Man oh Man, is this a post to respond to or what?
The gist of the post is that liberals see themselves as warriors and their opponents as wusses. They may have a point.
This full Alinsky post comes to mind. Liberals can't win their arguments on the merits, so it comes down to dissing their opponent in some way so as to claim victory.
“A Liberal Fuck is not a Democrat, but rather someone who combines political data and theory, extreme leftist views and sarcasm to win any argument while make the opponents feel terrible about themselves. I won every argument but one.”
The technique of a liberal fuck isn't limited to extremes, nor liberals. It is a technique that can be applied even in high level debate by someone you wouldn't consider extreme..
Anybody my age will likely remember the Bentsen-Quayle debate. That debate ruined Quayle's political career because he couldn't respond adequately to the insult Bentsen laid on him---"you're no Jack Kennedy". I studied that debate. Up to that point, Quayle was doing quite well. But he was ruined by that remark.
It's the attitude brought to the table---"we're better than you"--- that gushes forth from them. It is like they have the lordly right to rule, and you had better not forget it.
It was unfortunate for Quayle that he couldn't respond. But what could he have done? There is an expectation that certain rules will be followed, and one of these is civility. I'm sure Quayle expected that. But once somebody steps over that line in a contest like this one, it is similar to winning a prize fight by punching below the belt. In a match like this though, a referee cannot disqualify a competitor for taking a cheap shot. It is up to the guy who just got dissed to respond appropriately so as to get the respect back which has just been lost. The judges that count are the folks back home. Bentsen made Quayle look bad and it stuck.
I've thought a lot on the subject over the course of all these years. What could he have done differently? But Quayle didn't have the luxury of time. He had to respond quickly to something he probably had no idea was coming. Some pre-preparation might have been in order. But Quayle literally came out of nowhere. He didn't have the time for that kind of preparation. How does someone prepare for something like Bentsen did? It might take years of practice to learn how to fend off a vicious attack like that and at the same time maintain a sense of dignity and decorum.
You want another example? Sarah Palin. She got ambushed in the same way Quayle did. The media did it, but the media set up Quayle too. Quayle got asked the same question four different times before Bentsen struck.
Interesting that it some moderate GOP guy who picks a conservative that can't respond to something that is difficult to respond to and difficult to prepare for. You wonder if they do this deliberately with an intention to lose that point, or make conservatives look dumb.
Perhaps the GOP, like Quayle in 1988, just doesn't know how to handle this kind of thing. I don't know if it is because of being dumb, as Quayle was accused of being, or just too gentlemanly to fight on those terms. But if it is because they are too gentlemanly, they had better learn to "win on the streets", because if you don't, your opponent is going to keep coming at you that way. It's like the blitz in football. You burn it, or you keep getting it. It's not enough to point out that somebody cheated. You have to make em pay for cheating.
No comments:
Post a Comment