The myth of “fear-based” politics

When the electoral season comes around, conservatives can always count on being called “fearful,” and being told that they employ fear tactics to win their arguments.  This is half true, and half ridiculous.

But to understand the absurdity of their statement, we must have a proper perspective on our country.  Liberals are postmodern big-government globalists who want to restructure the family, increase the oversight of government, make the United States of America subject to international forces we don’t really control, and get rid of all religion in the state (except for only when Jesus said to feed the poor and not judge, the only parts of the Bible they enjoy quoting).  As such, legislation they propose tends to threaten to upset our daily way of living, since the United States–up until these last forty years–has been almost unrivaled in its conservatism on the world scene.

Now, since liberals are primarily the side which proposes the majority of structure-changing legislation (the key word being “change”), we have to understand that any counter-argument against their proposals is going to be completely based upon the negative ramifications of that change.  It is impossible for a person to present a counter-argument on anything other than ramifications, thus making the assertion that a defensive argument is “fear-based” silly: if the conservative argument was not based on “fear,” it wouldn’t be an argument, it would be agreement.

So the next time a liberal tells you that your argument is “fear-based,” make sure to thank them for suggesting that your counter-argument is not valid because it is a counter-argument.  They have saved the both of you from the terrors of thought and discussion.

This entry was posted on 1. December 2009 at 16:59 and is filed under philosophy, politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.

| Print