Liberal Dogma: Explaining how Liberals personalize a political discussion

By Justin P. DePlato

Have you ever found yourself debating an issue, like abortion, or national security with a professed liberal? If so, then this article is a must read for you. Even if you are a professed liberal, you may find some value in understanding how your mind works.

I have found myself in the middle of many debates during my life. I tend to bring the political side out of people. And I must say I have enjoyed every debate or discussion I have ever had with someone. It does not matter whether they are conservative or liberal, educated or not, wealthy or poor, white or black, Christian or non-Christian, the importance of a debate is the discussion of ideas and concepts, not someone’s demographics. Often though, when I entertain a discussion with a professed liberal, the discussion seemingly falls through the cracks into a debate or often times into an argument. I find myself wondering why that occurs? Is it simply because a conservative and a liberal cannot have a calm coherent discussion because of their different views? Or it is because something else is going on? This short article explores why debates between conservatives and liberals tend to disintegrate into arguments. In order to examine how a conversation with a conservative and liberal disintegrates into an argument, I pose a hypothetical discussion as the basis for examination in this article.

Lets take for example, the issue of abortion. The parameters of the issue of abortion are as such, generally speaking, most conservatives would find themselves on the issue of abortion supporting the side of pro-life and conversely most liberals would find themselves supporting the side of pro-choice. The conservative would defend the child’s right to life, while the liberal would defend the woman’s right to choice, ignoring any right to the unborn child. The conservative would likely argue that an unborn child is a human being, and as such, has self-evident inalienable rights, just like any other human being, regardless of being born or not. The liberal would entertain the idea offered by the conservative, but would quickly argue that since the child is unborn, and is just a zygote we can not be sure that the child is in fact a human being and as such, we can not guarantee the child any rights (the liberal would actually use the pro-noun “it”, I just can not steep that low, so I wont).

Here, we begin to see the difference between logical conservative thinking and illogical liberal thinking. The conservative follows a linear thought process and rightfully defines the zygote as an unborn child, however, the liberal, seeing the flaws in their own argument, or lackthereof of fact, relies on fragmenting any definition of the zygote being a child and uses ambiguity as the starting point for their argument. In other words, the conservative relies on a logical definition as a starting point to build an argument, where as, the liberal strips away any logical starting point or definition so they can then define things as the argument progresses. Liberals strip away at the defining of the core issue in the hope the argument progresses in their favor. Now if this sounds confusing, good, because it is. We are dealing with liberal dogma, not something easily defined.

Let me continue to explain, once the conservative begins to paint a logical linear argument about how an unborn child is a human being, (not unlike any of the rest of us who at one time were just a simple zygote, left alone to the natural reproductive progress every time develops into a person), the liberal will begin to accuse the conservative of being intolerant to different ideas or insensitive to female rights. The liberal will introduce the idea of female rights as a way to muddy the water or confuse the actual issue being debated or discussed. In other words, the liberal sensing the rigidity of the conservative’s argument begins to personalize the debate. Liberals probably personalize things, especially in debates, because they realize the only way to attack the conservative, or in many cases just the logical argument being made in front of them, is to make the person making the logical argument feel guilty or insensitive. This my friends is what I call liberal dogma. Liberal dogma is the liberal strategy that when debating don’t attack the facts, don’t present a linear coherent argument, don’t define anything, don’t acknowledge facts, and above all never let reason be your main foundation or starting point in an argument.

Now, given the concept of liberal dogma, how does the debate on abortion always end between a conservative and a liberal? The ending is very predictable. The conservative will argue a logical case that the unborn child is a human being, thus deserving of inalienable rights, (an absolute truth). In doing so, the conservative will argue to kill the unborn child is not different then killing any other living person. This my friends is called murder.

The liberal, however, will muddy the water, cloud the sky and twist the can like it has never been twisted before. Instead of acknowledging the facts the conservative presented, like the one that a zygote, left to the natural course of reproduction, will inevitably become a human being (if not one already), the liberal will twist the logic saying, “We can’t be so sure that a zygote will in fact develop into a human being?” Of course we can be so sure, what else would the zygote end up being, an alien? In addition the liberal will start attacking the conservative saying things like, “ you are a male chauvinist, insensitive to the plight of the female cause, a defender of male privilege and female oppression”. And you as a conservative should respond back saying (after you scratch your head in amazement and confusion) “what does that have to do with the debate about abortion? We are not debating patriarchy, we are debating abortion”

If any of that sounds familiar to you, then I feel your pain. Neither of the claims aforementioned by the liberal is accurate in the debate over abortion. Abortion is about the aborting of an unborn child, that is the literal definition (you can look it up in Webster), then how can a liberal claim the debate is about male privilege or female oppression? My friends, that is liberal dogma and liberals do it so you the conservative, the logical one, the defender of reason, can feel guilty and insensitive, when in fact you are actually debating the issue.

The liberal is not debating the issue instead they are trying to spew their warped way of thinking on the rest of us! They are the intolerable ones, they are the insensitive ones, they are the illogical ones, and above all, they are the inaccurate ones. If a liberal wants to debate male privilege, then have a debate about male privilege. Don’t warp the debate about abortion into something it is not. The point is clear my friends, liberals make no sense, so when debating with them be very weary of the illogical personal attack tactics they will use, and when they do it, call them out on it and fight back! And by the way, if you are a pro-lifer you are not a male chauvinist or against the female plight, but I doubt liberals will ever understand that. Never ever let a liberal take ownership of words against you or make you feel guilty or insensitive, because you are neither. And for the record, no one owns words or language.

