Crusader War College

John Ray's Feb. 11, 2004 posting about "Leftist Psychology" at Dissecting Leftism repeats a theory about Leftism and leftists that I have found intellectually unifying and fruitful as an explanation of their behavior.

He quotes from the e-mail of a reader:

"I noticed certain "errors of thought" occuring with those to the left of me -- logical errors, or a disinterest in fact, and quick switches to emotionally-based arguments. I wondered if there was actually some kind of thinking impairment going on, if there was some kind of brain defect or differing cognitive structure.

John replies (my bolding):

You are right that Leftists SEEM to think differently but they don't really. They are just dishonest about what they think. Arriving at a self-serving conclusion is all that they care about and they will slip and slide all over the place to do that. Their defect is of character, not of the mind. They know perfectly well what they are doing but their own ego matters more to them than the truth.

That explains pithily what they do, but WHY do they do it? John congently notes:

In other words, puffing themselves up as wise and benevolent is their overriding aim -- not confronting and dealing realistically with harsh facts -- and they will duck and weave and say anything convenient that occurs to them to achieve their aim. So most of the time it is pointless even to argue with them. They are just not interested in the facts -- only in their own warm inner glow of righteousness and wisdom. They will allow nothing to threaten that. It is generally only middle of the road people who have been hoodwinked by the Left who are worth your breath.

This is spot on. This attempt to come across as more virtuous and "righteous" accords with what the Apostle Paul says in the Book of Romans about how sinners grope toward satisfying the soul's demand for right standing with God.

One tactic I have used against Leftists and Lefist arguments is to abandon the argument and attack their moral basis for arguing it. It is easy to refute their arguments intellectually, so they will stoop either to ad-homniem argumentation, or assert a moral basis for their belief as a pretext for condemning you as a moral inferior. Ayn Rand, the Objectivist Philosoper, called this the "Argument from Intimidation," and I credit her for part of the response I recommend, which is to be morally certain of your position so you can't be intimidated.

However, I go further and recommend going on the counterattack by attacking their moral base: Think of an argument as an intellectual version of "King of the Hill", except that the Liberal proclaims that "the Hill" is always where he happens to be standing. In this context, you attack their moral credentials and standing as a Judge. In essence, you "deconstruct" their moral claims and kickm them off the hill.

Fair warning: This creates lots of sparks, smoke, and fire, for John has properly pointed out that "feeling good about oneself" is the REAL goal of the Liberal, and they WILL feel threatened. I know from personal experience: I inadvertently started doing this in an argument with a lefty cousin-in-law, and got a furiously indignant response that was all out of proportion to the supposed "offense" of demanding the moral credentials of a particular stand. So much so, that my wife demanded that I "apologize". When I explained the situation, my wife relented, realizing that extending the "apology", if it was an honest one, would have offended him even more, a situation of the cure being worse than the disease.

Another instance: At work, I have two liberals in adjacent cubes, one being an illegal-migrant-worker activist of sorts. They used to throw liberal comments out their cubes to the world in general, and to me and a fellow conservative on the other side of the room in particular, the one reinforcing the other. One day, they were trading barbs and debating health care and school education for illegals. They started moving toward the "How could you be so cruel?" argument, when I raised my voice and said, "How kind, noble, and good you all are, being soooo charitable with MY MONEY! How virtuous you are, as long as I am the one bearing the costs!"

Sudden, dead silence. The fellow conservative came over 10 minutes later and congratulated me. I haven't had any occasion to comment in a similar manner since that time.

Highly recommended. Asbestos longjohns mandatory.