Still need a better title than that, but here goes a first draft of the (tentative) First Law:
Every Leftist argument is self-disproving.
Which is to say that every leftist argument has within itself the seeds of its own dismantling.
And now the Corollary to the First Law:
For every issue on which there is a Left-Right split, arguments advanced by the Left actually support either the polar opposite conclusion, or the Right’s position.
We explored this in the previous post (here) in which we explored the feminist (leftist) idea that we should all “believe all women.”
We scratched beneath the surface of that seeming tribute to the honesty and integrity of women to discover the true nature of the admonition: a deeply insulting denial of the very humanity of women. By extension, it was a deeply insulting denial of the very humanity of men too. (Because to “believe all women” — presumably in the context of any disagreements with men — you must therefore disbelieve all men.)
In other words, “believe all women” strips all people of their humanity, by reducing them either to simple-minded, hard-wired truth-tellers, incapable of any of the vast complexities inherent in humanity, and its understanding of morality and of right or wrong, good or bad. And, the admonition implies, men are nothing but simple-minded, hard-wired liars and scoundrels, also incapable of participating in all the vast complexities of being human.
In still other words, the leftist argument that we should “believe all women” is really a notion that supports the very right-wing thought that we should,really, insist on a dispassionate examination of the facts and evidence to lead us to the truth. And that therefore there’s compelling logic in support of the presumption of innocence. Needless to say, the presumption of innocence is the polar opposite of believe all women.
All leftist arguments are this way, and all such notions contain their own internal contradiction. All we have to do is identify that contradiction and shout it to the world. It’s not that difficult. What is difficult is the formulation of a nice, neat, concise way to express what idiocy leftist thought is. It’s in this realm where the Left excels.
You don’t approve of welfare? You hate women! You hate children! You hate people! You’re a racist. Never mind that you’re arguing that welfare is bad for women, children — people! They can’t let that little part of your argument ever be heard!
You understand that a man can no more marry another man than a he can marry a duck? You’re a homophobe!
After muslims knocked over the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, you worry about importing a large influx of Muslims? You’re an islamophobe! And a racist!
All nice, neat, concise ways to deflect from the fact that the Left can’t defeat your arguments, so they must assassinate your character. If you’re a bad person, then your arguments and your thinking must be bad, or evil, as well.
The point: when leftists deflect like that, you know you’ve found the self-disproving aspect of the leftist argument, and you should go in quickly for the kill.
Look, one last quick thought: the late philosopher Saul Alinsky confessed that the Left is not in it to win the debate. His entire oeuvre consisted of advice on what the Left should do — not say — to defeat the established order in the courts, at the ballot box, in the streets, in the media, in academia, in pop culture.
Alinsky knew full well that the Left couldn’t win any debates, so he wasn’t interested in winning debates, he was interested in winning power.
However, you need at least an intellectual fig-leaf to justify your acquisition of power. Hence: Socialism, abortion rights, environmentalism, gay rights, and more. None of those profoundly stupid things are designed to win debates; they’re designed to fool a certain low-information percentage of the population until the Left has a chance to shut down debate on the topic entirely with slurs like racist, sexist, homophobe, etc.
We need to rip that fig leaf off, point it out, and we need to win these debates forcefully and decisively.