THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume V, Issue # 62, March 16, 2003
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
THE SMUGLY SELF-RIGHTEOUS POLITICAL LEFT:
HOW LEFTISTS ARGUE THEIR CASE
By Paul Walfield
Virtually everyone who finds themselves in a position of losing an argument, especially on a subject they hold dear, has a tendency to make ad hominem attacks. They can call their opponent anything from dumb to being in poor physical condition. Whatever the personal attack is, it is viewed by those who care as being, not just inappropriate, but also a sign that you have lost the debate.
Many people who argue for a living, like lawyers, have a few tricks of the trade that, while not appearing to be an attack on the surface, nonetheless, makes it plain that the individual you are debating is playing with less than a full deck.
Generally, the more subtle the revelation about someone's inability to grasp what most others take in stride, the stronger the impact on those who judge.
Many pundits, journalists, and the like have a tendency to describe their opponents in some very harsh terms. The more vociferous the criticism of ones opposite side, the more sanctimonious the critic appears.
On the other hand, like all generalities, there are exceptions. Take a position that is Right of Center and see what lies (pun intended) on the opposite side.
In order to have a debate, there is, of course, the need to argue one's side and, when confronted with an opposing argument, you need to pull up facts that either support your claim, contradict your opponents claim, or both.
Ok, now suppose your opponent has no argument, just a slogan, say, "inspections work, war won't." You ask, "Why do you believe inspections work?" Your opponent re- sponds, "They must be given a chance." You respond, "If they need to be 'given a chance,' doesn't that mean they aren't working yet?" Your opponent responds, "War is evil."
You get the idea. There is no American argument for not going to war against Iraq based on UN Resolution 1441 and the prior UN resolutions calling for the disarmament of Iraq.
As was pointed out by journalist Michael Kelly in an article for the Washington Post, being against war with the Iraqi regime is in "furtherance of evil instead of the van- quishing of evil."
Why would otherwise apparently decent folks lend their support to a movement that furthers evil? If and when confronted with facts, logic and reality, why do these same people resort to slogans or diversions? More to the point, when confronted with an argument that is in direct opposition to their position, why do these people not under- stand the power and logic of confronting the opposing argument with an actual argument, with facts and logic?
There are really only a couple of explanations for that kind of behavior. One, of course, is that they are, in reality, malevolent characters that like the idea of a tyrant with weap- ons of mass destruction threatening and, in effect, weakening the world's sole super- power--malevolent characters who don't give a hoot about the people of Iraq or its neighbors.
However, assuming that the individuals are not malevolent, why then do they close their eyes to logical and sound reasoning, and choose slogans, a kind of form over substance?
They could just be stubborn and simply feel "if you don't know, they certainly aren't going to tell you," or, they are stupid.
Not following an event to its logical conclusion, while trying to make a point by repeating slogans without facts supporting the slogan or slogans, is exasperating to someone op- posing your position.
When someone makes a fevered call for a particular action or inaction without being able to justify his or her call with facts, as presented by the reality surrounding the action, is senseless.
Finally, when one makes an argument, takes a stand, and holds their position in the face of reasonable facts to the contrary, without the ability to articulate why, that is displaying a fair amount of dullness.
Watching, listening, and trying to understand the political Left's position on many sub- jects is fascinating. The political Left's positions are, at the same time, principled and shallow, and, all the while, the positions are without any foundation other than the emo- tional state of the holder.
What is equally intriguing is the way they tell you how you should view them. They say they are "progressives," and they are concerned about all living things. This description is the exact opposite of what they champion and who they really are. Yet they smugly insist, as they do in all their other endeavors, that you must see them as they say they are, not as defined by what they actually do. You must, instead, disregard the facts and "feel."
Adding up the results of a debate, the political Left comes away with being exasperating, senseless, and dull. If you take them together and look at a dictionary, guess what ex- pression describes, the political Left?
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
Liberals, Statists, Socialists, & Other Leftists
The Middle East & the Problem of Iraq
Page Two
Page One
The Problem of Rogue States:
Iraq as a Case History
The Middle East & the Arabs
Islamism & Jihadism -- The Threat of Radical Islam
Page Three
Page Two
Page One
War & Peace in the Real World
Page Two
Page One
Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.A.
Osama bin Laden & the Islamist Declaration of War
Against the U.S.A. & Western Civilization
Islamist International Terrorism &
U.S. Intelligence Agencies
U.S. National Security Strategy
Paul Walfield is a freelance writer and member of the State Bar of California, with an undergraduate degree in Psychology and post-graduate study in behavioral and analyt- ical psychology. He resided for a number of years in the small town of Houlton, Maine, and is now a California attorney. His articles appear in numerous periodicals and on numerous websites. CONTACT INFORMATION: Email: paul.walfield@cox.net
Return to Top of Page
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE,
Volume V, 2003
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity