The great issue between the two political communities is how they perceive the American society. I think it fair to say that what liberals mainly see when they look at this country is injustice and oppression of every kind—economic, social and political. This view is steeped in negativity and evokes emotional response. It only makes sense that given this perspective, what they see requires that America be changed or discarded.

By sharp contrast, conservatives see a nation shaped by a complex of traditions, principles and institutions that has afforded more freedom and more prosperity to more of its citizens than in any society in human history. What conservatives see is a more positive perspective of America, so naturally they are dedicated to preserving it’s cultural heritage and principles. In pointing out the achievements of our history and defending it’s principles, Conservatives tend towards intellectualism.

Ironically enough the field of Psychology is largely occupied with helping patients to have a more balanced integration of ‘thought’ and ‘feeling’. One could say that both the Left and Right are unified, inasmuch that psychologically each tends to be a bit unbalanced, just in opposite directions. This is why we cannot even talk to one another; it is Venus and Mars all over again; each side using a totally different language to communicate, because each has a different orientation for their perspectives.

We can summarize the opposing character of the Liberal and the Conservative this way:

Liberal: Emotional-Context-Future Oriented.
Conservative: Intellectual-Content-Past Oriented.

Understand, no one is entirely ‘this’ or ‘that’, but Conservatives fail to communicate with Liberals because we are absorbed with convincing them with facts. Because we are intellectually driven we dig through all the legislative language of these massive bills, dissecting it best we can, and pulling out the facts to support our case. We will post that Section II, Paragraph 32, Artilce IV, Line 302 states “blah blah blah”, and urge them to open their eyes! What do facts have to do with feelings?

If you are in a relationship and your partner says they feel hurt, do you point out how stupid they are to feel that way? Do you support your case by presenting the facts to support your hypothesis of their stupidity? If you do, I know a good divorce attorney I could refer you to!

Intellectualism is rooted in the pragmatic, and as such we ferret out ‘content’. Feelings are rooted in the ideology, so the Liberal will stand there with a tear in their eye as Obama talks about ‘context’, like helping the poor, or saving the world. The actual mechanics of how Obama wants to achieve this ideal is unimportant to them.

Let’s take a look at some reasonable arguments that one might make with a Liberal:

Regardless of party affiliation, when any party ceases to act within Constitutional Law, it endangers all of us. Consider: if a specific group can be targeted for either reward or punishment, is it then possible ‘your’ group can be next?This is a statement of pure logic, and Conservative understand it perfectly. If you are talking to a Liberal and you point out this obvious fact to them, they will not hear you! You have not connected with them on any sort of emotional level.

The Constitution ultimately protects us all.  You may be gleeful for the moment as the bus is going your way; but the political tide is a fickle mistress of the seas.  This is why the Constitution is deemed a ‘rule of law’.  Once various individuals or groups are subjected to a ‘rule by man’, we allow ourselves to potentially become the next victim.

The beauty of the intent behind the Constitution was its social neutrality.  When the government imposes the ideological leanings of its’ politicians upon the people, they have stepped over the boundary of their Constitutional constraints.

Currently, the rich and the businesses are under attack.  Although not all business are perfect; for evil does exist in the world; most of the 24.8 million businesses in this country go forth with their efforts with full compliancy of both moral and civic law. If you are deemed evil solely because you have accumulated wealth, what are those that wish to take it from the wealthy deemed?

The government does not produce a single dime.  They only take money.  Imagine for a moment there was only 1 business in the U.S. and they could only hire 100 people.  Needless to say, unemployment and poverty would be high.  What would your life be like if you were not one of those lucky 100?  If 1 business can hire 100 people, does it not make more sense to help create more businesses and to help each business to blossom further so they can hire more individuals?

The financial burdens that Cap and Trade, the EFCA, the Obama Health Care bill, and many new taxes that will be levied against the ‘evil businesses’, will cause literally 1,000’s of business to go under.  Those business that are large enough, will move off-shore.  Subsequently, cost of living and unemployment will escalate, and the Left, not realizing their own policies created this, will create new policies to try and stop it.