In conclusion, my conservative friends, never let the liberal dogma confuse you or dismay you. Remember, every time you enter into a debate with a liberal, liberal dogma applies, so don’t be stupid, instead be mindful, be careful and be ready to fight back. We, conservatives, are fighting the good fight, we are trying to educate people about issues, we are the tolerant ones, after all, if we are willing to debate a liberal, then we must be tolerant.

 Justin DePlato is the Chairman and founder of the Metroconservative PAC. His background includes working and interning in the United States House of Representatives with the Ways and Means Committee. He has also managed and contributed to running several political campaigns for House representatives and Senate campaigns. He also writes a column for the politixgroup, www.politixgroup.com .

You can send comments to Justin's column at info@metroconservative.org

The Dark Cloud

By Justin DePlato, Chairman Metroconservative PAC

In wake of the recent catastrophe in the Gulf region of the United States-New Orleans, Mississippi , and Florida -the United States stands as a country embarrassed and confused. The slow response to the hurricane’s devastation has left many around the world and within the United States wondering, who is to blame? And how could such a slow response occur? An even broader question lies at the feet of this natural catastrophe, is the United States prepared to handle a large terrorist attack? If such an attack occurred, given the slow response and ineptness of the local government and the federal government with respect to a natural disaster, then how would the country fair in responding to a terrorist attack?

In order to answer the questions above, first and foremost, we must acknowledge the enormity of the disaster at hand. Hurricane Katrina was a category 4 hurricane-estimates clocked its maximum winds at about 150 mph and a storm surge in the area of 30 feet. In addition, unfortunately, Hurricane Katrina could not have picked a more susceptible area to strike. New Orleans , at large, lies below sea level, protected only by levies. In assessing where the Hurricane hit in military terms, would be saying the Hurricane hit the underbelly of the United States . A nice analogy is to liken Katrina to the American invasion at Normandy in WWII, the underbelly of the German-controlled Europe in 1944. Just like the Americans left the beaches of Normandy devastated, Hurricane Katrina left the Mississippi delta flooded, and the city of New Orleans drowned in its wake.

Understanding the enormity of the Hurricane aside, one must be concerned about the potential destruction of an enormous terrorist attack. It is not unreasonable to consider if a “dirty bomb” or a weapon of mass destruction was detonated in either New York City or Washington , D.C. , then the result would be catastrophic. The enormity of such a disaster could reasonably parallel the natural disaster we have all just witnessed-although releasing a weapon of mass destruction would be much more paralyzing and deadly, than even the worst hurricane-how would our country handle such a disaster?

If we use Katrina as a litmus test for future disasters of similar enormity or worse, then we all should be very worried in our government’s ability to handle and respond to such an attack. Our government clearly is to blame for the slow response in the wake of Katrina, but not just the federal government, the local government of New Orleans was ill-prepared to help its most impoverished citizens. As New Orleans drowned, so too did its most impoverished citizens, and unfortunately, our government sat solely on a high dry hill unconcerned about those left behind. If that does not anger you as a citizen of this country, then you have no remorse or conscience for those less fortunate or impoverished.

Let me be philosophical for a moment, the greatness of a society should be measured by how well their most disadvantaged or least successful individuals are taken care of or aided for. When a society fails to take care of its most vulnerable citizens, a dark cloud lingers above us all. We all should be ashamed by what we saw in New Orleans . Does this mean we are all to blame? No. What this does mean, we as a country need to seriously look at the disparity that exists in our country with regards to income and resource allocation. Clearly, the disaster in New Orleans has pulled the cover off of a problem that our great country has too long ignored; the poverty that is running amuck in our country’s cities is out of control.

Beyond the philosophical questions lingering in the wake of Katrina, lay the more prevalent questions of whose to blame, should we be concerned, and what implications can we draw from this disaster? First, is it prudent to point fingers after such an enormous disaster? Frankly, in order to grapple with the question of blame, one must consider what value will be attained by assessing blame. If we all agree that by assigning blame we may draw positive conclusions, then it is prudent to ask the question, who is to blame?

However, if we seek blame only to demise our leadership, demoralize our nation, to spread anti-American rhetoric, or to spew treason, then the value of obtaining or assigning blame, seems to me, to be less prudent and utterly inexcusable. In the case of Katrina, I argue, the blame should only be considered and assigned when we are seeking positive conclusions about the implications of the disaster on future events. Therefore in this case, we should find fault and assign blame to the Federal and the Local governments, we should not though, assign this blame only to demise or question the competency of the leaders involved, etc. Assigning blame should not be, in any way, a partisan witch hunt, instead we need to evaluate how ineptitude occurs and what it means for future situations, e.g. natural disaster responses and terrorism.

Does this mean we should we be afraid of the future, of course not, but should we be a little worried, absolutely! A storm may be brewing and we all should wonder is our government capable of quelling any storm, whether it is natural or man made? I know it may not be politically correct to ask for God’s help, but maybe we should, since after all we are a nation “under one God”.

Justin DePlato is the Chairman and founder of the Metroconservative PAC. His background includes working and interning in the United States House of Representatives with the Ways and Means Committee. He has also managed and contributed to running several political campaigns for House representatives and Senate campaigns. He also writes a column for the politixgroup, www.politixgroup.com .

You can send comments to Justin's column at info@metroconservative.org