Looks like my thoughts about liberals wanting to debate politics, and then once cornered turning on-a-dime and announcing to all within earshot that they’re being hussled, hassled, brow-beaten, fed up, saturated, being held as a captive audience, victimized, et cetera, has struck a nerve with some others who’ve gone through similar experiences.

This makes me feel kinda bad, actually. It wasn’t so long ago I was going to blossom forth with some great ideas about how to argue with liberals. Little lists of rules, rough drafts, on my smart phone, on my thumb drive, on Google Docs…all torn to shreds by experience. I find out my rules aren’t quite right, and then I go back and re-do them and re-do them some more. It’s my nature. Rules are for you; not for the other guy. Because if the other guy doesn’t want to follow the rules, then whaddya do? No, you keep your corrections for yourself. Change what is in your power to change. If something could be your fault, and might not be your fault, the thing to do is make it your fault so you’ve got the power to change it. That’s a good piece of advice right there, and it has served me well.

Except here. My drafts have been revised and revised so many times they are nothing.

The trouble is, I think, that liberals are people…and people are different from one another, predictable as bouncing footballs. The task of figuring out who, exactly, is trying to get into a “friendly discussion” about politics with you becomes so demanding and so energy-consuming, that it becomes everything. Customization is the order of the day. Identifying your colleague/antagonist, his or her motives, phobias, et al, becomes the entire equation.

And so I’ve been forced to take a different approach.

The rules, now…have to do with what the liberals should & shouldn’t do when arguing politics. The job that falls to the other fella, is to take his marbles and go home if the liberal doesn’t sign on. This is contrary to conservative thinking. But that’s the price of stepping outside of Olympus. Simply negotiating how the “exchange of ideas” is going to take place, brings you in contact with someone who, if they don’t fit the mold of a dedicated agent of destruction, has been sold a bill of goods by someone who does fit that mold. It is a different world. Style over substance, feeling over thinking, and everyone’s a victim. See, that’s the problem right there. Liberals declaring their victim-hood, is like a skunk spraying its ick. And of course you’re the asshole if they’re the victim. Wherever there’s a victim someone must have been victimizing.

And so this is the only approach that works, I think: Arrange a pact, and if the equivalent of a wet signature isn’t forthcoming then change the subject to who’s going to win American Idol.

This list, I think, has a better chance of doing someone some good. It seems there are quite a few conservatives, or non-liberals, trying to figure out how to have these conversations with left-wingers. Not so much to change minds, but to emerge unscathed. There are more people engaged in this struggle than any of them realize, and we’re all on the same stupid merry-go-round. We’re all Charlie Browns, after Lucy pulled away the football yet again. So this one goes to Lucy…

Ten Commandments For Liberals Who Want to Argue About Politics

1. This is the First Commandment for a reason, because it is the most important: IN, or OUT. Your preference is to argue politics, or not to. One or the other; drop the “nuance.” You aren’t a little girl on the elementary school playground, so you don’t get to punch, bite, hit, kick and then run screaming to the yard-duty teacher when someone returns fire.

2. You get to change your mind later if you’re out and then want in. But not vice-versa. In is in.

3. If you thought it would be a great idea to start a discussion about politics with your conservative friend — as in, you initiated, he responded — remember it that way later. Don’t go spreading gossip about how he “started it,” “always starts it,” “is obsessed with politics,” “creates a hostile work environment,” “doesn’t seem to understand it isn’t suitable for the workplace,” “doesn’t get that some people don’t wanna hear it” or “won’t leave it alone.”

4. If you’ve found some “facts” to bolster your argument and want to use them here, you are almost certainly reciting the same facts somewhere else too. And it shows. Oh, Lord, more than you could possibly imagine, yes it does show. If there are some contrary facts, then, it is to your benefit for you to be told about them. Your conservative colleague/opponent just might involved an effort, as any true friend would, to stop you from making an enormous ass out of yourself. Check the list of Thirty Ignorant Opinions That Are Nevertheless Somehow Popular. If your position appears on this list, be advised that you don’t know some things you should be knowing, if you’re going to be talking about this stuff.

5. Just admit it, because it is almost certainly true: You have selected your political beliefs not as the conclusion of any fact-finding or information-pondering mission, but rather, in an effort to display yourself to various communities as a Really Nice Person^TM. You are to remember that this does not, repeat not, mean that anyone who brings up contrary points is a nasty person.

6. Nor does it mean they’re doubting your nice-ness. Just because this is your chosen method of showing how nice you are, doesn’t mean this is the only way. You might very well have overlooked a lot of other ones. That could very well be all that your opponent is trying to get across to you.