The mantra of the Left has always been “help the poor”, and they seek out the wealthy as the culprit that suffocates society with their greed. What they fail to realize is that 1% of the people contribute 60% of all the taxes, and 25% contribute 81%. Thereby, the ‘wealthy’ contribute far more to their cause than they themselves do. The hypocrisy in this mantra lies in it’s irrationality. The best way for anyone to help the poor, is to help themselves. The higher an individual climbs on the economic ladder, the more they contribute to society by virtue of higher taxes paid, or more employment of others offered.

It may be valid to say that businessmen are greedy and only serve themselves.  Nonetheless, their selfishness will still inadvertently benefit society as a whole, regardless the individuals internal motivations.  Similarly, those that want something for nothing shout about ‘fairness’, and fail to see that their cries are nothing more than the self-serving expression of their own greed. If you want to run all business into the ground because of your angst against them, then how will the government get its’ money to support you?

The Constitution allows for every individual to pursue their own happiness, but I reiterate, that when one is happily sucking at the tit of Government, another group is paying that bill.  The well will run dry, and the Left will scream to tax business more…until there is nothing left to tax. This is why it is important for Liberals recognize what side of the bread the butter is on. 

Notice that all the statements above are logical. You would think you could just point out the obvious logical facts to a Liberal and that they should understand. They won’t. Remember, from our perspective they are mentally defective. Those statements above all flow from ‘reason’, and do not embrace ‘feeling’, so they will not hear you. So let’s take one of those logical statement and illustrate how the New Enlightened Conservative (NEC) should have a conversation with the Mentally Defective Liberal (MDL).

MDL: “These fat-cat business men have ruined this country!” Once the shrill screech has stopped ringing in your ears you can reply:
NEC: “Yeah, they sure have, this country is a mess” (acknowledgement, empathy, rapport)
NEC: “There are 25 million businesses in this country, do you think they are all greedy?”
MDL: “Yes, they are all a bunch of neo-con greedy slim bag gravy sucking pigs!”
NEC: “Yeah, I have never worked for a boss that I ever liked.”
NEC: “Do you have a job”?
MDL: “Yeah, but it sucks, I hate it.”
NEC: “I hate my job to. My boss sucks.”
NEC: “What do you do”?
MDL: “I work as an eye closer in a sardine factory, and my wife works as a lug nut twister at G.M. You?”
NEC: Note: This is a trick question, avoid being too successful. “I work as a salesman for a tool company and I make the company a ton of money.”
MDL: “Yeah, I hear ya, you make all the money, and they keep it…the scumbags!”
NEC: “Well heck, I have a roof over my head, food in my belly, a nice car,stereo, and 2 weeks off with pay–it’s not that bad really.” You doing ok?”
MDL: “Yeah, we’re getting by…could be better, but getting by”
NEC: “I am due to get a big promotion, but my Boss said we all have to wait until we see what all these new tax burdens will impact his business.”
MDL: (what are taxes?) “What’s up with that, why does that mater”?
NEC: “Well, the company I work for is not a large company. There are a lot of expenses that a small business has just to keep the doors open. The business can’t grow if every time the tree sprouts a new limb someone comes along and cuts it off”….

Now you have successfully steered the conversation in such a way that you just may bring some understanding into the Liberal mind. Acknowledgment of their emotionally laden perspective-empathy for their plight–all leading to rapport. Now see if you can take those logical statements in this article and construct them in such a way to be effective!

To save our country is going to have to be a group effort. We will have to take our message to various insane asylums like The Daily Kos or the Huffington Post. I don’t get much satisfaction in talking to a Conservative that already shares my views, because I don’t feel that this is contributing much to saving our country. Converting a Liberal brings me the sense of accomplishment that Freud must have felt when he successfully healed his first mentally defective patient.

“It is not true that the function of law is to regulate our consciences, our ideas, our wills, our education, our religions, our opinions, our work, our trade, our talents, or our pleasures. The function of the Constitutional rule of law is to protect the free exercise of these Rights, and to prevent any person from interfering with the free exercise of these rights” — Frederic Bastiat

You say: “There are persons who have no money,” and you turn to the law. But the law is not a breast that fills itself with milk and dispenses comfort. Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in by a rule of man.” — Frederic Bastiat