The Modern Liberal Premise

Below are comments exchanged between Concord and Lexington discussing an important principle behind communication: the art of the premise.


Concord's Thoughts:


Liberals have rules. Hard to believe, I know, in their pursuance of the "everything is tolerable, and everything is permissible" society, but they do. The liberal elites which are now in control of our government are well educated in these rules, and have taught their followers the same (not hard to do, when you have most major universities and public schools on your side). Although I don't pretend to have a copy of the rulebook, I'd like to take a stab at quite possibly the quintessential principle.

Modern liberalism rule #1: Change the language to change the argument. Dennis Peacock famously said, "whoever controls the language controls the culture." Think about that for a second... the debate on how to combat global warming, the success of the stimulus package, the heated debate over Roe v. Wade, what constitutes patriotism, amnesty for "undocumented workers," are all arguments based in the usage of language.

Most topics that draw invisible lines across the family kitchen table or headline the evening news require a set of basic facts, or truths, that lay the foundation of the debate. Take for example the issue of global warming. Most liberals argue that we, mankind, have played a significant role ruining our environment by driving SUVs, sitting in congested traffic on our way to work, and working in factories that pillow white smog from tall smokestacks. The left argues that lawmakers must combat these heinous crimes by passing the "Cap and Trade (Tax)" bill. Our carbon footprint must be reduced to keep mother earth around for a few more generations. But check the premise of that argument. It is assumed that global warming is man-made global warming. For those of us who do not believe the planet is warming due to any contribution from man (as well as the thousands of meteorological scientists), it is impossible to argue the necessity of legislation to fight it, or any regulation whatsoever.

Too many people (and many conservatives) get sucked into debating a topic created by a liberal, only to fail the argument. Why? Because they choose to argue on a wrong premise. Another great example of this is the recent fire Rush Limbaugh underwent by the state-run media for saying "I hope he [Obama] fails." Everyone was up in arms that he would say such a discriminatory, hurtful thing. Liberals were screaming from the rooftops that "Limbaugh wants our country to fail!" No, he doesn't. Wrong premise. Limbaugh wants Obama to fail at his policies and plans for America. Because, in his words, that is how the country will succeed. But the liberals and the mainstream media were able to successfully portray his statement in an almost treasonous way: "If Obama fails, our country fails," they claim. But does it mean that?

There are countless examples used by the left to present a false debate: Employee Free Choice Act, Pro-choice, undocumented workers, global warming, patriotism...liberals change (or define) the words to change the argument. How should we fight back? Don't argue with a liberal. First, define the terms. It's so easy (and rather entertaining). When a liberal colleague of yours pulls into the parking lot in their Toyota Prius with a bumper sticker that reads "How Can You Be Both Pro-Life and Pro-War?" just ask them as you climb out of your Tahoe, "What does it mean to be pro-war?" or, "So pro-life equates anti-war?" There is where it begins. Get to the truth, and then have a reasonable, principled debate.

Liberal speak is really just a form of lying if you ask me (which you didn't). My opinion? Don't argue with a liberal on a wrong premise. You'll never win. Simply question their use of language, and see where that gets them.


Lexington's Thoughts:


Ms. Concord make a very good point about 'checking the premise'. It is one of those things that is vital in trying to understand why America seems to be sleeping at times, or why many (including me) say that they walk away from watching the news sometimes and their head hurts. We know it's not right, but time always runs out before a commercial break. The socialist talking head (and some conservative ones too, but overall less of them – the number of their offenses seems to vary more depending on the topic) will come on camera with a pre-written dialogue that they stick to, and don't actually respond to the questions being asked of them. Hence they control the language.

Premise can be a fast paced thing in the middle of a debate, and it takes a lot of experience to keep up with it. The point you make is at the heart of what is wrong; things have grown all too fuzzy for your average Joe. This, in turn, leads only to more generalities when your average Joe tries to regurgitate what he watched on TV to his buddies over coffee. Based on whatever ludicrous facts and figures were thrown around, and terms misused, it becomes hard for anyone to make a good point. We need specificity, the proper usage of terms, and principled talking points from which everyone can identify.

This used to be the goal of leadership - to create unity and make people truly understand. Now, to have the majority truly understand is the last thing they want - now their end state is a little smoke and few mirrors so that they can get all their legislation passed (being mindful of the fact that not all those who vote on the bill even read it). Lastly, Dennis Peacocke's quote 'he who controls the language controls the culture' is the umbrella that all of what we're talking about falls under. It is a great starting point in terms of where to begin fixing things.