The Liberal Argument Revealed, A Pattern

When it comes to politics, the general American public begins to resemble sheep.  We have a tendency to latch on whatever sounds best to us without scrutiny.  As a general rule, any statement will garner one of three responses; that sounds right, I didn’t know that, or this guy’s a nut.  The Liberal is very clever at presenting a persuasive argument based on misleading statements.  Analyze any argument put forth by the Liberal Left and the failure of the facts to support the argument is easily identified.  The Liberal will employ one or more of several strategies to support a fallacious argument that, on its face, sounds entirely reasonable. 

The ‘true versus false’ strategy is the one most commonly used to support the Liberal agenda.  If you can’t prove what I’m saying is false, then it must be true.  Or conversely, if you can’t prove what you’re saying is true, then it must be false.  A prime example of this strategy is one we’ve all heard at one time or another in the past ten years; it’s not whether he’s innocent or guilty, it’s the seriousness of the charges.  Arguments based on this foundation carry no merit.  Using this same approaching we find ourselves being able to make such assertions as, “If you can’t prove you’ve never killed anyone, then you must have” or “There must be life on Jupiter because no one has ever proven there’s not”.  These types of arguments are easily identified by listening.

The ‘one versus many’ strategy implies that one or a few occurrences validate a universal trend.  These types of arguments are readily identified by school children but when presented by an authority figure are often accepted with little doubt.  This argument is most often used as a scare tactic to force a desired response when no response is warranted.  It happened to me so it will happen to you.  Several firemen have died from smoke related ailments so all firemen die of smoke related ailments.  This argument is currently being used to a great extent in the healthcare debates.  If approximately 10% of our population is without healthcare then the entire population must want something else or be dissatisfied with their current healthcare.  The argument doesn’t stand on its own merits.

The ‘trick or treat’ strategy is often used to present the American public two choices when in fact there are many others, the trend then being to criticize or demonize those that suggest there are other choices.  Again, using healthcare as the example, we must radically alter the American healthcare systems as we cannot leave it the way it is, when in fact nearly 70% of the population believes that healthcare should be fixed but not replaced.  Those arguing for the third option of fixing the identified problems are castigated as ‘naysayers ‘, or ill informed.  The Liberal presents their version of healthcare ‘reform’ much in the same way as Henry Ford present the Model T for sale.  You can purchase a Model T in any color as long as it’s black.

‘Pick A and B’ is the Liberal means by which they present an argument using two entirely unrelated statements of fact claiming these facts support the desired conclusion.  Such assertions are similar to a District Attorney asking a defendant, “Have you stopped beating your wife?”  By grouping unrelated statements together the Liberal attempts to get agreement and assent on both by accepting only a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response.  Do you support the Aryan Nation and the right to bear arms?  Are you concerned about Global Warming and the future of your children?  Do you support the Obama presidency and do you love your country?  Such tactics render the Liberal argument moot.

The most glaring strategy adopted by the Liberal left has been to attack the individual if you can’t attack the facts.  These arguments are many times reminiscent of children on the playground.  One child may say, “You can’t spell Mississippi” and the other child will respond, “Well, you’re fat”.  These types of character attacks come across as nothing more than name calling.  If one takes a stance against the expansion of welfare, they are accused by the Liberal of wanting the poor to die.  Take a stance against expanding free lunches in schools, you’re accused of wanting our children to starve.  State your belief that Global Warming is a hoax, you’re accused of wanting to destroy the planet, and the most despicable ploy of all, if you don’t agree with us you’re a racist.  Once the verbal attacks begin you can be assured you’re on the right side of the argument.  See Sarah Palin.

The Liberal is very talented in using the circumstances, or lack thereof, surrounding an individual to either validate or nullify that individuals opinion.  We hear these types of statements made almost daily to support the Liberal stance on a variety of issues.  How do you know what our problems are, you’re not one of us.  You have a good job and rich parents, what do you know about being poor.  Why should you care about how much we spend on public schools, you don’t even have kids.  Such statements, even is true, do nothing to advance or validate an argument.  They are intended only to silence the objector.

Finally, beware of unnamed sources used to support either side of any argument.  The use of the authority figure to support a particular stance often carries more weight that is merited.  The authority quoted may be the only authority in his field that holds that particular belief regarding the issue at hand.  Likewise, beware of any statement of fact preceded by an unnamed informant says….., everybody knows….., the government says….., experts agree….., economists predicted…..the data supports….., or research shows…….  Such statements are not fact.  They are smokescreens.