7. You’ve got some facts on your side; your “opponent” might have some on his side. Don’t be too surprised when he gives you some. That’s the whole point to having the discussion, isn’t it? If you are shocked by this, don’t take it out on him. If you find some facts agreeable and others less so, even though they’re all verifiable, that means you’re passionate about this certain issue but receptive to only half of the facts pertinent to it. This next point cannot be stressed enough: This selective sensitivity of yours is your problem. Yours. Not his. Yours.

8. Of course you think the world is a better place if & when your ideas prevail. Just remember, if you think the ends justify the means in whatever you’re saying or doing — your noble goals have metastasized into something that isn’t good. That includes, after the discussion is over, talking about your opponent in unflattering terms to a third party behind his back. You are heading down a steep, slippery road to a very dark place. You. Not him. You.

9. If you really want a civil discourse, stay away from the “the other guy did it too” defense. That isn’t a valid defense and you know it. Also, don’t tell your opponent what he should be reading, what he shouldn’t be reading, what you’ve been avoiding reading. If Malcom Forbes is dead and the National Enquirer says so, that doesn’t bring him back to life; once a fact is verified or verifiable, it really doesn’t matter who bothered to mention it.

10. The Boston Legal Alan Shore technique of “I find such-and-such to be odious therefore you should too” — doesn’t work in real life. It does not change minds. It doesn’t work with juries, or at least, it shouldn’t. It doesn’t work with anyone except people who already agree with you. It won’t work on your conservative opponent. And no, this does not mean your opponent is in favor of dirty air, dirty water, little kids getting shot by gangs, people staying poor, old people dying in heat waves, more people becoming homeless, more troop deaths, more AIDS, more teenage pregnancies, the planet dying out, or anything of the like. Don’t make him clarify this, he shouldn’t have to.

There. NOW you are ready for your friendly, civil, high-minded, reasoned exchange of ideas. And if any liberal friends of yours started reading this, and didn’t make it to the bottom, get this across to them: They need to stay away from arguing politics. Them. Not the other guy. Them. For their own good. Theirs. Not his. For theirs. Their sickness has a lot to do with alcoholism. They need help, they need to acknowledge they have a problem, and the longer they go pretending the problem isn’t there, the worse it’s gonna get.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Update 7/12/09: Right Wing News link was busted. I fixed it just now. Got a tad distracted last night doin’ other stuff…

Commenter HammerNH (over there) brings up a good point:

I would point out to the author that liberals do not observe or obey the rules. Rules are for the rest of us, not them (see Obama, ACORN, Geithner, Pelosi et al)

I don’t think, when you’re talking about the everyday-ordinary-liberal guy living next door and hob-nobbing with you at work, that you’re dealing with anyone more likely to break a promise or violate a rule. Liberal politicians, maybe. But the “I’m A Good Person Because I Drive A Prius” types who smell their own farts and talk with their eyes closed…no. They aren’t likely to break rules just because they disrespect rules.

It’s the structure of their beliefs, that make this a likelihood. They have their beliefs because they want to display some inner decency, which may or may not exist. So violating a “rule” to showcase that inner decency — it’s like one step back and two steps forward. So yeah, he’s right. This is a problem.

But depending on the subject under discussion, it can & will be a problem for the liberal as well. Keep in mind that so many of their misguided opinions depend on the idea that nobody ever violates laws, ever. Gun control, arms treaties…think about what lures the “moderate” into supporting a liberal belief. A lot of them are lulled in by a thought something like: “Well yeah, another country can pretend to be dismantling weapons but in reality hide them somewhere…but people are overall leaning toward good and virtuous by nature, and if nobody trusts anybody then there won’t be any peace.”

This Jenga tower suffers a sledgehammer blow when it is demonstrated that a pact can be accepted, and then violated within moments just as soon as it gets in the way of an agenda. By an everyday lefty-leaning person struggling to prove she’s a fairly decent trustworthy person, and overall is accepted that way by her family and friends.

That just makes the point a lot better than anything you could say.

snul. (I have so little respect for this practice that I refuse to grant it a capital ‘S’.) Regarding the domain move, we are now at the point that whatever new stuff goes up, is going to have to be done-and-redone. Truck’s loaded up, padlock’d shut, nobody can find their toothbrushes or underwear.

Lots of stuff about Noonan’s wonderful Sarah-Palin-bashing column. I really do think I’m in the majority on this time around; not quite so much with the “she’s the best hope for the country” stuff, but with the “man, I’m kinda sick about talking about her” stuff. I find it to be rather silly. She, herself, doesn’t want to be talked-about…so that’s one thing. Celebrities get that way now and then, but they still choose to be celebrities so I see some legitimacy with telling them “Hell with what you say Tom Cruise, you’re still raking in the bucks at the box office and this just comes with it.” It’s not that I think we owe it to her to pander to her feelings; it’s more of a — what’s the reason for talking about her? To remind others that she has no future and she’s not worth talking about? It’s an unworkable contradiction. If she has no future and she’s not worth talking about, show me that.

