Totally agree, its imperative to be nice to all but the most hardcore Obama supporter (who cannot be redeemed) and not rub any salt into the wounds. Keep in mind that Obama’s election was as much the Republicans fault as anything else between 8 years of Bush and a horrific McCain campaign. It would be best to remind them that their vote was not entirely their fault and was understandable given the context. But a gentle reminder to not be fooled again doesn’t hurt!

“I can argue strongly the existing legal and historical case for the Federal Constitution, and leave teaching the Economics to the market. ”
Absolutely, and I think most libertarians will also begrudgingly concede that point. Where they get lost is in the rollback. We can’t go from 60 to 0 without flying through the windshield.

We got here through 60 years of pressure by the left, and it will take about that much time to undo the damage. We can’t just yank the social safety contracts away from people, we have to push the burden back to states, and then (for the libertarians at least) to the private sector. If we don’t, the results will be chaos and ultimately, bigger government.

I also think the days of defining right v left based only on social policy are rapidly waning. I don’t think you can separate economic education from social policy without sounding like a heartless cretin, especially in an era when the political core is the economy.

Here’s the thing, when our founders withdrew from the British they did so with a sharp knife that many found painful. The same is going to be necessary now.

And the social safety nets should be removed not moved down the line. Thrift and savings should be encouraged but not mandated by the government on ANY level.

My problem with reaching out with the olive branch is that so many on the left are so idiotic in their arguments, that more and more I just want to pound them with the branch rather than offer it in peace.

Churchill believed in magnamity to the defeated, but he was never in any doubt that they must indeed understand that they WERE defeated. When the Left stops cheerleading the destruction of America… something they’ve spent the last thirty years doing, remember… we can talk about ‘olive branches’ and having a beer together.

Great post, Smitty.

I am a conservative, “little r” republican who also wishes to protect the environment.

Lots of people on the left also wish to protect the environment.

So we share a common goal. My strategy is to explain why I think the Government is the worst means by which to achieve our shared goal. Softballs like, “The gov’t is bankrupt, so you can’t really trust them to be any good…also look how well they did in X, Y and Z disasters; We need local, community solutions.”

It can be done. We don’t need to treat everyone as blue-lagoon monsters just because they still believe the FedGov is the panacea.

What Smitty is saying, really, is that you are more likely to persuade others if they perceive you to be a Nice Guy, not an unyielding fanatic.

One of the things I’ve done in the past few years is to stop arguing with liberals in face-to-face encounters. Perhaps you are familiar with the experience I often have: You meet someone and, in the course of your meeting, the person discovers that you are a conservative and begins to make critical remarks. The person may not be hostile toward you personally, but they dislike your politics and so they try to provoke an argument by disparaging some famous person — usually George Bush, Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin — who epitomizes “conservative” in their mind.

Ten years ago, it was my habit to argue fiercely with such people until I realized I was doing my cause more harm than good. By being argumentative, all I was doing was reinforcing the negative stereotype of conservatives as strident and angry, and making the other person dislike me.

People are seldom persuaded by people they dislike, and argumentative people are disliked. Therefore, do not be argumentative in person-to-person encounters.

Nowadays, I encounter a liberal who shows a predisposition to provoke an argument, my reaction is, “Look, obviously you’re a liberal and I’m a conservative. If we talk about politics, we’re not going to agree about anything, so why bother? Let’s talk about something else.” And if they thereafter “break the truce” by trying to start another argument, I mildly and humorously chastise them for it.

Try to find things that you agree about, whether it’s sports or music or movies, and talk about those things. If the conversation turns to current events — the economy, terrorism, crime, etc. — try to avoid being a know-it-all. If the other person is particularly opinionated about something, let him blow off as much steam as he wants. You don’t have to endorse a view you disagree with, and you may wish to call attention to contradictory facts, but you’re not going to gain much ground by getting into a furious-back-and-forth.

The objective in such an encounter is to have the liberal walk away with the idea, “Hey, you know, that guy’s not all bad, even if he is a right-wing kook.”

Oh, one more thing: Humor wins.

There is a reason I cultivate the “Mr. Fun” persona. People like to have fun, and they like fun-loving people. Too often, conservatives are perceived (unfairly) as being anti-fun — a bunch of stuffy, uptight Doug Neidermeyers and Greg Marmalards sitting around Omega house in their preppy attire.

Screw that.

Eric Stratton, rush chairman, damned glad to meet ya!

Dave P. And we’ve been cleaning up the Yurpeen’s mess around the world ever since.

Stacy, I have that olive branch handy in the car trunk. It’s about two feet long, an inch and a half thick and wrapped in cloth electrician’s tape for a better grip.

I’d love to have an honest dialogue with a lefty, and lord knows I’ve tried often enough. But there is something wrong with the way these people think, not just what they think

It’s as though they’ve added another step to to five steps of dying: denial, anger, fear, blame someone else, bargaining and acceptance.

It’s hard to have an honest converation with someone who starts from the premise that you are a monster. It doesn’t help that virtually every flavor of “progressivism holds it acceptable to lie to your opponent to waste his time and energy.

I’ve settled for saying what I’ve got to say and writing what I’ve got to write. I don’t have time to handhold supposed grownups on their way to a belated adulthood.

