I came across a
link to what amounts to a
handbook for neocons (PDF).
It's a fascinating document, and I urge everyone here to read it because it will help you understand how ideological warfare is waged.
The post contains this handy summary of twelve "rules" put forth by a Reagan-era neconservative:
- Forget trying to convert your adversary; if it happens, it will be like winning the lottery.
- Control the agenda: define the debate issues and control their priority.
- Preach to the already converted; strengthen their attachment to the cause.
- Never forget the uncommitted: almost invariably, they constitute the majority.
- Broad appeal involves restraint while a sharp focused pitch can alienate some.
- Repeat your winning points over and over.
- Eliminate unnecessary concepts, variables or constructs.
- Use examples and analogies that bring home the point only and do not distract from it.
- Use supporting quotations from someone not identified with your case; preferably someone who is considered unimpeachable, if not omniscient, by your opponent.
- Answer your opponents arguments first; save discussion of motives for last.
- Be an expert. Know several times more about a topic than you can conceivably use or show.
- Understand the position of your adversary in its strongest form.
Here's one sample from Rule #2 in the handbook that I think is highly relevant to what's going on now:
It is just as important, and on the same grounds, to deny your opponent the right to impose his language and concepts on the debate, and to make sure that you always use terms that reflect your own values, traditions, and interests. Carelessness, complacency, or misplaced tolerance in response to semantic aggression- as by accepting "socialist" as a description of the totalitarian states of Eastern Europe, "détente" as a description of almost uninhibited hostility, "neocolonialism" as a description of market relations between Western and Third World countries - can be, and has been, enormously costly in surrendering control over the terms of debate.
So what do you think? How are we seeing these rules being used in the public sphere today? How can we avoid getting trapped?