And that brings me to the second point: Both sides, the pro-Palins and the anti-Palins, demonstrate by bothering to say their stuff, that there’s a need for it to be said…and both sides in some way diminish the point they’re trying to make by doing this. Being a pro-Palin maybe I’m biased in saying this, but the anti-Palins are guiltier. From where does the necessity of telling me Palin’s a dud, arise? It’s a redundant exercise to try to convince Palin to bow out; she done it. If you’re trying to get the message across to the star-struck dimbulbs like me, that we shouldn’t be hoping she comes back — you’re tacitly acknowledging there’s some critical-mass of us…which, in turn, is tacitly acknowledging that her future is there, waiting for her if she wants it. But from there we get into some stuff that was already covered in Point #1.

Third point…if it is really beneficial to the future of this nation to talk about bouncing Sarah Palin out of any consideration for national office — for good — then my suggestion is to make her irrelevant. This is why people like me want her back in. Because she’s a chick? Heck no. Watch a Star Wars movie sometime; look close at what happens when the chicks take charge of things. It always leads to a disaster, always.

Nope, we want the policies the white-guys would be afraid to bring to the table, that she wouldn’t be afraid to bring. There are sound bites she uses that they’re afraid to use, or can’t use — they’re too busy implicitly apologizing for being white men. That, I can’t help but think, is metaphorical for what would happen in the alternative realities after each one of the candidates is sworn in as our next President.

As I said last night, in my reply to a certain blogger pal who admired Noonan’s column to me in the e-mails, trying to coerce me into coming to my senses…

[S]tep into my shoes for just a quick second. Be concerned with what concerns me: Policy. And be concerned with what forms the policy. Sound bites.

Read up: Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech as John McCain’s running mate.

I invite you to look at this speech the way I look at it. Contrast it with what the six-foot-tall straight-white-Protestant guys would say. You see, this six-foot-hetero-Protestant-white-guy-with-twenty-one-digits stuff has a real bearing on what the cand[id]ates do & do not have the BALLS to say. In my opinion, this is really the Number One issue. It’s not that I’m anxious to elect a woman. It’s what Sarah Palin has the balls to say. She’s a chick; so she can criticize. The time has come to admit that us white-straight-guys, unless we have testicles that require wheelbarrows and use them to substantiate our God-given rights, which most white men don’t have and don’t do — simply can’t say this stuff. We abrogate our rights and privileg[e]s to say these things, before the first syllable comes out of our mouths.

“But listening to him [Obama] speak, it’s easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform – not even in the state senate.”

What six-foot twenty-one-digit straight white guy has had the balls to say that?

“This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word ‘victory’ except when he’s talking about his own campaign.”

Bulls-eye again. What seventy-two-inch straight white guy can say that?

“[When] those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot – what exactly is our opponent’s plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he’s done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger…”

Again, I ask you. What Protestant white dude can say such things?

“America needs more energy … our opponent is against producing it.”

Have you heard of a six-foot twenty-one-digit good-lookin’ white dude saying such a thing? On that national stage?

“Victory in Iraq is finally in sight … he wants to forfeit.”

…This is as obvious as the elephant in the room. And as dudes, we can’t say it out loud because of some bizarre, post-modern, ultra-sanitized protocol. The Good Lord, I think, constructed us to not be so hyper-sensitive to such a thing. But as descendants of those unfortunate two who bit into the apple, it seems we have achieved more “knowledge” than we should have. Yes, Sarah Palin is something of a thief…she has stolen our masculinity. But she stole what we failed to lock down, indeed, what we failed to put behind closed doors. And she stole it to do good things — the things the male sex should have been doing. I say, stop blaming her for our negligence. She’s only doing what needs to be done.

“Terrorist states are seeking new-clear weapons without delay … he wants to meet them without preconditions.”

Did Romney say something like this? Rudy? Huck? When? Where? Aw…tragedy of tragedies…our need to apologize for our very existence, for being six-foot non-amputee hetero white men…it got in the way. Good thing Sarah Palin did what we couldn’t do!

“Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America … he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights?”

Again, she’s stating the obvious. Because it falls to her to do so, and nobody else will do it. This is her fault somehow? How?

“Government is too big … he wants to grow it. Congress spends too much … he promises more. Taxes are too high … he wants to raise them.”

Nostradamus never had a prophecy that was realized quite like this one!

“The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes … raise payroll taxes … raise investment income taxes … raise the death tax … raise business taxes … and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars. My sister Heather and her husband have just built a service station that’s now opened for business – like millions of others who run small businesses. How are they going to be any better off if taxes go up? Or maybe you’re trying to keep your job at a plant in Michigan or Ohio … or create jobs with clean coal from Pennsylvania or West Virginia … or keep a small farm in the family right here in Minnesota. How are you going to be better off if our opponent adds a massive tax burden to the American economy?”

