When debating and arguing with Social Liberals you must be on your guard. There’s always a time that they cannot reason there way through your logic.
Because the social liberal doesn’t argue from a strong position of logic. They do not have a basis of reason because the social liberal argues from an emotional position. There is no reason and logic to support the social liberal position because there’s nothing to base reason on.
To the conservative, the basis for the government and therefore, politics, is the US Constitution. That isn’t a fluid or emotional foundation, it is clearly a written and solid foundation. The Constitution doesn’t “adapt” based on the emotion of the day. It doesn’t tell you what you WANT it to say, it gives guidelines and limits on the federal government.
It isn’t that the conservative “hates” the government, ad hominem attack, he doesn’t hate the “government” he simply knows that, as the founders intended, government has limits.
The government is not an enemy by itself, only when it isn’t kept within limits. The powers are limited by the written agreement between the states, the US Constitution.
I can hear the social liberal crying out, “the Constitution can change” and that statement alone is true as far as it goes. To the social liberal the Constitution can be changed at the whim of the bare majority of the society. That’s not true now nor has it ever been true.
The US Constitution requires that if society changes, the Constitution can be changed but there’s a specific way to change it to adapt to society.
Article 5 – Amendment
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The only way for the Constitution to change is by amendment. It cannot change by people ignoring it. The Courts cannot change it. The Executive Branch cannot simply declare that something is “Constitutional” because the President wants it that way.
Now we have a group of social liberals that use only emotions to declare what’s Constitutional. If there is disagreement from the conservative, they will attack. They call the conservative “racist” or they look for some other emotional attack. Like the old question, “Do you still beat your wife?” The stigma is what they are seeking. Attack your opponent’s character if you cannot reason through his argument.
Then there is the attack of, “What about the LAST president’s actions?” That is intended to divert attention from today’s issue. It is as invalid as the claim of racism but the social liberal thinks it is valid because often the conservative doesn’t respond correctly. The appropriate response is simple, “The past administration isn’t at issue now.”
Why can’t the past administration BE the issue? Also a simply answered question is usually the social liberal’s follow-up question.
The United States has a change that is voted on every two years. The House of Representatives must be elected every two years and now one third of the Senate also must be elected every two years. With the President being elected every four years and his service limited to eight years, the control of the government changes dramatically every two years.
We are not some third world, banana republic that has a coup and then puts the old president on trial so they can be executed. No, we are a civilized nation that changes our government in a civilized manner. We are a nation of laws, and when we find the laws not being followed by the government we have, we change the government.
So when the social liberal asks me, “What about Bush? What about HIS actions?” The answer, once again is simple, “The majority didn’t like his actions and he was replaced.” There isn’t a recourse after that because we are the United States of America, not some mob-ruled group of savages that can’t get what they want so they kill or imprison the leaders.
So the social liberal is stuck, unable to reason past the arguments and requiring the current administration to take responsibility for running the government. That makes the current administration responsible for the economy and the unconstitutional actions and the tyranny imposed on the people. Since that causes the social liberal to accept the responsibility and assign it to the administration that is doing what he wants it to do, he searches for any way to attack the conservative.
Enter the “Race Card” and the ad hominem attack. Attack the character of the conservative. Call him a racist and make him defend himself. A charge that as we have advanced as a nation has become so bad that we don’t even want to be called a racist. It isn’t a common attitude, but the social liberal wants to use the charge because he cannot reason through the argument.
Without THAT charge, the next thing is to demand accountability for any prior administration from the conservative. This is absurd and even when made most see that, except the social liberal.
It doesn’t matter what you were saying or doing during the last administration, you are active TODAY. It doesn’t matter if you supported the last administration and now see some actions that are clearly wrong, you are here, actively participating TODAY. You might have had an awakening because before you didn’t recognize it. You might have had an awakening because you finally took the time to read and study the Constitution. Whatever the reason you can stand proudly and say, “I’m here now.”
So, during the Bush administration the social liberal didn’t like the war in Iraq, or Afghanistan but NOW, since “his guy” is in charge he stays silent. The war has not changed, it is still the USA trying to impose its will on another country, but it’s now being done by a social liberal.
So if the social liberal cannot win the argument, he can resort to ad hominem attacks or he can be an adult and reason it out. What do you plan, oh social liberal? Do you think that you can admit when, even though your guy is running things, he’s doing the same things that the last guy did?
Today, obama is continuing policies that were put into place by Bush. The policies that are working to get through the War on Terrorism, rendition (started by Clinton) and secret prisons run by the CIA, and occupying armies in countries that are not a threat to the USA, and the Patriot Act.
The policies that are clearly obama policies don’t do what obama claims. They DO accomplish what he wants, no oil drilling, refineries not operating creating $4-5 gasoline. Stimulus spending by the government is creating massive national debt, but the unemployment level isn’t changing because the debt is stifling business. The obamacare law is more massive spending that has not and will not make it possible to provide health care for all citizens.
The worst thing the social liberal must come to grips with is the fact that companies hire as a result of business needs, not because the government declares it. They cannot seem to understand that jobs are created to provide the business with more productivity, not to give workers something to do. Artificially creating price or wage controls make business demand more from workers, not creating jobs.
Maybe some day the social liberal will realize that returning to the principles that founded this nation and adherence to the Constitution is the only way to sustain this nation, but maybe not because that would make him a conservative.