How The Game Is Played On The Left

The primary goal of liberals is to mislead the American public about what they really feel, while the primary goal of conservatives is to explain to the American public what they really think. Similarly, conservatives are forever trying to have a debate on the facts while liberals work incessantly to turn the discussion to motivations, so as to avoid getting into a real debate.

What this leads to is liberals reflexively accusing conservatives of all manner of hatred, bigotries, and despicable thoughts in order to distract people from what they’re saying.

If you want an outstanding example of how this works, here’s as good a one as you’re ever going to find,

Washington Times columnist Amanda Carpenter explained conservatives’ concern about the “empathy” issue on Reliable Sources with Howard Kurtz Sunday morning. Several conservatives on cable, radio and in print argued that “empathy” is a code word for “liberal.” On Fox News, Sean Hannity said that Democrats “want the courts to take over and engage in social engineering.”

“Empathy, it’s an emotive term. I mean, Barack Obama is calling for a judge who will take their emotions into account when making a judicial decision,” Carpenter told Howard Kurtz.

“This is hilarious,” TIME Magazine’s Joe Klein said in response. “This is ‘Exhibit A’ of what I was just talking about. The Republicans, when they hit the word ’empathy,’ are being hateful and ugly.”

Now, here we have my friend Amanda Carpenter giving a very basic explanation of the conservative position on an important issue. Do we want empathetic referees? Do we want umpires who have empathy — or, do we want people who stick to rules and treat everyone equally according to the rules? If you’re a Yankees fan and your team is playing the Red Sox, how would you feel about an umpire who has empathy towards the Red Sox? The same principle applies in a courtroom. When a judge has “empathy” towards a particular group, it implies that the law will be twisted to favor that group. This would seem to be a rather central issue in selecting a Supreme Court Justice. Do you want a justice who goes by the Constitution or a justice who says, “Forget going by the letter of the law, I’m going to be empathetic?”

Rather than try to argue this point, Klein’s response is that it’s “hateful and ugly.” There’s nothing remotely “hateful” or “ugly” about those comments — and of course, that’s the case 99 times out of a hundred when liberals scream “hateful,” “ugly,” “mean,” “racist.” The only difference here is that Klein’s comments stand out because they’re so incredibly off-the-mark.

But, what you have to understand is that it’s all about distraction. Suddenly, instead of having an important debate about a crucial issue, you’re debating whether something is “hateful” or not. That’s their goal. Once you understand what they’re doing, then you can better respond to their tactics by forcing the debate back to facts, logic, and the truth — areas that all favor conservatives.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend