.
Through example (I’ll expand on this in the future) Ann Coulter teaches a lesson about peering into the hearts of liberals. Because so many Americans are polite, middle-class, and conventional (right down to their political activism, which is manufactured by movies such as An Inconvenient Truth) it can be difficult to tell whether or not the liberal you are talking to is an everyday Joe or a deep blue activist. We can test them by saying something ambiguous, something which can be read in several ways. Float a bland opinion towards your target. Say that Ronald Reagan was a wonderful President. Moderates will either politely disagree or not care. Left-wing activists, on the other hand, will spout off about Reagan’s alleged assault on school lunch menus, Iran-Contra, and even AIDS. We know we’re talking to an unmovable object if they include snide remarks about Alzheimer’s disease.
If the historian Robert Greene is correct when he says “a perfectly satisfied person cannot be seduced,” then the third group of liberals to forget about includes those whose comfortable lives make change seem threatening. Professors who make six figures a year, committed family men, and rich entertainers are stubborn precisely because they don’t want to risk challenging their comfortable status quo. One reason leftist radicals hate happy, traditional families is because someone whose ultimate obligation is to their family likely won’t leap at the opportunity to be obligated to an ideology instead. This cuts both ways. If your anti-conservative subject has established a day to day routine, consider another target. They have no incentive open themselves to us. Their families, friends, and occupations compete with politics to fill their emotional voids. The hard work it would take to reexamine their liberalism could veer them away from the sheltered American life they’re accustomed to. Better to focus on more vulnerable demographs, such as students, fumbling young adults, and political independents.
When surveying potential mates, remember that what a person says about their beliefs doesn’t necessarily indicate their willingness to accept change. When given a strict choice between the two, look your target’s capacity to consider your viewpoint, rather than their demeanor. The most polite liberals in the world can also be the most hardened. The civil PBS crowd is one of the last places a conservative should expect to receive a fair hearing. Conversely, loud, demonstrative liberals are not necessarily the most difficult to exchange ideas with. Ward Churchill has debated David Horowitz in good faith. Rosie O’Donnell has given a thoughtful interview to Bill O’Reilly. Bill Mahler is friendly with Ann Coulter (not that way, I think). In more general terms, someone who shouts through a microphone that they support amnesty for illegal aliens may not have any real justification for their beliefs. They may even agree with all the reasons people oppose amnesty (such as that it rewards people who hold America’s immigration laws in contempt)! To put it another way: “No on proposition 19” doesn’t always mean “No on proposition 19.”
One of my best friends, we’ll call him “Silent Bob,” leans noticeably to the left. How left? He enjoys books by Barbara Ehrenreich. At face value, that alone could make him a lost cause. Socialist literature doesn’t exactly engender an easy-going attitude.
The first time we ever hung out, we argued politics for hours. He would invariably posit the liberal side of issues such as the Iraq War, and I would defend conservatism on whatever front he attacked. He didn’t hold back, calling G.W. a “f**king idiot” and the like. At times, he sounded more like Keith Olbermann than a normal person. Usually these things end like a western marriage—with murder-suicide, but my initial discussion with Silent Bob defied our meaningless philosophical differences.
He passionately presented his beliefs, yet this didn’t keep him from digesting mine, even if he didn’t always like how they tasted. To this day still don’t agree on a whole lot; he probably still votes for everyone I vote against. None of that matters. What’s meaningful is that he doesn’t view conservatives as lesser people than anyone else. I’m not aiming low; this is a success story: subverting irrational devotion to the left will make us more friends than demanding any kind of allegiance to the right. On a face-to-face basis, liberal confrontation on the meaning of conservatism is always preferable to liberal indifference.
In summary, the first step to dealing with liberals involves identifying the open-minded ones. The best way to do this is to look past how outspoken they are, and instead concentrate on how much they’re willing to listen to conservative discourse. If someone refuses to empathize with you, despite a good faith attempt on your part to do the same, you have enough of a moral high ground to dismiss them.
Cross-posted at 