“Oh, one more thing: Humor wins.

There is a reason I cultivate the “Mr. Fun” persona. People like to have fun, and they like fun-loving people. Too often, conservatives are perceived (unfairly) as being anti-fun — a bunch of stuffy, uptight Doug Neidermeyers and Greg Marmalards sitting around Omega house in their preppy attire.

Screw that.

Eric Stratton, rush chairman, damned glad to meet ya!”

Totally agree, Stacy. There is almost a sociological angle to it when engaging people. Our conservative crew has a good time, and people want to be a part of it, anddd we try to lasso people in. Everyone wants to have fun, and be included. “Gosh, these guys aren’t so bad afterall!” Does that mean I’ll be doing jagerbombs with Bill Kristol and Andrew Napolitano at CPAC? No, but I would! “Bill bro, we love you! but lighten up on us old school conservatives! Judge Nap, Bill doesn’t drink blood from a ruby-encrusted chalice, and is very thoughtful!”

Perez, perhaps you should rereand my post and see where I discuss Europeans? Or perhaps you shoulsd show me where in the history books Winston Churchill stopped short and made friends with the Axis Powers? The folks who made that war inevitable were the ones who agreed with you: that nihilists who deem themselves to be the select few, and everyone else to be untermensch, could be befriended and reasoned with.
“Reasonable” only works when the other side wants to be reasonable. If y’all want to be kinder, gentler with a bunch of folks who think that treason is acceptable as long as it’s against a Republican Administration, and that mass graves are kewl when they’re being filled by socialists… y’all go on ahead.

Tell me if that works out for you any better than it has between the Israelis and the Palistinians.

Oops: I owe an apology to M. Hilton: sorry, sir; I misunderstood you.

No problem, and I apologize for not having turned off the sock puppet. Thought I did.

More specifically, I was referring to the Europeans’ insane partitioning of Africa and the Middle East after the Great Wars with no regard for the cultures and aspirations of the people actually living there.

Google “Winston’s hiccup” or “Winston’s Belch” and see what comes up.

No, but HELL NO!!!!! Extend an olive branch to the party of treason? When has that ever done anything good for this country. They need to tarred and feathered and then run out of town ASAP.

Highlarious Picture!

You know, sometimes I read blog posts, and then respond not necessarily RE to the post, but just what I want to say.

I really should get meds for ADHD.

Great post. I’d like to weigh in.

I find that it is important to identify what species of progressive you are dealing with before encountering them in the wild.
Many aren’t as feral, so there is no reason to hit them with the duct-taped handled olive branch right out of the gate.

You’ll find that there are many, many liberals out there who only define themselves as such because they still believe it’s the quickest route to social acceptance. They are the ones that can be wooed by affability. Present them with Mr. Fun and show them a great night out and they are halfway into the tent.

Another variety is the liberal that had a friend that they really admired that majored in civics at the community college and became indoctrinated by osmosis. They can be deprogrammed with the same technique as above, but it will take more time and you will be doing some refutation of some bold proclamations made by the pseudo-liberal. Be nice, be smart and you’ll have another one in the tent.

I’m going to jump to the last variety. There are many before this one, but let’s cut right through the crapcake.
The worst variety is your activist, true believer, rabid progressive.
Forget trying to do anything with this species, except beating them with a blunt object and then setting them on fire to burn their brains, lest it infect anyone else. (This is hyperbolic comedy Mr. Secret Service man monitoring the right-wing terrorist innerwebz.) There is NO talking to them. None.
Don’t bother with them. It’s a waste of resources.
Agitprop, like the example in Smitty’s post, is not targeted at any of these varieties. Agitprop is for the casual political observer, fence sitters, independents. They are the ones who vote, but the thoughts that compel,them to pull a lever don’t go any deeper than, “I saw Obama in a cartoon farting into a birthday cake. I can’t vote for him.”
There are enough of these voters to win an election. It’s important to get certain perceptions into the ether. Ridicule is the perfect vehicle. Do not ever dismiss agitprop. It’s as potent than a well delivered speech by
a good candidate.
But remember, if you use it on the wrong species, just as Smitty is pointing out, there will be blowback. Be safe out there!

Perez Hilton is correct in that it’s pointless attempting to talk to leftists. And I believe Agnes has it exactly right as to how to engage in non-conversational actions with leftists. I see no evidence that it is possible to converts Bolsheviks to rational ways of thinking this is why historically ideological differences among the left were settled with firing squads and re-education camps. It baffled me as to why someone as astute as RSM would actually have thought of way in which to have suedo rational discussions with such irrational creatures other than as a means of amusement or an opportunity to make them look foolish in front of a crowd.
Perhaps I do understand after all there are some on the right who feel that it’s possible to discern degrees of leftism as there are degrees on the Right and among Libertarians. I short this theory holds that if an acquaintance is not too far left, it is still possible to convert them to the side of humanity. In order for this theory to be valid one must be able to make a distinction between oh say Evan Bayh and Josef Stalin. I can not find a meaningful distinction between the two. While Stalin had the greater courage of his convictions and a willingness to engage in more self sacrifice not to mention others. Given enough time both of their politics leads to the same place