|
As we scan the discussion lists we see a major increase in pessimism on the Right. Some say they're just too depressed to read anymore, or are sure we're on the losing side, that the forces are just too large to fight, too entrenched to change. Whittaker Chambers voiced the same sentiments over 50 years ago. His letters are heartbreaking; yet he said he had to do the right thing even if it meant being on the losing side. That's what we've all got to do, the right thing. Of course, we want to prevail, but isn't doing the right thing what's important? Isn't that what lets you look yourself in the mirror each morning? In our individual lives we can prevail by overcoming our personal pessimism and doing what's right. And together we can prevail in the larger arena.
Therefore our column this week is going to ask you to find ways you can stand up for what's Right, for your ideals. Maybe it's merely telling someone why you believe what you believe instead of keeping quiet, maybe it's writing a column for a Left publication, maybe it's teaching your children about this great nation, writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper, calling in to a radio talk show, or going to lectures and asking relevant questions. You'll find ways to be creative. You don't have to be famous to have an audience at least once in a while.
We can't just forecast doom and gloom; we won't get gold stars for such "weather reports." We've got to change the weather. You have a lot to contribute to this nation; you can change at least one mind. That's a lot of minds, when we all do our part. It's an interesting exercise also to be rational about our beliefs and to truly try to persuade someone else, and to do so, we can't stay in our little groups patting each other on the backs. Preaching to the choir is pretty easy since they already believe as you do. We've go to reach out to new territory.
What follows is an excerpt of an interview we gave Matthew Deifenbacher of the "Cherry Point Review." [ "http//www.angelfire.com/oh5/cpr/" ] We hope this helps you plan your strategy.
Matthew - As Editors / Writers of Conservative publications, we endorse and distribute material that some may consider "Rightist", "biased", or at the least, "slanted". We try to promote the positive aspects of our beliefs through careful research and detailed composition. My question to you is: "How can we combat the baseless rhetoric of the Left, or should we simply ignore their mean-spirited babble in pursuit of our own goals?"
Peter and Helen - The rhetoric of the Left is not baseless, but it derives from what you call their "mean-spirited" nature. They are poor in spirit, having abandoned (perhaps it was too challenging?) the transcendent spirit toward which every religion strives, in favor of a less-demanding "secular humanism" which permits them to indulge in an anything-goes moral relativism which strives for a collectivist "unity" by "celebrating" the lowest common denominator and "tolerating" everything... except strongly held moral principle. Just as it is dangerous to ignore an infection in our body, we ignore the Left at our peril. Just as it would be detrimental to chop off the infected part except in extreme cases, so it would be self-defeating to merely try to beat down the Left. The proper response to infection is to increase our health, and the proper response to the challenge posed by the Left is to clearly and courageously proclaim the truth that animates the Right.
We think we should persuade them to the 'right' way of thinking. Many people, after hearing the facts and examining them for themselves, can't help but see how rational the Right is. We've seen it happen when we gave our on-line classes. However, just because conservatism is based on what is rather than on 'what-if', just because it's rational, or just because it works are sometimes not enough to persuade people to change their minds. In the spirit of "knowing our enemy", we're going to divide the Left into three general categories and suggest ways to deal with each of them. Of course, these are very broad categories and there will always be exceptions.
#1 True Believers - This category includes people who truly believe in the ideology of the Left, or people who have so much invested in it that they couldn't change. For example, people like Senator Ted Kennedy or Professor Noam Chomsky wouldn't have anywhere to go if they changed tracks. They would lose their prestige, their influence and (virtually) their identity. These are people who will not be persuaded and must simply be fought. Falling into the trap of thinking a negotiation could occur, would expose any weakness and it would be exploited by the opponent. We've seen figures on the Left like Jesse Jackson, or even some NGO's, 'demanding' a meeting with representatives of the Right and, whether that meeting is granted or not, they use either outcome as an acknowledgement of their power and a justification of their position. Most of us would be better advised to ignore such powerful leaders. Why should we give them more publicity or recognition? However, we will encounter small-caliber 'true believers' every day and we must recognize that they must be defeated, rather than persuaded.
However, we can beneficially take a persuasive approach with the following groups.
