Confrontational Politics

Confrontational Politics

                                                                              

by ex-Senator H.L. Richardson  senhlr

Excerpt from Chapter 3, pages 22-25

What occurs when these contradictory ideologies come into contact with one other, when those believing in traditional American concepts of limited government are assaulted by some new socialist program advanced by the Liberals? Traditionalists, attempting to preserve the status quo, invariably react negatively, predictably. Humanists act…offering the program of socialized revision, expect disruptive change, in fact, look forward to reaction.

It’s important to know how each side views the confrontation – as a positive or a negative. Who gains, who loses? Traditional Americans dislike conflict and withdraw from it as a matter of habit and training. On the other hand, the humanist looks upon confrontation as a necessity, a positive ingredient in advancing humanistic programs. They expect confrontation, plan for it and anticipate the predictable, negative reaction from their opposition, often using the reaction to further promote their cause. Conflict, therefore, is expected, welcomed, analyzed and then used to advance their goals.

Momentum is obviously on the side of the aggressors since they have the tactical advantage of initiating the attack. Before their intended opposition even knows a clash will occur, they’ve had the opportunity to plan strategy, organize support, select the field of battle, choose the appropriate time to launch a new program and frame the issue in such a manner as to put their program in the best light. (More on framing the issue in a following chapter.) They know opposition will be forthcoming, since their plans are usually expensive, assaultive to the constitution and enlarge the bureaucracy, all three an anathema to the traditionalist.

Controlling the initiative, the humanist knows that, how a program is presented, often predetermines the outcome. Propaganda-wise, they wrap the socialist “idea” in a semantic blanket of sophistry, warm cuddly humanitarianism, designed to put the opposition on the defensive. Without question, the aggressor has the immediate advantage.

Once the conflict is engaged, the Leftists anticipate the opposition’s response and judge their effectiveness accordingly. The issue is pursued until the Conservative resistance becomes formidable and and overall negative result could occur. At that time, a dialectic step, a backward move is in order. A strategic retreat, giving up some ground.

The Liberal then offers what they deem a compromise, a partial solution is presented. Half, instead of the whole loaf, is offered. The Left suddenly creates the aura of appearing reasonable, moderating their request. Leftist dialectics is nothing more than planned retreat, a tactic used to confuse and threw the opposition off-guard. Lenin called it an important tool in accomplishing overall goals.

He used the analogy of a man driving a nail with a hammer, the backward stroke being just as important as the forward thrust of hitting the nail. Ask for much more than expected and then, when the opposition builds, give in a little, play the good guy willing to concede. Switch from bad guy to good guy, be conciliatory, be sweetness and light, offer “compromise.” Initiate the conflict then strategically back off.

Consider the bandit who sticks a gun in your ribs and demands your wallet then, with a kindly smile, says, “Shucks, I don’t really need these.” As he hands you your credit cards, he adds, “Aw, heck, I don’t need these either.” With that, he returns the children’s snapshots and the wallet itself—minus the cash, of course. Later, you couldn’t help telling the police he wasn’t such a bad guy after all.

Most Americans accept compromise in order to avoid a continuation of the confrontation. When the Left backs off, a sigh of relief is usually heard from the traditionalists. In fact, the weakest and least informed on left-wing tactics often dictate the terms of how much is lost, since the timid are the ones usually intimidated and most willing to see the hostilities end. In hopes of maintaining some of the status quo, this weakest link usually decides the amount abdicated and justifies acceptance with a begrudging, “We can live with that.”

So, can the lamb live with the lion? He can—until the lion becomes hungry again and there are no more lambs left.

The humanists accept the “compromise,” having gained some ground, not all that they ultimately wanted, but more than they had before the confrontation began. Once the “compromise” takes place, the status quo side happily retires from the fight, slightly disgruntled over the loss of territory but relieved that the conflict is over.

The camel’s nose is under the tent.

The Left, with more recruits in their ranks and a foothold gained, patiently await the opportune time to start anew with more demands for more territory. This has been referred to as the “salami” technique, one slice at a time until the whole loaf is consumed. This is the way socialism has been infused within the body politic of America, one slice at a time, a forward then a backward motion. Lenin stated it best, “We advance through retreat.”

                                           IM