This, in my mind, is the paramount disgrace heaped against the male sex. And Ms. Palin didn’t even try to insult us; she was just saying what had to be said.

Now it could very well be that I’m just carping away about political realities. They are what they are. Not the fault of Thompson, Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, et al. But what of it? Palin can, does, and did say these things. I look at the six-foot non-amputee Protestant white guys to see what they have to say — and all I see are worthless bromides.

We need a woman to show the world the balls the men should have.

Fourth point: Show me someone who wants to talk about that disastrous performance on Katie Couric’s interview, I’ll show you someone who really has no point to make worth making.

If you click on Noonan’s piece, then go to the “Comments” tab, you’ll find a worthy exchange at the top of it…

John Pacheco wrote:

You’re basing your assessment of how thoughtful she is on a couple of hostile TV interviews?

Doug D. replied:

… and any single public appearance since or before those ‘hostile TV interviews’; she’s inept.

John Pacheco replied:

We can disagree on that, but Peggy either bases her criticism on the Couric/Gibson interviews or doesn’t substantiate them at all. She also misrepresents or just misses what Palin’s supporters see in her. Kind of ironic given that Noonan contends Palin is not thoughtful, and, amazingly, that Palin lacks the ability to become thoughtful.

Noonan is normally pretty thoughtful herself, but you’d never know it from this particular piece.

Pacheco speaks for me. Palin’s handicap with teevee interviews, to whatever degree it exists at all, is limited to looking bad when someone in charge is chomping at the bit to make her look bad. Anyone want to belly up to the bar and connect their sterling name & reputation to the idea that the Holy Man in the White House is any better? The question shouldn’t be how & why she can be made to look bad, or how bad she can be made to look. The question is, instead, how come it is there are these people who want to make her look bad? What are their motives? Noonan missed out on that. She was too busy echoing the cliche: Couric had Palin for lunch, Palin’s a dunce. Not worthy of having the Noonan name placed on top.

As a practical matter, there is no reason to discuss it. Everyone knows about the interview. Twenty-four hours after the interview, everyone who was concerned about it had their mind made up about it one way or the other. It was impossible to change the mind of anyone who thought it was important, back then; it’s doubly impossible now. It’s just a silly thing to bring up.

And that goes double for Charles Gibson’s interview — since Palin got it right and Gibson got it wrong. You knew that already, didn’t you?

I am disappointed, I must say, with the ability people have to follow instructions. I’m disappointed that they have it…when the instructions are something along the lines of “don’t think X.” As a modern culture, we have become far too obedient here. And I notice the obedient types are the ones who are most passionate about VOTING. They can’t wait to get out there and vote. Don’t you dare take their votes away! Don’t you dare fail to count their votes, or fail to count the votes of anyone who votes the same way.

What is it about voting? Seriously, I wonder, why do they care about it so much? If they care nothing about policies, they’re so casual about being told how who they’re supposed to like and who they’re not supposed to like, what Charles Gibson asked, what answer Palin gave in response how much it is wrong and how stupid this means Palin is and how much you’re supposed to hate her…why be so fired-up about casting a vote that simply says you’ve gotten your instructions and you’re obeying them? I really want to know.

Do they want to send the message that the indoctrination works, so more of it will be coming out later? Seems, to me, like it’s a little bit late for that. Message sent, message received.

Peggy Noonan needs to take a good long look in the mirror, and seriously ask herself what is so urgent about getting this message out. All these lightweight Republicans do. If the policies have to be muted and toned down so we can get Republicans elected, get some more legislators in there with the letter “R” in back of their names…but they don’t have the testicular fortitude to say Barack Obama is forfeiting things when that’s plainly what Barack Obama wants to do…what’s the point? Seriously. It’s complete nonsense; whatever the explanation is, it must be primal and psychological.

In 2012, it may be Palin or it may be someone else. Either way — independence strikes to the very heart of the soul of humanity. All thinking persons, be they pious or be they secular, I think, realize this down to the very marrow of their bones — we have been put here by a Higher Power, to realize this independence, even at the cost of our very lives. It is in our programming. It is how we define civilization…or it is how we are intended to identify civilization.

Imagine with me if you will, a 2012 campaign season constructed around this central pillar:

In the year of our lord thirteen fourteen, patriots of Scotland, starving and outnumbered, charged the fields of Bannockburn. They fought like warrior poets. They fought like Scotsmen. And won their freedom.

That’s what it’s really all about, right?

Okay, it’s alright if you were thinking about Sarah Palin in a short Highland kilt. Whatever brings in the votes.