I really enjoyed
Bill in Portland Maine's fantastic diaried rant (
http://www.dailykos.com/...) about how Republican's can continue to support this President, the Republican members of Congress who rubber-stamp his policies, and the GOP.
A couple of us were discussing how we talk to Republican cheerleaders in the comments. I was about to leave a long reply, and it occurred to me that this might be a good topic for its own diary.
I talk with Republicans a lot. For some reason, they think I'm a nice liberal person they can tolerate. Maybe it's because I don't yell or argue - I try to be as polite as possible, and I try to not overtly attack them as "bad people" for believing in policies that are flat-out wrong in my book. I have to work really hard to have respectful conversations with them, especially now. Here are a few tips on how I frame discussions with the GOP faithful. The short explanation: I don't let them make me defend my positions. Instead, I carefully wield the discussion to force them to prove and defend the indefensible actions and positions of the GOP.
When talking with Republicans who continue to wrap themselves in "patriotism" by supporting this President and this Republican congress, I make sure that I don't bite the traps they set. They love to argue, they love to turn it around and make you defensive to avoid answering the point they cannot possibly answer without sounding foolish. We can do the same thing. The benefit we have is that we have proof and truth on our side to help us win the debates. Many Republicans are smart people who pride themselves on their moral values. Our job is to point out when moral values conflict with GOP policies and actions.
A few weeks ago, I was talking to a bright guy who is simply religiously brainwashed into believing that even when the Republicans "make mistakes" (ugh), they have the moral high ground and they are much better than Democrats for doing what Jesus would want. We often have discussions about religion and politics, and how I believe there are many key lessons from the Bible that are being blatantly ignored by the GOP.
When we discussed Iraq recently, I asked him how he could continue to support this war. I said I didn't understand how a smart guy would be willing to ignore the President's false claims that Iraq and Saddam were a direct threat to the US. He acknowledges that there probably were not WMDs there (for a long time, he insisted they were moved to Syria, but I've shown him quotes from Rumsfeld, Cheney and others admitting that they probably never existed). He acknowledges the reasons have changed based on whatever story the admin gave at the time, until proof came out that their stories/excuses were BS.
He says, "but in the end, the Iraqi people are better off now that Saddam is gone".
I ask him how he can justify that statement, that from all estimates, around 100,000 civilians have been killed. I resist the urge to remind him the cost in American lives and money, as that is a tangent off the main point. Instead, I focus on the fact that the Bush admin has admitted that most of the civil war problems happening in Iraq are caused by either terrorists who entered the country after we removed Saddam from power, or from infighting from those Iraqis who do not want us to occupy them, and do not want to be under the religious rule of another party. They didn't have AlQaeda nor "insurgents" nor civil war before we overthrew their government, disbanded their army and police, and left the country vulnerable to become a lawless terrorist haven.
He turns it around and says, "Oh, so you want Saddam to be in power?"
Rather than getting sidetracked by defending that concept, I say, "Wait, you didn't answer my question. How can you say that the Iraqis are better off today than when we invaded? No security, no safety, no basic services (running water and working electricity all day, etc.)... how are they better off due to our invasion and occupation?"
He tries to argue little points, but I keep politely returning to demand that he defend his statement that Iraqis are better off today than under Saddam.
After acknowledging the wealth of facts that conflict with his claim, he finally gives a defensive answer, and it is stunning to me:
"We've only killed as many civilians as Saddam would have done in the same time period."
After I pick my jaw off of the floor, I ask him to prove it. He tries, but can't... basically citing an estimate of how many Kurds Saddam gassed a dozen years ago.
I regain my composure and get back on track to the heart of the discussion. I get to the heart of what his shocking statement implied.
I reply: "So you're saying it's better for us to kill innocent civilians than for Saddam to kill them."
He stammers.
So, you believe it's better for Americans to be the killers of innocent people," I repeat back to him.
Sometimes, GOP faithful have to be forced to hear their own words. Those with a conscience try to avoid this, because they know that supporting the GOP's policies are in conflict with what they know is correct in their heart.
Naturally, this was the point where the political conversation ended that day. My friend realized what he was saying was indefensible.
I've come to the conclusion that we have to stop being so darn nice and considerate, jumping to defend everything we say and not demanding answers from the Bush loyalists. While it's not productive to be bitchy or whiny, we can engage in respectful conversation that demands accountability. We need to hammer on their unwavering support of failed policies and immoral actions, and we can make them listen to the garbage that's coming out of their mouths.
There is nothing weak nor embarrassing about not taking bait they lay. We don't have to answer their questions until they answer for the mess their "heroes" have created.
We can be polite in reminding them to stick to the matter at hand - defend your pro-GOP position. (You'll note that I suppressed the urge to yell at the top of my lungs at this guy when he claimed justification for our killing Iraqis - I kept my cool and made him think about what he was saying. It was far more effective than blowing my top).
We do not have to defend our opposition to Bush and the GOP. They have to defend these horrific policies and actions. After all, their "heroes" have been granted all of the power. We must demand that they answer these types of questions.
Reactions I often get to these types of discussions with Republicans are that they attack the Democrats, saying things like, "but the Democrats just whine. They don't have a plan," I have a clear-cut answer: "exactly what is the plan of GWB?" If we're talking about Iraq, they give the stock "when they stand up, we'll stand down". I ask, "how's that working so far? We have less self-supporting Iraqi battalions now than we did a year ago. They are not 'standing up'. Does this mean you're all for a permanent occupation of this country?"
When they say, "Democrats are weak on national security," I ask them to prove it. I also cite stats on how the 9/11 commission has proven that we're in no better state of security than we were before that event.
We can be polite and we can be firm. We have to make them prove and defend their support of the GOP policies and specific politicians. We don't have to work very hard to defend our position on issues, and we cannot let them distract us by answering a question with an accusation or question of their own. Firmly and politely demand that they defend this GOP.
Come up with your own talking points. Think of a half-dozen GOP positions that make no sense on legal, moral, or ethical grounds. When you have conversations with Republicans, drive the discussion toward making them defend the indefensible.
Some Republicans do have a heart and a conscience. Many of them are not stupid people. Make them articulate the crazy policies they support. Poke and prod at their reasoning and their conscience long enough, and they cannot ignore the fact that their leaders are doing illegal, immoral, and reprehensible things.