Posted on 08/13/2002 7:25:19 PM PDT by ATOMIC_PUNK
How Liberals Win
The Talk Show Wars
Election time is near, and liberals will be out there saturating the airwaves with their propaganda—and many Americans will fall for it. Over the years, liberals have honed a number of proven talk-show techniques to deceive the voters. Here are a few to watch out for.
Keep The Argument Emotional
Liberals know they can´t win a debate on logical grounds, so they fight to keep it on an emotional level. Few people have time in their busy lives to consider the logical side of an issue or whether a more cost-effective and efficient way will accomplish the same goals or more.
When a liberal argues that Congress must pass a Save Our Children from Going Hungry bill, he launches into an emotional argument rather than a logical one, even submitting anecdotal evidence that can bring an audience to tears. “Jenny Smith is a sweet child in a poor neighborhood with a disabled mother who can´t work. Jenny´s hungry. She´s hungry because an uncaring Congress took away her school lunch.” Anyone who argues that the bill is so full of bureaucratic oversight and unrelated expenditures that Jenny´s lunch will cost more than a gourmet meal in a fine restaurant will have viewers shouting at the TV, “What difference does it make what it costs? I´ll spend a few dollars more a year in taxes so she won´t go hungry.”
Never mind that we´re talking about more than a few dollars if such programs are implemented. Never mind the long-term “collateral damage” to the recipients and society from these programs. Never mind that Jenny´s mother isn´t really disabled, she´s a drug addict living with an ex-convict, and Jenny has more problems than just lunch. With such emotional issues as children, families, health care, hunger, homelessness, poverty, and gun control, anyone who argues against liberal proposals risks being seen as uncaring, the first step to losing the hearts and minds of the viewers. “You people just don´t care enough to solve the problem of (fill in the blank) in America” is an effective way for liberals to put the other side on the defensive in a television debate.
Add In A Guilt Trip
Once the debate has been diverted to emotional issues, liberals can solidify their position on the emotional high ground by emphasizing the uncaring position of their opponents. “Well, I care about women´s issues,” they may say, the implication being that the other person doesn´t, or, more directly, “I can see you care nothing for the children of America.” These statements can succeed because viewers assume that such distinguished liberal spokespersons would never publicly make such statements unless they were true. The liberals are considered distinguished only because an adoring liberal media characterize them that way.
Change The Subject
When a conservative gets the upper hand, the liberal changes the subject to interrupt the flow. Before the impeachment of Bill Clinton, how many times did we hear them say, “I´m more interested in Social Security, health care, and jobs than personal sexual behavior”? Before a conservative can finish showing how the Save Our Children from Going Hungry bill is full of pork, bureaucracy, and waste, and just a cover for funding other liberal programs, the liberal will interrupt and change the subject. “Well, what about the bill you supported last month to increase military spending by four billion dollars? We can feed a lot of Jennys for four billion dollars. Can´t we do without a couple of high-tech airplanes so we can perform wonders for all our children, for all the Jennys of America?” The debate has shifted from the cost of the bill to whether military expenditures are more important than feeding hungry children.
Complicate The Issues
Americans are too busy with other things dear to them to have the time to unravel the complexities of all sides of the issues. To help bury a factual argument, liberals must make it even more difficult for people to understand an issue by complicating it. In a debate on military spending, a conservative may summarize three or four reasons why we need a strong military. The liberal opponent will hasten to complicate the debate. “Explain to the American people why they should pay for another aircraft carrier instead of creating more jobs and providing health care for sick children. Why does a single F-14 aircraft cost taxpayers more than the school lunch program?” The questions seldom reflect anything factual, but such deception plants a seed of doubt in the viewer´s mind.
Soon, viewers throw up their hands in frustration and say, “This is getting too complicated to understand. I wish someone would simplify it for us.” And how do liberals come to the rescue? They do so with buzzwords and catchy slogans. In the midst of a debate on how to divide up our national budget, some viewers will even be grateful that the catchphrase, “Our children are more important than another aircraft carrier,” saves them from understanding why we need a strong military. Muddying the waters really is an effective technique.
Find Someone To Demonize
Liberals try to identify an enemy for the public to blame for a perceived wrong in society. The demonizing of Linda Tripp diverted public disgust from Bill Clinton´s behavior to a whistleblower. The demonizing of Cuban-Americans was a diversion to save Janet Reno´s hide in the Elian González fiasco and gave liberals an opportunity to try to humanize the inhumane Castro regime. “Greedy corporations” are a perennial target, as are “right-wing Christians, ” cold-hearted Republicans, and the National Rifle Association, among others.
