iBrasten

Liberal⁽¹⁾ Argument Autopsy

A few days ago I had a fascinating conversation with someone regarding the appropriateness of universal healthcare in America. The thing I found most interesting about it that I ended up getting baited into the exact same defensive posture that I've long criticized the Republican Party for taking. I do not necessarily expect the liberal⁽¹⁾ to maintain an offensive posture; the other side is often more receptive to one's ideas after one has actively listened to their arguments. But there are some common "arguments" used against the liberal⁽¹⁾ for which we -- and the Republican Party, specifically -- have developed awful responses.

It's Easier to Mock You Than Defeat You

Somewhere along the line, my opponent⁽²⁾ posed the following question: "don't you think poor people deserve healthcare the same as rich people do?" Not only is the question horribly offensive -- an element of heartlessness is implied in the asking -- but there is no answer to this question that will ultimately satisfy the questioner. This is a common tactic used by the other side in many various forms, but every form involves the same catch-22: you either agree with us, or you're a cold monster.

In my instance, I was largely unable argue against the twisting and distortion of my opinions that followed. Never mind the 2 hours of friendly and productive discussion that had just occurred. Never mind that I spend a lot of time discussing, reading and thinking about these topics. Never mind that I try to live every day with intense compassion for those around me. In the minutes that followed, my opinions were distorted by my opponent into those of an uncaring, selfish and demented person.

It is that effective.

Attack the Assumption

Questions like these inherently assume that the best way to provide for the needs of the poor (healthcare) is through a government welfare/entitlement program -- or, essentially, wealth redistribution. The accusation, then, is that if the liberal⁽¹⁾ does not want to support said government program, it is because they are willing to withhold that help for some reason; this is precisely why this question is so offensive. If one doesn't address that assumption head on, the inevitable explanations of free-market benefits will be colored by the misperception that the liberal⁽¹⁾ is merely justifying his unwillingness to help.

The most beneficial tactic for the liberal⁽¹⁾ is to attack the unspoken assumption the moment it is in play. The educated liberal⁽¹⁾ has done extensive study on these topics and firmly believes an open market free from government involvement will ultimately help the very people our opponents speak of, and will do it much more efficiently and with better results. The liberal⁽¹⁾ knows those in need are in fact being hurt by the very types of government programs that her opponent is proposing. She understands the intent of her opponent and thus would not question their character in the same way hers is questioned -- but in light of the subtle accusations she probably ought to at least return the favor. He ought to tell his opponent that, yes, those in need deserve these services and that his position is the best, and ultimately, only -- option for helping those in question.

Get your head in the game, GOP

I made this mistake in a conversation, and I paid for it. While I can handle being misinterpreted, ultimately the causes I believe in -- the same causes my opponent believes in -- took a hit. Politics on my level is about winning people over one and a time. Hopefully we can individually learn to address this better.

However, I'm tired of the Republican Party's responses on these issues; seeing them not only perpetuate the misperceptions but accept and celebrate them. I'm embarrassed by the arguments of personal responsibility and constant appeals to fiscal conservatism... as if spending less was the ends instead of the means. I'm frustrated by a Republican Party that talks only about costs and spending and taxes and ignores our strongest points -- the ultimate flaws of Democratic policies and the harm they cause.

Force them to answer for their contradictions when they march kids in front of cameras to blame Republicans for unaffordable healthcare. Demand that they explain how they took income away from children's parents to fund the massive regulatory bureaucracies and create mountains of rules and restrictions and largely created the very problem they're now trying to solve! Make them answer for the world they've helped create where we can't afford our own health insurance and need government help.

Demand a justification for the failure that is the Federal Reserve. Question why the government allows a central bank to fund massive credit booms which inevitably crash. Demand to know why the natural checks and balances provided by free-market fiscal policies are subverted by government intervention and not allowed to prevent situations like we have today. Force the Democrats to explain how it helps anyone when you create massive government programs to help people buy homes, while at the same time regulating mortgage companies so they won't give mortgages so freely.

Demand justification for why we paid billions of dollars for some farmers to NOT grow crops, pay billions of dollars to subsidize blowing up massive amounts of corn as biofuel, then claim they want to "help" people who can't afford rising food prices?

Stand up, GOP. You've lost the hearts and minds of the people, you have to win it back. People aren't stupid, we can understand how a free market solves these problems better than government programs -- but you have to stand up and explain it.

And we're right on the edge of losing it for good.

1. Free-market philosophy was considered the liberal position back in the day. Central-government politics with economic controls and social behavioral regulation has been around for thousands of years. In the same spirit as several other free-marketers, I desire to restore the term to it's rightful meaning. As such, whenever I use the term "liberal", you should understand I'm referring to those holding free-market, personal-liberty positions.
2. Opponent is simply the easier term I could think of, but it was actually a good friend. No value judgement of the person should be inferred from the term.