The foundation of a democratic republic — where the people allegedly have the final say in their own governance — is the ability to argue. That is how you make public-policy decisions. You present evidence, apply it to the rules and norms, consider precedent, and try to persuade a majority. You cannot have anything like a democracy — I know we are not technically a democracy; go with me — unless people in your society can argue. The alternative to argument is force, and force rather undermines the whole democracy thing.
Here is the problem. We don't have arguments anymore, at least not often enough or in the right way. I used to argue for a living. I argue a lot less now, and tell people things a lot more. You do not get much value out of arguing most of the time these days, and that is sad. To be a citizen and participate in a free society, you must know how to make an argument. You also must know how to listen, weigh it, and use judgment. Most of us cannot do that anymore. Look around.
The establishment doesn't want you to argue, because if you did, you might notice that much of what it is selling is bad. So, you get regime media that does everything it can to make it impossible to argue against the status quo. That is why you see panels where everybody has the same viewpoint, and the only variation is the particular way each panelist hates Donald Trump and you. The collapse of objectivity in ordinary journalism is not a style problem. Objectivity means presenting the other side. They don’t want to have an argument; if normal people hear a real argument, they might not do what the establishment wants.
There are still venues for arguments in normal life. Thanksgiving dinner. Facebook. Sitting around drinking when somebody says that Talarico fellow sure seems like a good Christian, totally normal, and they would let him babysit their son. You may be called on to argue. The first question is whether you should.
I only make arguments for money now. It used to be fun — a mental exercise, a way to stretch the synapses. It is not fun when you are arguing with idiots or people acting in bad faith. Those two categories are often hard to tell apart, and for practical purposes there is no difference. Don’t bother with arguing with people like that. We all have a limited amount of time on this rock. I choose not to spend mine casting finely crafted pearls at quarter-wits.
Ask what you are trying to convince someone of, and whether it is even possible. Do not argue if you have no capacity to change the other person’s mind. That is a waste of time. If persuasion is off the table, people reach for substitutes: browbeating, shaming, force. Those are bad substitutes. They are what you get when argument dies.
Do not argue with idiots. Some people cannot follow evidence applied to a rule. That is what a jury is supposed to do, and it is beyond a substantial number of your fellow citizens. There is a bell curve. Somebody has to be on the left side. It is getting crowded over there.
Do not argue with people acting in bad faith. An argument assumes you start with evidence and arrive at a conclusion. Bad-faith arguers start with the conclusion and work backward, then tell you that you suck. A lot of what passes for argument on social media is that. You lay out evidence that leads to an inescapable conclusion, and the other side calls you a racist, sexist, homophobic transphobe, as if you are wrong because you are aesthetically displeasing.
Some on the left want to pretend they are arguing while they play stupid, which is easy because they have had practice. A useful X post from @Millennial Woes: “It’s amazing how much leftist discourse is just them pretending not to understand things, thus making discourse impossible.” If they will not acknowledge obvious facts, you cannot argue. Often that is the point. They do not want discourse. They want to skip to the part where they win. Do not argue with people like that. Tell them no and do what you please. It will make them mad. That part is still fun.
If you are in a position to argue, here is what used to work in front of trial and appellate judges and still works in media and in writing.
Know what you are talking about. The easy attack is that you have no experience. The only way around it is to understand the issue well enough to converse about it. Do not get in over your head.
Make them state the rule. Rules control how evidence is assessed. Force the other side to name the proposed rule and show they comply with it. People love to tell you that certain facts compel a certain result. They are usually relying on an unspoken rule. Test it. If it is a formal rule — a statute, a regulation — ask for a citation. They often will not have one. It is remarkable how often people make legal arguments while being totally wrong about what the law says.
If it is an informal rule, that is where the fun begins. Test whether it is a rule at all. If they do not apply it to similar facts, you can reject it. This is not cheap whataboutism — “he did it, so I can.” It is about establishing what the rule actually is, because the fashion now is unequal application, and we are not going to have that.
One of my favorite examples involves the Attorney General. The left’s proposed rule is that the AG must be an independent agent who does not answer to the president. Constitutionally, that is nonsense, and you should say so, but it is even more effective to point out that JFK appointed his brother, and that Eric Holder called himself Barack Obama’s “wingman.” So, what is the rule? The rule appears to be that you appoint a political ally. Why would Trump be different? Is there a Trump Exception to every rule? Is he somehow less of a president even though he won the Electoral College and the popular vote? One rule, dudes — and we know what it is.
Rules are the battlefield. If you can keep them from redrawing it mid-fight, you can win.
Do not get mad. Opposition isn't personal, and stupidity shouldn't surprise you. The internet rule is that the first person to get angry loses. That is a good rule. You want control of your emotions. You are not an unhinged leftist weirdo. You are a normal adult.
One person who is right beats a thousand who are wrong. Look at the Lindsay Clancy case: a mother who strangled her three children, a mistrial, and a holdout juror who would not be browbeaten into submission but the white-white-win harpies on the jury. One hero stood firm against eleven. Quantity is not a valid metric here.
When you are wrong, change your mind. But do reconsider when the other side has quality. That is when you make tactical concessions on minor points to buy credibility on the ones that matter. Change your mind when the facts change. If someone sneers that you changed your mind, ask what they do when the facts change.
Avoid telling people how stupid they are. You will be tempted to call stupid people stupid. The minute you go ad hominem, you have stopped arguing. I do it all the time. That is because I am usually not arguing. I only argue with strangers for money. Understand the environment: much of what people call argument now is intimidation. They are trying to pummel you into submission verbally.
Nobody can nag you into surrender without your consent. Force is the actual alternative to persuasion. Our enemies would love that option. They have a problem. We have the guns, and they cannot muster a push-up.
We may end up in a society where argument no longer determines how government power is exercised. If it is not persuasion, it will be force. Lucky for us, we have that contingency handled. I could argue that the left ought to re-embrace arguing for that reason alone. I won't waste my time.
Pre-Order Now! Kurt’s next action-packed conservative novel, “American Warlord,” is out for presale now! Read Kurt’s Kelly Turnbull/People’s Republic series, including the latest "Panama Red," and follow Kurt on X @KurtSchlichter!
My super-secret email is Kurt.schlichter@townhall.com
