Thursday, February 5, 2009

How to Get The Left on Board Against The Jihadists...

The logical inconsistencies on the Left are imposing, from opposing water-boarding, while supporting partial birth abortion (a/k/a Intact dilation and extraction) of a viable infant that would survive outside the womb, to supporting anti-tobacco laws, while activating for the legalization of marijuana, which has twice the tar and 70% more benzopyrene (a carcinogen) than ordinary tobacco smoke.

All that merely proves that the Left doesn’t THINK about issues, they FEEL about them.

And that goes a long way toward explaining why the logical Right and the emotional Left don’t communicate very well - neither speaks the other’s language.

For instance, since the current and ongoing War on Terror (WoT), or our “conflict with Islamic jihadism” began in earnest on a Republican’s watch, the Left has not been able to get on board.

They’ve compared the jihadists to early America’s Minute-men, decried the use of coercive interrogations, mild compared to those almost anywhere else on earth, as “torture,” and compared an American administration that kept America free from terrorist attack since 9/11/01 to the Third Reich.

Now many of the same people are frustrated that the current Democratic administration is not only NOT standing down on this conflict, but instead ratcheting up the military action in Afghanistan, has signed onto re-authorizing the NSA wiretaps and increased the rendition program, where America pretty much “outsources” its coercive techniques to countries like Yemen and Egypt that are more willing to engage in such things (

This COULD reach a critical juncture IF the current administration doesn’t do something to reach out the Left and get them onboard the WoT by, in effect, “speaking their language.”

I know what you’re going to ask; “How are we supposed to do that?”

A fair question, and the answer is to use an emotional argument that will resonate with the emotion-driven Left.

Remember Al Gore’s veritable “Unabomber screed” titled Earth in the Balance?

Well, in it, he excoriated the beef industry because cows are very flatulent and hundreds of millions of cows combine to pump tons more methane into the atmosphere, contributing greatly to global warming.

Sure, it’s an overblown charge, rooted in pseudo-science, but it worked on getting a lot of emotion-driven Leftists on board with the anti-beef agenda of Gore and his goofy friends.

So why not use a similar argument here?

Something like, “Those whose diets are heavy in Hummus, falafels and taboula produce more methane and are more flatulent than those who don’t, in fact, they’re significantly more flatulent and hundreds of millions of these people combine to pump tons more methane into the atmosphere greatly contributing to increasing global warming. In short, we MUST radically alter the jihadist lifestyle in order to save our planet.”

This is just a starting point, but I think you get my drift here. You CAN’T appeal to emotion-driven people with logic. It won’t work.

What you must do, if you want them on board is to appeal to them in their own language – emotionalism.


Seane-Anna said...

Jihadis fart a lot thereby threatening the world by increasing global warming. Do you really think this will convince the Left that we need to KILL these people? might work.

Roadhouse said...

This is assuming the the administration recognizes the jihadist threat. It's also assuming that they aren't sympathetic toward them.

If he really wants to get the left on board with the WoT, he should just tell them that the terrorists are actually Christian Republican Dittoheads.

Ducky's here said...

from opposing water-boarding, while supporting partial birth abortion


That's called a straw man argument.

Catch a clue.

Z said...

"waterboarding...partial birth".

Ducky, YOU get a clue. You just can't see righteousness if you fell into it.

JMK said...

It COULD work Seane-Anna....we just have to become more adept at making emotional appeals to the emotion-driven among us.

JMK said...

I don't think the current administration is looking to scuttle the Military WoT at all.

They're ratcheting UP Afghanistan (AFTER Iraq has already been stabilized), they're on-board with the NSA wiretaps, WITH the telecom immunities that SHOULD'VE BEEN "implied immunities," AND they're on-board with the rendition program - outsourcing our coercive interrogations to places like yemen and Egypt.

They're trying to walk a fine line - appealing to the emotion-driven, while acting logically.

JMK said...

Funny story Ducky, partial birth abortion is WORSE than mere torture and I define torture as "inflicting permanent, disabling damage on individuals to coerce information out them." In other words, nothing that doesn't inflict permanent and disabling damage - the loss of an eye, perhaps some digits, maybe some acid torture, but beating someone, even concussing them? So long as the person's concussion doesn't result in lasting and pronounced brain damage, that's not real torture in my book.

However, dismembering a baby (infants can survive OUTSIDE the womb after 21 weeks, making them UNDENIABLY viable, self-sustaining, self-owning LIVES at that juncture) while alive and discarding that child's body, the body of a child that would've lived fine outside the womb at 21 weeks, let along in the 8th or 9th, in fact, "murder by torture."

Bottom-line LOGIC dictates that YOU must either accept the sanctity of ALL life or NOT.

The Catholic Church and most religious people DO...I DO NOT.

I support first trimester abortion, on the grounds that an unwilling parent is, by definition, an unfit one, at that point and under those circumstances.

I also support the right of violent self-defense (the right to kill an intruder in your home, even if he's fleeing), I support the death penalty and I support wars for things like territorial expansion and economic gain.

I oppose the killing of preemies as young as 7, 8 or 9 months, for the same reason I SUPPORT the death penalty for repeat child-rapists....laws exist primarily to protect the innocent from those with motives our accepted morality calls "nefarious."

The reason you don't follow the argument is that you're driven by emotions, and not logic.

conservative brother said...

The easiest way jmk is for Islamic extremist groups to threaten Obama. That will get liberals hating radical Islam in droves. Liberals are pretty easy to manipulate, it's all in the angle that is used.

JMK said...

"The easiest way jmk is for Islamic extremist groups to threaten Obama. That will get liberals hating radical Islam in droves. Liberals are pretty easy to manipulate, it's all in the angle that is used." (Tyrone)
THAT would certainly seem to work, Tyrone!

American Ideas Click Here!