Making the Argument for ‘Change’
Lately, my friends and family have been getting all worked up over politics. So, here is the first of my political postings. Now mind you, I despise organizations that tell me what and how to think, let alone affiliating myself with one of them. While this dictates the bulk of my religious views, it also carries over to politics as well. I find myself avoiding any “party”, and instead relegating myself to a label that summizes my political position: “fiscally conservative, socially liberal”. Given this position, I might one day find myself in the Republican camp, but not until they get back to fiscal conservation and separating themselves from the Moral Right and NeoCon fascism. In fact, as of late, the only thing that Republicans are conservative about is social perspectives. They are neither environmentally conservative, nor fiscally conservative. And despite arguments to the contrary from themselves, they are not organizationally (government) conservative, nor conservative with regard to foreign policy. Based on this, you won’t be surprised to find that I find myself sitting in the Obama camp this election season.
I digress, the point of my post was, as the title describes, how to make the argument for ‘Change’. Not that I’ve got the answer mind you, but with everyone I know making arguments of their own, I find a disturbing trend, one which needs to be rectified.
That trend is arguments made from non-quantifiable statements, and emotionally based positions, used to defend a particular viewpoint. I’m no high school Debate champ (in fact, I never took Debate), but I can tell you that the moment you start making arguments to the tune of “Well, if you can’t see my position, then you must be an idiot!” is the moment you lose the debate.
All too often, I find arguments made without basis-in-fact, statistics, or precedence. Now, I’ve come to expect this from Republicans. Since, for the last 30 years, the foundation of their party is based on religious idealogies (ie, religion), and the basis of religion is “faith in your leaders” (whether your leader is Jesus Christ, Budda, Rev. Joe Bob Brown, G. W. Bush, Paul Wolfewitz, Carl Rove, or… you get the idea). But for Democrats, I tend to expect (hope for?) more analysis, research, and supporting fact when someone makes an argument to support the Obama cause.
So, when someone makes the statement “McCain’s energy plan is a joke!”, do me, yourself, and the rest of the cause for “Change” a favor, and make a case for your statement. Show me references, and indisputable facts where McCain hasn’t done his research in what is best for our nations energy situation.
Republicans, when you start spewing off how socialized medicine will bring an end to democracy, site some references where the same has happened to other countries, or where other socialized programs have been an overbearing detrement to out goverment– and be sure to site some hard data. Making the statement that Social Security was a flawed program won’t cut it. I want to see some numbers regarding what the economic impact of it was. If you want to state beliefs and conjecture opinion, tell me how life in America would be different if we didn’t have Social Security. But remember the facts first, otherwise, in the end, we’ll end up throwing a bunch of worthless opinions back and forth, which ironically, only ever results in solidifying your opponents position within their own mind.
Need an example for a properly backed up political rant?