Convincing a neocon

[ALawPoker]

Below is an email I just sent to my Dad. He's not exactly a neocon; more like an "old school" Republican that watches Fox News and thinks of it as actual news (so he sort of tends to believe in their message). He is from MA though, barely religious, and considers himself a quasi-libertarian, mostly because he doesn't really give a crap if people he doesn't know have abortions, etc. So he has hope.

I'm curious if people agree with the way I represent RP, or if you have any tips. And also, I share this email as possible advice for others (if we agree this is a sound approach). This could be a good thread to share tactics. There are enough threads about why we all agree RP is great, but not many about how to actively go about convincing the type of people that need to be convinced. So feel free to share any sample rhetoric or advice you may have.

[ QUOTE ]
The media seems to have labeled Ron Paul as an "anti-war" candidate. Don't be tricked. He is not anti-war; he is merely pro-Constitution, and believes strongly in defending our country according to the founders' advice. He is too ideological on Iran, and should admit he would act differently because of the mess he'd be inheriting. I'm starting to grow annoyed with Dr. Paul, because he doesn't seem to be doing a good job explaining the underlying logic behind his foreign policy positions (and it makes him look really bad when you ask him, myopically, what he would do about a specific circumstance). But I still believe strongly in his underlying message! Maybe I'll offer to start writing his speeches for him. NUKE IRAN AND NUKE THEM NOW. That's what I think, practically, and that's what Ron Paul would do the second he felt he had the right to attack. But our Constitution does not allow for guessing and choosing who is worthy of a preemptive strike, so when he says he wouldn't do it, he is just yielding to his unwavering respect for our rule of law. And that's something I admire, even if it's hard to explain in an easily digestible way.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Below is an email I just sent to my Dad. He's not exactly a neocon; more like an "old school" Republican that watches Fox News and thinks of it as actual news (so he sort of tends to believe in their message). He is from MA though, barely religious, and considers himself a quasi-libertarian, mostly because he doesn't really give a crap if people he doesn't know have abortions, etc. So he has hope.

I'm curious if people agree with the way I represent RP, or if you have any tips. And also, I share this email as possible advice for others (if we agree this is a sound approach). This could be a good thread to share tactics. There are enough threads about why we all agree RP is great, but not many about how to actively go about convincing the type of people that need to be convinced. So feel free to share any sample rhetoric or advice you may have.

[ QUOTE ]
The media seems to have labeled Ron Paul as an "anti-war" candidate. Don't be tricked. He is not anti-war; he is merely pro-Constitution, and believes strongly in defending our country according to the founders' advice. He is too ideological on Iran, and should admit he would act differently because of the mess he'd be inheriting. I'm starting to grow annoyed with Dr. Paul, because he doesn't seem to be doing a good job explaining the underlying logic behind his foreign policy positions (and it makes him look really bad when you ask him, myopically, what he would do about a specific circumstance). But I still believe strongly in his underlying message! Maybe I'll offer to start writing his speeches for him. NUKE IRAN AND NUKE THEM NOW. That's what I think, practically, and that's what Ron Paul would do the second he felt he had the right to attack. But our Constitution does not allow for guessing and choosing who is worthy of a preemptive strike, so when he says he wouldn't do it, he is just yielding to his unwavering respect for our rule of law. And that's something I admire, even if it's hard to explain in an easily digestible way.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think Paul would nuke Iran if he had the green light? What would be gained by such a move? More importantly, why are you screaming nuke Iran in caps? What have they done to you or your country that you want to preemptively murder tens of thousands of people you never met?

[j555]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HD9nO0c328

Ron Paul answered the silly scenario about Iran at the last Fox debate. Basically he says that we don't have to resort to war with Iran. And it is up to Congress to decide if Iran is an imminent threat to our national security and to go to war, not the President. There is no reason to nuke Iran or invade Iran. They do have the right to develop a nuclear energy program under the NPT.

[ALawPoker]

I'm merely trying to convince a neocon-leaning registered Republican to like Ron Paul.

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you think Paul would nuke Iran if he had the green light?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was careful with my words for a reason. I said "as soon as he felt he had the right." Meaning, if they did something to us (but also implying that he is TOUGH, which is what the neocon wants to hear).

Do you disagree that he would fire back?

[ QUOTE ]
More importantly, why are you screaming nuke Iran in caps?

[/ QUOTE ]

To try to appease a neocon.

[ QUOTE ]
What have they done to you or your country that you want to preemptively murder tens of thousands of people you never met?