Liberals would have us believe that Americans die from lung cancer not because they refuse to quit smoking but solely because of greedy corporations. People die from gunshot wounds because of evil guns, not because some evil person behind the gun pulls the trigger, an evil person who can be as deadly with a switchblade knife or a baseball bat. There isn´t money to spend on social programs, they say, because greedy generals and admirals in the Pentagon siphon off money for unnecessary weapons. Bill Clinton wasn´t wrong to sexually harass Paula Jones and lie under oath; Paula Jones was wrong to file the lawsuit because she was just “trailer park trash.”
They have tried to link conservative Republicans with demonized “greedy” tobacco companies, but failed because their own campaign chests are swollen with tobacco donations (and the donations of trial lawyers who became multimillionaires suing tobacco companies). They´ve tried to blame the NRA and gun owners for every school shooting, but thinking Americans didn´t buy the illogical connection. They´ve tried to link conservatives with every extreme “right wing” group, from racists to Nazis, but found believers only among the most naive of citizens. They´ve tried to link pro-Second-Amendment conservatives with some radical “right-wing militias,” but Americans have only to hear such spokespersons as Charlton Heston, Tom Selleck, and Wayne LaPierre, among others, and replays of Ronald Reagan´s speeches, to realize that the two groups may as well be from different planets.
Liberals use a blend of these techniques to win over naïve viewers. They win because of their techniques rather than the strength of their positions, but winning now on talk shows can bring rewards in the next election. Our challenge is to get the American people to understand our side of the debate. Heaven help us if we have to resort to the techniques of the other side, but maybe we should. To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Allan at acstover@comcast.net .
Oh, and there WILL be a test, come November.
Im a member of FREEREPUBLIC i aint sceered of no steeeenking test
Taking an anecdote and blowing it up with hyperbole, which takes at least two forms. The first is saying something like "How would you like if such-and-such exaggerated example happened to you". The other form is to exaggerate it as a hateful premise, such as "What, do you want to take all the immigrants and put them in jail?"
Another technique is basically the opposite tactic. They try to pin down a hairsplitting example, such as "So you're saying there no cases ever filed in California that bilingual education helps a disabled child?". Alternatively, they give a hairsplitting example where something went wrong as an example of why the baby has to be thrown out with the bathwater.
At least at Fox News, I have seen their mics cut three times in the last year. Sean did it just recently. The guy would NOT shut up and never answered a single question.
Phil Donahue is probably the best talk show debater on TV today and for 20 years since Mr. Passionate Sensitivity's life became dedicated to defending the stupid loudmouthed slut he left his wife and kids to end up taking up with.
I've asked myself if I could debate Donahue. The answer is, I couldn't. He bellows like a mule and there is no way to get a word in. He talks about his feelings. I can't refute his feelings. The suggestible American public reacts to Donahues hysteria by becoming hysterical themselves.
In short, Donahue's technique is to have a psychotic episode in front of TV cameras. There is no way of dealing with a psychotic rationally. The American public has been raised on nearly 40 years of being presented with psychotics on TV as entertainment and social commentary/activism, going back to the Abbie Hoffman Bill Kunsler days of the 60s, and recent generations have internalized the mode of thinking.
They attack the opposition for what they themselves are doing. The best example is a James Carville calling Republicans mean-spirited.
The second is the flawed premise. This takes two forms: the false choice (i.e., between defense spending and health care), and the setting up of two irrelevant choices (e.g.,whether houses should be painted blue or green, when the real question is why the government should be deciding what the color of houses is in the first place).
The third, of course is the wordsmithing, such as when they say "Compassion" they really mean "pity".
I guess that would be too effective.
The first thing libs like to do is to get the first shot. They get to spend the first minutes of any talk show spewing their filth uninterrupted by the polite conservatives and the polite host. this means they get one clear opportunity to get out their message. Once that is done, their next problem is to silence their opponent during his turn.
This is done by joking with the host, interrupting, or if the opponent won't shut up when interrupted, by shouting over the opponent so that nothing he or she says can be heard, and by interjecting comments in the hope of inducing a change in subject.
You see, the libs know there is never a need to win an argument if the liberal side is the only side heard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.