Recently there have been several calls from high-profile Republicans to bring back civility to political discourse — from Bill Frist to Newt Gingrich to George W. Bush himself. I think this is a grave mistake (and I almost never disagree with what our President says), and further, I don’t even think these guys mean it. I think their fingers were crossed behind their backs when they called for civility.
Being civil is no way to win a debate with a liberal; it brings you down to their level.
Now, in college, if you take debate, they have guidelines like these:
Contentions should be stated clearly at the onset of the debate.
Questions or challenges should not be personal or insulting.
Initial briefs are to be offered without clash or reference to the statement made by the other side. Clash and refutation occurs only in rebuttal.
In other words: State you case clearly, let your opponent state his case clearly, and don’t insult or threaten your opponent as a means of rebuttal.
You have got to throw that junk out the window. It’s no way to win a debate. Rule number one in The Myers Guide to Debating Liberals (and Winning): physically intimidate your opponent. We on the right have a long history of physical intimidation. For instance, here is a partial transcript of a debate between William F. Buckley and Gore Vidal in 1968 (Gore Vidal slyly uses rule number three in my guide, but I’ll get to that in a moment; right now we’re focusing on Buckley):
Vidal: As far as I’m concerned, the only pro- or crypto-Nazi I can think of here is yourself.
Buckley: Now listen, you queer, you stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I’ll sock you in the goddamn face and you’ll stay plastered.
And here is a partial transcript from him debating Noam Chomsky:
Chomsky: Sometimes I lose my temper. Maybe not tonight.
Buckley: Maybe not tonight, because if you would I’d smash you in the goddamn face.
Man, is Buckley cool! So that’s a couple of historical examples. Let’s look at a more recent example to get a really good idea of how to do it.
Bill O’Reilly to Jeremy M. Glick: Get out, get out of my studio before I tear you to fucking pieces!
Okay. So that demonstrates rule number one. If you don’t like something some liberal said, threaten to smash them, sock them, or tear them to pieces. They will probably shut up (as liberals are wimpy and hate violence), and you win by default. Go team!
If that doesn’t work, you move on to rule number two: lie about your opponent. The great thing about spreading lies about your opponent is that their best response is, “That’s not true.” And you can say, “Your denial proves it. Nobody would ever admit to having such beliefs (or to doing such a terrible thing) in public!” For instance:
Ann Coulter: Liberals are always against America.
Tony Blankley: [The liberal media are] likely to do vast damage that may last for several years to the morale […] of our military.
See that? You say, “Liberals hate America,” and someone observing thinks, Gosh, I’m for America, so I must dislike liberals. And you’ve won that mind. You say, “The media are destroying America by telling the truth!” and someone observing thinks, Freakin’ media, I hate the truth! And you’ve won another mind. And that’s what debating is about. It’s about winning hearts and minds, not getting at the truth or anything silly like that.
Winning hearts and minds.
(Side note: If you have a problem with lying because you’re a Christian, as I do, at least in principle, feel free to think of it as “alternate truthing.” I can’t know for sure if Tony Blankley actually believes that the media have hurt the morale of the military by telling the truth, maybe he does, and if so he isn’t lying; and maybe Ann Coulter actually believes that liberals are always against America. But believing something doesn’t make it the truth — simply an “alternate truth.” If you can convince yourself to believe what you’re saying, even better.)
And finally, an extension of rule number two, rule number three, the last rule: drop a lot of hot-button words that will make an observer associate your opponent with something he doesn’t like. For instance, according to a recent poll, atheists are the least trusted group in America, even though there’s no evidence supporting a reason to distrust them, so you need to call all liberals atheists. No, it’s not true. Most conservatives and liberals are Christians in America, but that’s about as relevant as the fact that there’s nothing actually wrong with atheists. You use the words that work. Other words to use are Communist, socialist, Stalinist, godless, elite, intellectual, Hollywood, secular and treasonous.
There are others, but those should get you started. Have fun. Find your own hot-button words by trying out different ones and seeing what kind of reaction you get.
Okay, so there you go. The three rules to debating liberals:
1. Physically intimidate them.
2. Lie about them and their motives.
3. Use hot-button words to make observers associate your opponent with something they find distasteful.
Oh, I just remembered, one more rule:
4. Never be intimidated by facts — they’re the province of the godless intellectual elite!
(Did you see what I just did there? That’s what I like to call a “threefer.”)