[/ QUOTE ]

This thread isn't supposed to be about my preferences, but I'll answer briefly anyways. I don't intellectually disagree with a word of Ron Paul's foreign policy. However, the mistakes of our past leaders have fostered an environment where immediately applying it would be, imo, dangerous. I don't care to debate why a preemptive strike is good, because I'd have a losing hand. But if we're stuck with a horrible foreign policy one way or the other, I'd vote to nuke Iran because I am an [censored] and would rather kill a bunch of them than take a small chance they will kill some of us. I pay good money for my socialized defense scam; I'll at least claim some opinion of how to use it since, like I said, I am an unprincipled [censored]. Happy?

[Borodog]

ALP,

Iran is a third rate third world country that couldn't touch us with a ten foot pole if it weren't for our own incompetent government running our security (whereupon you can knock down skyscrapers and destroy 20% of the Pentagon with boxcutters). Iran isn't going to do squat to Israel, seeing as Israel has two or three hundred nuclear weapons.

Modern day conservatives are always so quick to point out how incompetent the government is at everything it does . . . except foreign policy. Why there, government can do no wrong! Modern day conservatives should choose a set of principles and stick to them. Either government is a pack of incompetent boobs who are no better at centrally planning interventions in foreign affairs than they are at centrally planning interventions in ours, or they should just own their belief that government is infallible and government applied force is the answer to all life's problems, foreign and domestic, and just embrace their inner fascist.

That should work with him.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
ALP,

Iran is a third rate third world country that couldn't touch us with a ten foot pole if it weren't for our own incompetent government running our security (whereupon you can knock down skyscrapers and destroy 20% of the Pentagon with boxcutters). Iran isn't going to do squat to Israel, seeing as Israel has two or three hundred nuclear weapons.

Modern day conservatives are always so quick to point out how incompetent the government is at everything it does . . . except foreign policy. Why there, government can do no wrong! Modern day conservatives should choose a set of principles and stick to them. Either government is a pack of incompetent boobs who are no better at centrally planning interventions in foreign affairs than they are at centrally planning interventions in ours, or they should just own their belief that government is infallible and government applied force is the answer to all life's problems, foreign and domestic, and just embrace their inner fascist.

That should work with him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool, thanks. Maybe I'll quote you sometime, and work "PhD" in there.

I sense that you seem to be implying to me "You don't need to deflect the truth to convince him." Am I right to think this? Or do you think there might be merit to sugarcoating in certain situations? I just feel like some neocons will register it with rejection if you don't stroke their biases a little.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ALP,

Iran is a third rate third world country that couldn't touch us with a ten foot pole if it weren't for our own incompetent government running our security (whereupon you can knock down skyscrapers and destroy 20% of the Pentagon with boxcutters). Iran isn't going to do squat to Israel, seeing as Israel has two or three hundred nuclear weapons.

Modern day conservatives are always so quick to point out how incompetent the government is at everything it does . . . except foreign policy. Why there, government can do no wrong! Modern day conservatives should choose a set of principles and stick to them. Either government is a pack of incompetent boobs who are no better at centrally planning interventions in foreign affairs than they are at centrally planning interventions in ours, or they should just own their belief that government is infallible and government applied force is the answer to all life's problems, foreign and domestic, and just embrace their inner fascist.

That should work with him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool, thanks. Maybe I'll quote you sometime, and work "PhD" in there.

I sense that you seem to be implying to me "You don't need to deflect the truth to convince him." Am I right to think this? Or do you think there might be merit to sugarcoating in certain situations? I just feel like some neocons will register it with rejection if you don't stroke their biases a little.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well what I tried to do in my little script is appeal to what a modern-day conservative would (or maybe should) find appealing, namely American superiority, the fact that Israel has a massive nuclear deterent capability, and government incompetence and ineffectiveness.

This has worked on my inlaws. I have not been confrontational with them at all; rather, I agree with them on everything (in terms of goals), and then show them how government incompetence is not magically any better at achieving one subset of those goals than it is at achieving the others.

Hope that helps.

[ALawPoker]

Ya, I like what you did. In my experience though, the idea that government should not be involved in defense comes off as laughable, and isn't worth attempting. So what I was trying to do was represent Paul as just being of the opinion that the Constitution is awesome advice, for some vague reason.

I find that "The Constitution" is a good substitute for "Complicated thing you agree with me on but are too set in your ways to entertain the ideas that would get you to realize it." Neocons realize they're supposed to like the Constitution and principle and obeying law and things like that.

Yours is I guess a more detailed description of why the Constitution's advice is indeed so sound. It's probably a better approach in general. In my Dad's case, if the dose is small enough. Thanks for the help.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
This has worked on my inlaws. I have not been confrontational with them at all; rather, I agree with them on everything (in terms of goals), and then show them how government incompetence is not magically any better at achieving one subset of those goals than it is at achieving the others.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot to mention the secret weapon: the eyepatch. Nobody argues with pirates.

[Borodog]

Arrrrr, tis true, matie.