I think the warfare analogy is a good one. The anti's are engaged in guerilla fighting like the Patriots of 1776 and we are standing up like the Redcoats, trying to fight "fair and square" and complaining that the other side does not fight like "gentlemen."

Rant mode off.

I wouldn't call that a rant at all; the word has such negative connotations. You make good points, and the Revolutionary War metaphor is particularly apt. Nonetheless, as a journeyman curmudgeon I must ask a question or six. This is only partly TIC.

As background, an axiom from a noted post-modern sociologist:

Dilbert's Law:

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to
their level then beat you with experience.

And an observation from me:

You speak of adopting what I choose to call "sloganeering" to convince a certain group that our side of the debate is correct. This group is implicitly defined as "those who are capable of being convinced (of anything) by sound-bites." How large a portion of US citizens fall into this group is a matter of your personal outlook and experience; it's quite subjective. I think I can muster convincing arguments that the number stands at roughly 98%, but that's another debate. [See http://home.earthlink.net/~ttursine/excerpts.htm for a partial exposition if you're interested.] Overall, this is a time-honored technique, usually called "fighting fire with fire." A nice little slogan in itself.

My question is: Do we *need* that group on our side?

If you believe that the people who can actually effect changes are influenced by that group -- i.e., that the politicians, both legislative and judicial, listen to what the citizens think rather than telling them what they think -- then the answer is clearly "Yes." Before taking this position, however, I urge you to consider who utters most of the sound-bites. Who is telling whom what?

In my opinion, going directly to those with the power is undeniably going to be more effective. We don't need the agreement of "that group." How one influences a politician is fairly well established: you allow him to continue in power. That's done with money mostly.

As an aside, for our issue, mugging a politician a few times, or perhaps having his mother die after being shot in a home-invasion crime, would probably go a long way toward altering his viewpoint. Then author and give to him a few choice sound-bites to explain his change of attitude sufficiently well that he can continue to be elected. That would be less expensive. Then apply the same treatment to journalists.

For either group, extortion can also be effective. Bribery is real good, but that takes it back to a matter of money.

In summary: Will it do us any good to convince those who are dim enough to be convinced by sound-bites and blatant appeals to emotion? Or will it merely feel good to do so for a change? Regardless of the answer, we would not find it easy to compete with sound-bite professionals on their own turf.

It just may be better to stick with rational thought applied to facts. The 2% may be the proper ones to convince.

Hell, I don't know. I'm just a curmudgeon. ;-)

wgc
July 2001

If my job were to teach people to speak like a politician, I'd respond to the question "So what do you do?" by telling them anything but the truth.

Perhaps I'd pretend to be the guy who cleaned the pipes at the municipal turd laundry or that I was a chicken-sexer or anything I could pretend to be proud of.

I *know* the given advice is good, but there are certain things I, at least, will not do. Speaking in the form of sound-bytes (inherently misleading, and formerly known as "slogans") is one of them.

And if you don't believe that, see my other "essay seeds." :-)

wgc
July 2001