Know Your Radicals

I work at a college. I recently passed two students and unintentionally overheard one say to the other, "It will always be the intelligent people versus the stupid people..." I have no idea what the context was, whether they were discussing politics, sports, or some other subject. But it snagged my attention. Assuming their subject was politics, I imagined how a debate might go with one who truly believes politics can be boiled down to a faction of intellectuals battling wave after wave of knuckle-dragging morons. Reflecting on my life experience, I realized theirs is an attractive and common sentiment. Regarding opponents as dumb excuses one from addressing their argument. I wondered, if the ad hominem nature of their conclusion were pointed out to them, whether these young students would concede it.

My interest was more than academic. There is a practical need for discussing and debating political issues with those outside the proverbial choir, particularly now. In my last entry, I characterized this moment in history as a New Revolutionary War between upholders of the U.S. Constitution and radicals intent on subverting the American system. I concluded a primary task of American patriots at this stage in the conflict is to wake up friends, family, and neighbors. This is no small task, either in importance or potential difficulty. It is vital to approach the task armed with, not only facts, figures, and arguments logical and moral, but also a keen sense of the people engaged. There is no point whatsoever in debating folks whose minds are made up against you or who are themselves radical. It occurs to me there are three dimensions to an individual which one must gauge, and consider in tandem, to peg a acquaintance worthy of continued discourse. Intelligence, as these students began to observe, is one. The others are candor and goodwill

These are former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett’s three standards for discourse on his radio talk show. Intelligence ensures there is a thoughtful argument worth entertaining. Candor is the honest expression of that argument, while goodwill is a humble intention enabling mutual understanding. Had I been inclined to double back and engage those students, and had I discovered they were referring to politics, the encounter could have gone many different ways depending on how these dimensions combine within them. Their intelligence would actually be the least determinative dimension. Whether the conversation could be productive would depend much more on their candor and goodwill, their intention, honesty, and willingness to learn. If a person is honest and wants to achieve the same ends, but has a disagreement regarding the best means, there is hope for productive debate. If a person is not honest, or if the ends they would pursue are not shared, there is nothing to be gained from engaging them. Regardless, one does their self a disservice to chalk up opposing viewpoints to inferior intelligence. A dumb enemy can only be haphazardly dangerous, a force of nature, sweeping to and fro randomly. Dumb is not the enemy we face.

In the context of our New American Revolution, the radicals who would subvert our constitutional republic and replace unalienable rights with contrived entitlements have ill will. Many of them, especially those in power, are extraordinarily intelligent. That intelligence must be respected. It does not have to be honored, but must be acknowledged and accounted for in how we handle them, just as one would respect a knife held by an assailant. To act is if it is not there would foolishly expose oneself to attack. If an opponent's weapon is acknowledged, the mutual awareness levels the playing field somewhat. Opponents tread more carefully when their intentions and abilities are known. What may have been a silent kill becomes a fight. As defenders of the status quo, we are in a favorable position against radicals in a direct fight, because their position is known by them to be counter-intuitive and undesirable to most Americans (that's why they hide it). Therefore, simply illuminating their intentions is often sufficient to defeat them. As defenders of the status quo, we have the high ground. They are assaulting a hill. The only advantage they have, if we allow them to have it, is posing as participants in the system they want to destroy. We cannot allow that. We cannot engage in civil debate with people who do not respect civility and wish to use debate only as a means to obfuscate, provoke, and undermine.

When I was a kid, my mom embarrassed me a lot. She could be direct, loud, and highly inappropriate with people. I developed a hyper-sensitivity to it. I would cringe when she would answer telemarketing calls, say she was not interested, and hang up abruptly. That's so rude, I thought. When I was a young adult, I would talk to the telemarketers and be very polite to them. My civility resulted in the loss of a fair amount of money. It turns out, when you are dealing with someone hoping to take something from you, being polite makes it easier for them. This is a principle few of us reject; yet, as conservatives who value propriety, decorum, and decency, we often fail to integrate that knowledge into our political debate. President Obama understands it, which is why he was able Wednesday to frame the health care debate as a choice between government-run health care and government-run health care (i.e. a public option or an individual mandate, two roads to the same destination), saying "I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than to improve it." He will not waste time with his enemies. Why then do we waste time with ours? Representative Joe Wilson's outburst was bad form. Then again, so were the bountiful misrepresentations by an accomplished bedazzler who has repeatedly announced his intention to fundamentally transform our society. Guess which one apologized.