The Patriot Post® · In Brief: Stop Debating on the Left's Terms
We in our humble shop have had numerous debates about the words used to describe certain things. We constantly challenge the Left on definitions because language matters. Leftists know that. Do conservatives?
Christopher Skeet, who calls himself “a recovering liberal and freelance writer,” does. He explains:
Whoever controls the language of the debate controls the debate. It’s hard to control the language when the Left monopolizes virtually every lever of journalism, social media, and education. However, that doesn’t mean that we conservatives need to help them by preemptively surrendering the moral high ground before the debate even begins.
He proceeds to list some rhetorical surrenders conservatives are guilty of using, starting with “While not perfect…”
When conservatives speak of historical figures they admire, they qualify their admiration with an acknowledgment of those figures’ human flaws. We will say, “George Washington, while not perfect,” and then go on to list his achievements. Why are we saying “while not perfect”? Of course, they’re not perfect. They’re human.
Leftists don’t concede that about their heroes, but conservatives lose ground by doing so on ours. Next up is “Of course…”
Neither Left nor Right is above making generalized, stereotypical statements about external groups. The difference lies in the methodology the groups apply and the conclusions they draw. For example, conservatives examine the statistical and sociological evidence that strongly suggests a correlation linking fatherless homes with poverty and criminality. Though the focus is usually on inner-city black families, the correlation holds true across all races, cultures, and regions, thus negating any “racist” intent behind the observation. The correlation affects all groups wherever it is applied.
But to fortify our anti-racist credentials with listeners, we hide behind what Mark Steyn jestingly calls the “obligatory ‘of-courses.’” When conservatives observe a negative and recurring phenomenon or pattern among a group or subgroup of people, we trot out the “of course” to let people know that our observations aren’t intended to hold every single person in that group culpable. …
So when Leftists accuse you of making racial or religious generalizations or other such crudities, don’t hide behind a meek, wobbly “of course.” Reiterate your point, and ask the leftist why he immediately assumed that you meant the entire group. That’s what psychologists call “projection.”
After that, it’s “I have (insert minority) friends…”
“I have black friends. I have transgender friends. I have Latino friends.” That’s so cool. Now please tell me how that bolsters your argument.
Let’s use the most egregious one used by conservatives and liberals alike, the “black friends” boast. First off, a black co-worker with whom you occasionally hobnob over the cubicle divider at work doesn’t count as a “friend.” He’s a work acquaintance. Have you ever hung out together, just you two, after work? No? Ok, then. You’re not friends.
And even if you had twenty black friends, this means at best you have a vague grasp on the political opinions of twenty black people from the same geographical location as you with lifestyles almost identical to yours. As of 2022, there are approximately 47.9 million black people in the United States. Your hypothetical twenty friends would only account for 0.00000042% of the total black population. So having twenty black friends wouldn’t exactly give you an accurate pulse of the overall black community. And that’s assuming you have twenty black friends, which you don’t.
Finally, “I’m fine with it, so long as…”
So long as it’s in your own home. So long as it’s consenting adults. So long as they’re not hurting anyone.
This is a lame argument, and it’s one conservatives hide behind far too often. We’ll say, “Listen, if grown men want to put on mermaid costumes, lather each other up with peanut butter, and beat each other silly with rubber hoses, I’m fine with it so long as they’re not pushing it on our children in schools.” …
It is no contradiction to accept the legality of a behavior while opposing it on ethical terms. But to say you’re “fine” with a certain behavior gives it moral legitimacy, which makes confining that behavior within the four walls of a private home that much more difficult to defend. To say you’re “fine” with something helps to normalize it.
Skeet concludes:
We conservatives need to stop pausing to explain ourselves for simply recognizing self-evident reality. We need to stop the moral qualifiers we offer before stating the obvious as if stating the obvious implies an underlying hatred from which we need to distance ourselves. Don’t cede the initiative, certainly not willingly and unnecessarily. Any inch we give the Left will, by the end of the interaction, stretch to a mile. If leftists have a point to make, don’t make it for them. Make them earn it. Give them nothing.