Got yer attention with that one didn’t I? Please read on, and let the explanation unfold…
“National security” is phrase that grabs people. It’s been drilled into our collective psyche the way theater “Exit” signs or “Smokey the Bear” posters have.
And it’s impossible to argue against. The minute you question the importance of “national security”, the majority of your audience turns against you.
But a little psychological judo, inspired by George Lakoff's ideas on framing goes a long way. You can use the power of “national security” by owning the definition.
Given that we were fed a line of bullshit that got us into Iraq, has cost trillions in direct and indirect costs, killed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (including civilian men, women and children) we'd better start owning "national security" quick, as well as the word, "defense".
The job of national security is to protect the lives and property of citizens.
Whose lives were protected? Those of our dead soldiers? Those of the rest of the country, who now face a generation of potential jihadists souldering with rage over a lie that destroyed an entire country?
Nope.
And if that doesn't bother your, how about property? Was yours protected? I know mine wasn't. A good chunck of my paycheck is going to pay the the interest on the loans the US took to finance a war made up out of thin air.
Mind you, the lives and finances of a bunch of unaccountable contractors and killers, if that's not redundant, were enriched beyond the the dreams of avarice. Maybe their success will trick down to the widows and children of the genuine volunteer patriots, but I doubt it.
But, before you try confronting anyone with arguments like the one above, remember that confrontation may not work, but dialogue might.
I don't say this out of a philosophic preference for dialogue over confrontation, but because, done the right way, dialogue forces the opposition to come up with their own reasons for agreeing with you. Judo, remember?
So,in light of the recent discovery of Erin Brockovich style carcinogens throughout the US water supply, I suggest the following dialogue on national security and the lives of citizens:
Start with the premise that he purpose of national security is to protect the lives and property of the citizenry. No conservative is going to argue with that. Hell, throw in "from threats within and without" and you'll still get agreement.
So, with heads nodding all around start asking if they mind paying taxes for defense and security.
You'll get agreement.
Ask: do you like a good return on investment?
Sure!
Do you lock just your front door and leave your back door open?
Hell, no!
So, do we defend just against outside threats or do we look inside as well?
Both!
Would you defend against a chemical attack in the US?
You bet?
No matter who it came from?
You bet: I'd start kicking ass!
So, if some terrorist put cancer causing chemicals in our water, you'd want to kick ass?
Yeah!
Well, let's go get (insert local polluting company here). Grab your pitchfork.
Now rinse and repeat the argument for property. Start talking about the mafia (who everyone will agree are criminals), move to people's back accounts, and end with Wall Street.
While this may only convert a few, if any serious conservatives, it will work on independents. The key is defining the debate. If you can do that, you win 9 times out of ten.
See
Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives, by George Lakoff. See also: Cognitive Policy Wonks and The Progressive Strategy Handbook Project