#2 Camp Followers - This category cares more about social interaction. Ideology is not particularly important to them. There are several sub categories within this larger group. You have the older teens/young adults who are looking to create an identity for themselves and tend to just react against how they were brought up; as long as it's 'different', but not so different that they had no friends. Do you remember your college days? You wanted to feel like you were important, that you could make a difference. Anyone who would take the time to notice you and tell you that you could be in the 'vanguard of social change' and use the passion already coursing through your young veins could probably recruit you. All of a sudden you meant something and were important; and it probably didn't matter what ideology they were spouting. What mattered was belonging.
There are also those who want to associate themselves with a cause that will give them stature. Think about someone who links themselves up with "saving the planet," or "feeding the hungry." Again, these people gain stature by associating with a larger idea which identifies them to the world as socially conscious, compassionate, or caring, etc. They sometimes literally wear the badge of status on their T-shirt or on their bumper. "Look at me! I'm a really great guy/gal!"
Then you have the people who just want to have something to do. And they can 'do it' if they attend conferences, workshops, demonstrations or rallies, or just lurk on an internet discussion list. Then they feel they're worthy and useful. However, they usually don't want to have to actually learn or implement anything they're discussing. Just talking about doing something seems be enough. We met a fellow just like this in California. We had asked for volunteers on a project and he responded that he would be more than pleased to spend time with us and give us all his great ideas. Oh, he wouldn't be able to volunteer for any actual work, bad back or something. We asked him about his expertise for the ideas he'd present to us. He proudly announced he had none. In fact, he didn't even know if they would work! Yet, he was quite offended when we said "no thanks" to his generous offer. This is not an unusual mindset among those for whom the intention is more important than actually implementing a plan and accomplishing something. Another variation on this is a woman we met at a church service who told us she had lived in the area for 35 years. When she first began attending, about twenty years ago, the church had been Baptist, but then a new denomination moved in. She just continued to come "because the people are nice" and she had a new group of friends to talk to.
Again, these are broad categories, but all of the above care more about socializing, belonging, stature, friends, identity. The particular ideology of the group they associate with is a distant second to the importance of the other motives. The Left has an advantage in attracting people who would like 'good' things to happen without having to actually do them, themselves, simply because "what-if" can easily be made to seem more attractive that "what is." However, the Right can offer these individuals personal 'friendship' rather than anonymous 'comradeship' and, over time, show them the positive benefits of personal liberty rather than the oppressive conformity implicitly promised by the increasingly Socialist Left in America. The Right can offer them many of the same benefits of 'belonging', since numbers count alot for this group. And isn't numbers what we need in an election?
3. The Un-Decided - The third category we'll deal with are those who truly are wondering. Attacking them won't make any friends. Dr. Sarah Thompson has a great essay (available at her site at "http://www.therighter.com") called "Raging Against Self Defense" in which she explains how to deal rationally with gun-haters and perhaps even change their minds. As writers, we can submit articles to Left publications that merely explain some very basic views, and hope they'll be published. Because in many instances the Right and Left have the same core qualities.
Let's take compassion. The United States is a very compassionate country, aiding people all around the world for decades. The conservative ideal definitely encourages charity and compassion toward our fellow human beings. We differ from the Left in that we won't let it become coercion. In the conservative view that's not compassion. In fact, when the State gives for us through confiscatory taxation and bureaucratically administered welfare 'entitlements', it denies donors the basic life experience of acting charitably based on their natural human empathy for others. And it deprives recipients of the challenge and incentive to strive for their own self-betterment.
What about creativity? There's a myth about the Right being reactionary and un-creative. We like to make the analogy between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and a dance floor. Conservatives protect that dance floor with all their strength and integrity, but they permit the dancers to dance any dance they want. Dance, don't dance, make up new ones, as long as you don't hurt other dancers, or the dance floor. Liberals on the other hand want to abolish the boundaries of the dance floor but everyone now has to dance the same dance. Who's more creative?
Yes, as the election approaches, we feel it's absolutely necessary to spread the word, to get more people to see and do what's 'right'. Good luck to you all.
*******
By Peter and Helen
Evans. This husband and wife team - both international teachers and authors - teach a philosophical approach to conservatism. They have helped thousands of adults in more than thirty countries realize more of the best of themselves through responsibility.
|
