By Steve Deace
Saturday, April 12, 2014
This is an excerpt from the new book Rules for Patriots:
How Conservatives Can Win Again
“Premise” is a word many Americans are not familiar with,
and neither do they use it in their everyday speech. However, the premise is
one of the most powerful weapons in political warfare. Master the art of the
premise, and you will master your opponent.
A premise is the assumption of an argument that is meant
to justify the conclusion the one making the argument is hoping you’ll come to.
If one fails to establish the premise to his argument, one almost always fails
to convince others of his conclusion. On the other hand, if one establishes a
premise one will more than likely get others to agree with his conclusion.
For example, if the premise of the argument is over
“reproductive choice” and not “the sanctity of human life,” then the conclusion
will come down on the side of the premise accepted. For too long we have argued
with the Left over the conclusion (e.g. big government vs. small government)
when we should be arguing the premise (e.g. what’s legal for the government to
do vs. what’s illegal for the government to do).
All too often we accept the premise of the Left’s
argument on virtually every issue, which allows them to frame the political
battlefield. Any good general will attempt to shape the battlefield in a manner
that gives his soldiers the best chance at victory, and we should do the same
in the culture war as well.
Could you imagine the possibilities if we made the Left
defend the Constitutionality (see that as legality) of all their statist
schemes, and if our Republican politicians asked questions that rejected their
premise from the outset?
I get asked questions all the time from the Left’s
perspective, and I never accept their premise. For example, in 2011 I did an
interview on Dutch National Television. One of the questions was whether those
who practice homosexuality should be allowed to serve openly in the military.
“I believe all men and women that are physically
qualified and able to conform to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice ought
to be able to serve their country,” I replied.
“But what about gays and lesbians,” the Dutch host asked.
“I’m sorry, maybe you didn’t hear me,” I replied. “I
believe all men and women that are physically qualified and able to conform to
the Uniformed Code of Military Justice ought to be able to serve their
country.”
Now he looked confused. “So, is that a yes or a no?”
“There are only two types of people,” I told him. “Men
and women.”
He had nowhere to go after that because I totally shut
his premise down by rejecting it from the outset. From there I was on offense
throughout the rest of the interview.
Recently I was asked by a newspaper reporter to comment
on a story he was working on regarding the perception conservatives have a
monopoly on the American flag and patriotism. The story centered on a liberal
activist who was sewing into an American flag an anti-marriage/pro-immorality
speech by Hillary Clinton as a protest against this perceived bias.
“Do you think the American flag is seen as a conservative
symbol,” he asked.
“The American flag is a symbol of the virtues and values
the generation that devised it and died for it intended it to be, which they
enshrined for future generations in the Declaration of Independence and U.S.
Constitution,” I replied. “Those virtues and values should defy labels except
American. Unfortunately, as we cascade over the post-modern cliff, all such
absolutes are now considered negotiable.”
“Do you think it’s appropriate to incorporate the flag
into progressive/liberal messages like a pro-gay marriage art project,” he
followed up.
“I think our society is better off when we conform our
beliefs to the virtues and value that define the American flag, rather than
conforming what the flag stands for to suit our own personal whims, desires,
and agendas,” I answered.
“What’s your response to the claim that conservatives
have an unfair monopoly on the flag,” he asked for his final question.
“It’s clear from their own writings and actions what
values and virtues our Founders intended the flag to stand for: there is a God,
our rights come from Him, and the purpose of government is to protect those
God-given rights,” I responded. “That vision should transcend our current petty
political labeling, and if your particular agenda doesn’t reconcile with that
uniquely American vision the problem is you, not the vision.”
Nowhere in this dialogue did I accept the premise of the
questioning, which was that the country is so divided that we even have
multiple interpretations of traditional Americana. Nothing could be further
from the truth, for we do not get to interpret the meanings of such things when
the authors themselves left such a clear record of what they meant.
That is common Leftist/Marxist tactic known as Social
Reconstructionism, and if I accept the premise of these questions I am
accepting the validity of that pagan and un-American philosophy, which means we
never arrive at the truth and just keep arguing our own perspectives.
If the Leftists want to make the case what they believe
is in line with the founding vision of these United States, then by all means
go back into the historical record and make that case. Except they won’t and
they can’t. There’s a simple reason why the Left doesn’t pay as much homage to
the founding of this country as we do, and it’s because most of what they
believe is contrary to it, which is why they’ve had to take over the schools
and scrub that history from the textbooks. Even one of the Left’s favorite
Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, was so opposed to what most Leftists
believe they’d peg him with their favorite word for conservatives—“extreme.”
Proving those who do not learn from history are doomed to
repeat it, not once but twice during the 2012 presidential debates Mitt Romney
failed to confront President Obama on his version of the events that led to
four dead Americans at the Benghazi terror attacks. Romney allowed Obama’s
false premise to be asserted on the biggest stage of the campaign, thus
allowing what should’ve been an issue that toppled the Obama presidency to
become a strength prior to voters heading to the polls. It wasn’t until after
the election in Congressional hearings featuring several Benghazi whistle-blowers
-- all of whom who worked for Obama -- that the president’s account proved to
be false. By then it was too late, and those four dead Americans and their
families still haven’t received justice.
One of the reasons we see so many Republicans accepting
the premise of the Left’s argument is because they don’t possess a solid
worldview. Thus, most Republicans end up being defined by what they’re against
and not what they’re for. Without a premise they’re just playing defense. Most
Republicans don’t know what they’re for beyond they’re for beating Democrats.
The Left is always advancing their premise, and too many
Republicans don’t have one, which means unless “we the people” step in we end
up allowing Leftists to frame the argument. We can step in when it comes to
voting, but at some point we need to actually elect politicians who can advance
our premise in the arena of public policy. Otherwise we’ll continue going
“forward” over the cliff the Left has us headed towards.
The only debate will be how fast over that cliff we go.
No comments:
Post a Comment