I love talkin’ with people. My heroin if you will, is the first couple conversations I have with a prospect or new client. It’s a fix I need often, and greedily seek. Political discussions also interest me. I love the rational give and take of a spirited political debate. What I can’t stand though, is the emotional claptrap, the avoidance of facing tough questions head-on, and the favorite technique of empty headed smart-asses, answering a question with a question.
Obviously, liberals and conservatives are both guilty. My experience however is with libs, who sometimes seem literally incapable of addressing simple questions asked in plain, one to two syllable words. I’m to the right of Atilla the Hun, and make no bones about it. The only reason I twice voted for Reagan was cuz Goldwater didn’t run. And HE wasn’t conservative enough. 🙂
Back to political debate.
I’ve developed some hard and fast rules. If ya wanna play with me, you abide by them, or we don’t talk politics. It tends to get libs’ panties in a bind, but it works well. Those who agree to them, usually end up admitting it made for a much calmer, more honest, and certainly friendlier give and take.
The Rules
1. If I ask you a question, you must answer THAT question — nothing more. Take as long as you need, but you must limit your response to the specific question. It works both ways.
2. Without exception — NO answering a question with a question. It’s almost always the way out when you have nothing to say. Either give the other guy the point, or make your case.
3. No personal attacks. The discussion ends there, without warning. You’ve obviously shown your gun is loaded with blanks. You’ve embarrassed yourself. Quit while you’re behind.
4. Don’t dress up your opinion as fact. You look foolish, and it’s an insult to my intelligence. It’s either fact or not. The intensity of your belief doesn’t make it so.
Here’s a recent example of a talk I had with a lib in Starbucks the other day. It was a great example of what’s possible.
We were standing in line and began talking about the Scott Brown win. He was appalled by it, and I was elated. We hit it off, so he invited me to share a table and chat about it over our coffee. Cool.
Although ‘John’ was a little surprised at the ground rules, he smiled, and readily agreed.
We started, at my suggestion, by establishing our core beliefs. He admitted to being an avid Obama supporter. I said I was to the right of Reagan. Then it was on.
He went first, asking me what I thought of W’s presidency. I told him with the exception of the tax cuts and national security (no attacks on his watch), his presidency was an abomination to conservatives everywhere. John was taken aback by that response, saying, ‘Man, nobody can accuse you of not tellin’ it like it is.’
I then asked him, “Values matter. Are you hoping your 13 year old daughter follows the example of the entire Kennedy family, and/or Bill Clinton when it comes to marital fidelity?” I love that question cuz it’s an easy one to answer if you’re gonna be honest.
John began to answer with a question about Republican sexual scandals, but I put my finger to my lips while shakin’ my head no. Answer the question, Big Guy. He smiled, then to his credit, said, “My heart would be broken if a daughter of mine treated marriage that way.” Good answer — honest to be sure.
This went on for over an hour. Every time he thought I’d get squeamish, I looked him in the eye and answered him directly. Nixon was an embarrassment. Both Bushes were spineless when going against Dems. Any war is a mistake if we don’t go in to wipe the enemy out, and damn quickly. Kill ’em all if that’s what it takes.
John, as time passed, became more and more comfortable admitting his misgivings about the libs over the years who’ve disappointed him. Neither one of us changed our core beliefs. I’m still the most conservative guy most folks will meet — a Neanderthal in John’s eyes. He’s still mixin’ the Obama Kool-Aid — a hopeless Kumbuya groupie. 🙂
Yet, we became friendly acquaintances talking about a topic most folks avoid like the plague. We promised to look for each other whenever we’re in that Starbucks. And I think the Rules made that possible.
What think you?
Julia says:
I was a poli sci major and would describe myself as a progressive/liberal with libertarian leanings. I refuse to even talk about politics with most people because it just ends up pissing me off.
I’d welcome a political debate with those rules, but I’d add #5: You aren’t allowed to quote a political pundit, sound bite (e.g. death panels) or the bible.
January 23, 2010 — 1:02 pm
Gary Frimann says:
I, too, majored in Poli Sci.
Quick “yes” or “no” question–(there can NEVER be any gray):
Are you for nuclear war? No parsing, no further explanation, no mamby pamby “well, if.” Give it to me straight.
Political question of the day:
Should banks be allowed to use TARP money to pay bonuses so they can retain their most treasured, productive employees?
Question 2: Would you want your 13 year old daughter to behave like the oldest Palin girl?
Just curious…
January 23, 2010 — 1:22 pm
Jeff Brown says:
Gary — All great questions, and all meant not to lend to a rational discussion, but as debate techniques. No sale here, Big Guy.
For the record, I was FOR nuclear war in August of 1945.
Rational discussion begins with open ended questions without the camouflage of hidden intent.
Nice try.
January 23, 2010 — 1:59 pm
Jeff Brown says:
Julia — You have be crackin’ up. Though quoting pundits is often a weak argument, as long as it serves to answer the direct question, I’d not have a problem. It can’t be used however to represent the pundit’s opinion as fact.
The Bible? Same as quoting pundits. If it’s right on point, what’s the big deal? If it’s to hide the lack of a substantive answer, it becomes transparently weak.
January 23, 2010 — 2:06 pm
Scott Schang says:
Having embarked on one these 4+ hour political journeys with Jeff(probably at that exact same Starbucks on the patio?), I can only say that – whether you are on the same side or not, his political debate skills reach a level of mastery few will ever achieve in a lifetime.
If you still haven’t had enough, get him started on baseball and you better have packed a lunch cuz it’s going to be an action filled day!
Sounds like is was a very satisfying debate for you – even though secretly I know you like to watch a lib have a meltdown!
January 23, 2010 — 2:29 pm
Jeff Brown says:
Hey Scott — Yep, same place. One of the most enjoyable conversations of last year.
By the way, the guy I met in the post was a year older than I, and was a diehard Giants fan in the 1960’s. Ya shoulda heard us goin’ back and forth about Mays, and Koufax etc.
January 23, 2010 — 2:56 pm
Robert Kerr says:
“(no attacks on his [W’s] watch)”
Jeff, you violated your own rule #4, subset a, dressing up fantasy as fact. Credit due for subtlety, I guess, since no one here noticed.
There were 3 domestic terrorist attacks on W’s watch.
January 24, 2010 — 5:36 am
Eric Bramlett says:
Jeff –
Great post. I’m definitely a fan of spirited debate in the interest of realizing truth. However, I’m not sure Socrates would agree with rule #2.
January 24, 2010 — 9:02 am
Jeff Brown says:
Eric — Yeah, no kiddin’. 🙂 A Socratic question could be asked though, after you’ve answered the questioned aimed your way.
January 24, 2010 — 9:06 am