Fool-Proof Way the Über-Conservative Can Convert a Liberal in 5 Minutes! (Or Your Money Back?)

Posted: July 3, 2014 in politics
Tags: , , , , , ,

I love these things that people put out, touting definite ways to convert someone to their way of thinking. One of the most memorable, for me personally, was when I worked for two weeks at Kings Island after I graduated from high school (no, I was not fired, I hated it and turned in my 7-day notice after a week). But, a group of teenagers (my age) was attending a local Bible camp, where they were learning outreach practices, and by night to help pay for the camp, thy were working at Kings Island, too.

I got along really well with one of the guys, and we bonded over washing dishes. One night, as we were headed back to our respective cars in the employee lot, he asked if he could try something on me … and it was a magical night for both– wait, I mean, he had learned a sure-fire way to convert anyone to Christianity, in 3 minutes or less!

I said “sure” and in my perpetual state of assholery asked if he wanted me to time him, too.

What proceeded was basically the argument of, “Why wouldn’t you *want* to be saved?” (The whole, Jesus died for you, it’s a gift, offers blah blah blah, etc.)

I told him simply that it wasn’t an issue of whether I wanted something or not, it was an issue of whether I believed that everything he premised it on was real or not in spite of having zero objective evidence.

So much for the conversion.

My issue with these things is that they presuppose a certain arrogance on their part and ignorance on the other person’s part: They are the ones who are Correct, and we are the ignorant boobs who have just never thought of the issues before.

What this gets to is Gina Loudon’s column from four days ago, “5 Ways to Convert a Liberal in 5 Minutes.” Color me skeptical.

1. Civil discourse and tolerance

This is supposed to be the hook, because as we liberals always assume, conservatives are whack jobs, and we gotta be shown that they aren’t: “Their dirty little secret is that they believe we don’t have any ability to engage in either civil discourse or tolerance. If we engage with promotion of those two ideas, and dispel those myths, we open the door.”

Okay, so we have a perhaps false dichotomy, but definitely a false major premise. Most conservatives, like most liberals, are perfectly normal, rational people, and most of us recognize that. This is why in my blog I’m careful to talk about the “über-conservatives” on WND rather than all “conservatives” in general.

2. Compassion

I don’t quite understand this one as she has laid it out. And if you want to convince me of something quickly, you gotta make it clear. What I did get from it is that she thinks that liberals think that conservatives don’t have compassion. Another false major premise.

But she also insults liberals: She says that liberals have a less tolerant view of culture.

I would like to turn that back in her face and ask who, in the US, is most likely to reject any culture other than their’s? Just in general. Well, I’d say it’s the conservative party – Republicans – who want to severely restrict immigration and who are most islamophobic. You get that much more from Republicans (specifically Tea Partiers) than you do from Democrats. So much for compassion.

Oh yeah, and The Gay. Need I go further with “compassion?”

3. What Works

‘kay, maybe this will be the zinger. Oh wait, it’s a video. It starts out (when I clicked) with a 30-second ad for a Genesis movie that includes people like Banana-Man Ray Comfort and AiG CEO Ken Ham, along with other names I quickly recognized like Falwell.

After that plays, there is a 6-minute 48-second TV clip. So much for 5 minutes. Since that’s over the time limit, I didn’t watch.

4. Freedom

Here’s the premise on this:

a) Government is force (coercive).

b) Even if government wanted to help the vulnerable, it can’t. It fails every time.

c) Economic growth is important for everyone – especially the poor.

d) Economic liberty is as important as civil liberty in a compassionate society.

e) Freedom is about more than economics. It is compassion for your fellow man.

f) Spontaneous order is powerful.

Gina in the next paragraph uses the term “evolutionist” which made me roll my eyes.

5. Connect first, contend later

This is really her first argument, but the intent is basically “hook ’em, then blast ’em” with your conservative-is-best arguments: “Focus on the things you agree upon. Find those pivotal issues that transcend politics. Build the relationship on those things first, and then when the conversation allows, introduce the points above.”

For example: “Instead of talking about abortion, talk about life. Instead of talking about Second Amendment freedoms, talk about saving lives. Rather than talking about economics, talk about equality and freedom. Instead of talking about illegal immigration, talk about compassion. Authenticity and heartfelt compassion is key. This isn’t about manipulation; this is about relationship. Connect first, contend later.”

Converted Yet?

Nope. And the commenters pretty much realize this AND they show exactly why Gina is wrong when trying to paint conservatives in broad brushstrokes, just as she’s trying to paint liberals. Tolerance? Compassion?

Ahem … take “s gre” who has the highest-rated comment:

The above is an attempt to reason with liberalism. The problem is that liberalism is a mental disorder! One CANNOT reason with a crazy person! Crazy people (liberals) can only be rebuked, restrained and contained so as not to harm themselves and others. Unfortunately, the so-called “American people” keep electing crazy people to public office! In the words of the great American philosopher Forrest Gump, “Stupid is as stupid does”.

Also with the same number of up-votes comes “hugomossner”:

For the most part I despise liberal progressives in leadership positions, and I strongly resent those that put them there. I am so opposed to these people and their mindset that I really don’t even want to try to find a point of agreement with them. I want them to have their own country, their own leaders, their own controlling punitive regulations. (then they would be like most 3rd world cesspools) Then in a generation or two they will see the error of their ways, and either beg to come back or gin up a lie to stir up their people to go to war against us to try again to take what they have not earned, and do not deserve.

I think we’ve seen enough. If anyone is convinced by her arguments, let me know in the comments!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s