Why the Left Can’t Let Us Talk

Why the Left Can’t Let Us Talk

A conservative newscaster played a series of clips from the vice presidential debate in which Mike Pence was trying to make a point and Tim Kaine was talking over him so that he could not be understood. Though Pence was able to get some of his message out, Kaine’s interference kept him from making all his points and prevented him from presenting them in an organized and compelling way.

Therefore, though in the eyes of most, Kaine lost the debate, he achieved a more important goal for his ticket of preventing the American people from hearing Pence’s message.

We find this commitment by the Left to bury the conservative message at work in virtually every aspect of our society. Here are just a few examples:

  • The media use their favored position and the resources at their disposal to disfigure the conservative message on an hourly basis using a variety of propaganda techniques. Their efforts to stifle the conservative message has been displayed unambiguously during this presidential campaign.
  • Ben Stein’s movie, “Expelled,” exposed how the educational establishment eliminates conservative professors, thus allowing students to only hear one side of the conservative/liberal worldview.
  • University students protest any conservative speaker, and if one manages to slip in they shout him down.
  • Liberal professors and students demand that “trigger warnings” be placed on any material that students might find threatening. For all practical purposes this comprises a label reading, “Warning: conservative viewpoint presented. This disease will inflict irreparable damage.”
  • Likewise, university students demand that they be assigned “safe places,” which is code for a place that is sanitized from conservative perspectives.
  • The whole movement of political correctness in large measure frees people to advance the liberal agenda while silencing conservatives.
  • The Johnson Amendment has been wielded to silence conservative pastors regarding political issues. The IRS tends not to apply it to liberal venues.
  • Recently I spoke with a woman who works for a large company. She observed that around the water fountain liberals are free to express their opinions, but conservatives do not do so for fear of some type of retribution such as requirement to go to sensitivity training, a black mark on their employment record, etc.

This list could go on almost ad infinitum.

Why is the Left so intent on silencing conservative voices? The superficial answer is that if our side is not heard, they win the argument by default. This explanation is valid enough, but it does not get to the root issue.

The ultimate driving force behind liberal use of every available means to silence us is that virtually no liberal position can be supported by empirical evidence or reason. Therefore, were conservatives allowed to voice their position clearly and systematically while exposing the flaws of the liberal position, the American public would reject the untenable and destructive liberal perspectives.

The Lincoln–Douglas Debates of 1858 were comprised of seven debates in which one person spoke for 60 minutes, the second person for 90 minutes, and then the first person was given a concluding 30 minutes. They alternated which speaker went first.

Imagine if our current presidential race consisted of two nationally televised debates in which this format was used. I am convinced that if Donald Trump had 90 minutes of uninterrupted time to both present his position and also to expose Hillary Clinton’s corruption and fallacies of her policies both past and proposed, those debates would decisively win the election for Trump.

The left cannot allow that to happen. They must adopt a format in which the conservative has no opportunity to develop his position, and where an opponent or moderator is present to make sure that if the conservative candidate is divulging too much information he is quickly silenced. “I’m sorry, but we need to move on to the next point.”

Imagine a similar format being used for a debate over the pro-life/pro-abortion issue that would permit clips of unborn babies, descriptions of partial-birth abortions, and many other factors favoring the pro-life position. I believe those debates would resolve that issue in favor of the pro-life position for most Americans.

Imagine a similar debate in which intelligent design and evolution were presented by experts in those fields. I am convinced that most viewers would be swayed toward the intelligent design position.

Imagine a similar debate in which capitalism versus socialism and communism were discussed. Imagine a similar debate in which the impact of Democratic Party versus the Republican Party on cities, states and our nation as a whole was presented. Imagine a similar debate in which the constitutional position on states’ rights as opposed to a dictatorial federal overreach was debated. Imagine such a debate in which the constitutional role of the Supreme Court and the unconstitutional nature of judicial overreach was discussed. Imagine using this format to debate the pros and cons of the homosexual lifestyle or allowing biological men in women’s bathrooms and shower rooms. Imagine if the Obama/Clinton open borders policy versus legal immigration was discussed using this format, or Obama care versus the traditional approach to healthcare.

This discussion leads to three conclusions. First, liberal positions cannot survive in the light of day but can only exist when hidden from exposure. Liberals currently are doing an effective job of hiding the invalidity of their positions. For conservatives to win the culture war and take back America we must find ways to regain the freedom to express our positions to the broad range of Americans.

Have a comment?