I think people can be educated
Actually, I do too, but only if they want to be. Do you really think that an adult who grew up in America is going to be open to being educated on the fact that there's a 2nd Amendment and a long history of law upholding the RKBA? It's not like that's going to be a surprise to them. I can see it now....."Wow, I never knew about the 2A! I've been wrong all these years and you have succeeded in showing me the light with your kind, gentle wisdom and teachings." Yeah, that's gonna happen.
and it just takes some finesse.
Isn't finesse about the same thing as walking on eggshells? And isn't walking on eggshells about the same thing as coddling someone even if they're flat-out wrong? Have at it if that's what floats your boat, but I think you're kidding yourself if you think it really gets you anywhere with true leftist anti-gunners.
I'll give you a chance to finesse me out of something I believe strongly in. Explain to me how it is constitutional for Nancy Pelosi to embark on a diplomatic mission to Syria and make assurances to Assad that Olbert, the Israeli Prime Minister, will rejoin talks with them after she and her entourage, including the other congress-critter with her, Lantos, convince him to.
You can use all the finesse you have in you and you will never convince me that it's within Congress' purview to conduct their own diplomacy against the stated wishes of the Executive. I am just as unshakable in that belief as I think anti-gunners are in theirs, so why waste my time with them?
Changing somebody else's viewpoint requires the ability to understand that person's point of view, and the real reason why they feel the way they do.
Really? OK, you now understand that I think Pelosi and Lantos conducted themselves in an unconstitutional manner on their trip to Syria last year. That's my POV. The real reason I believe that is because the Executive branch's and the Legislative branch's powers are clearly defined in the Constitution, and the President is the only one with diplomatic powers beyond simply voting against or in favor of treaties and international agreements. Now finesse me out of that belief. Good luck.
Politics in a democracy is purely a war of hearts and minds
I see it more as an arena of ideas, but regardless, that's quite a bold statement of fact as to what it "purely" is. I think the Constitution sets out what is purely constitutional republicanism (we're not really a democracy you know), and how people's hearts and minds feel about it is literally meaningless.
- you can't "destroy the enemy" in order to win.
No, but you can defeat them in the arena of ideas. Finesse, in my experience, is not what defeats them though. Conviction, knowledge and the ability to point to historical facts and documents to make one's point is much more of a winning strategy. I've never seen a condescending game of paddy-cake win anything of substance.
Eventually, the only way to win is to change somebody else's mind, and that takes some empathy.
No, it takes having history and the law on your side. You can have all the empathy you want for what I believe in, but you've got a very slim chance of changing my mind about anything important with it. Now, facts, law and history have a great chance of influencing my beliefs.
It seems really strange to me, to think about people with different political views as "The Enemy". It's certainly ineffective.
I don't know how ineffective it is. Do you think that Pelosi or Reid think of Bush as "The Enemy?" Karl Rove? Tom Delay? Rush Limbaugh? I do, and I also think that, though they've lost almost every battle they've fought against those enemies, they've been very effective at getting a message out to their base that they're willing to stand up to The Enemy. If Dems win again in '08, it sure as heck won't be because they finessed their way into power, it will be because they defeated their enemies! If Reps win, it will be
in spite of their attempts to placate liberals with monstrous drug entitlements, out-of-control-spending, McCain/Feingold, turning over huge education bills to the likes of Ted Kennedy and on and on and on. Conservatives only win when they stand on conservative values. Trying to finesse their way around them is a losing proposition.
Why even bother to talk to The Enemy? The Enemy is pure evil, not capable of reason, etc.
Well, the not capable of reason part may be right, but "pure evil?" Not even liberals are that far gone! But the tactic is right in line with how liberalism is typically communicated; through irrational emotionalism, hyperbole and exaggeration. I'm sure your "progressive" friends would pat you on the back for that, but I seriously doubt that you've finessed anyone's conservative ideals out from under them.
Even trying to understand why The Enemy thinks the way they do, is treason.
Actually, you've got it 180 degrees out of phase. If one doesn't make sure they understand The Enemy's thought-processes, that's much closer to a treasonous act than closing their eyes to it.
But whatever, that's just more meaningless emotionalism and hyperbole with no basis in fact or history.
There's really no way out once a person gets entrenched like that. It's hard, very hard to understand people who think differently. It can be done though. Once you understand, you can find commonalities and begin to make arguments from positions you'd never even seen before.
I patiently wait for you to prove to us all that this is true. Convince me through this tactic that Pelosi and Lantos didn't overstep their constitutional authority by engaging in diplomacy with a foreign enemy-country.
For example, I've got some really amazing arguments to support the 2A, from a progressive viewpoint. I doubt that anybody here would even think of these arguments, because they are arguments from the left. I've never voiced them, because they would probably make people pretty angry
But they are extremely effective in supporting the 2A to a progressive.
Hey, a good argument is a good argument no matter what perspective it originates from. And I'd dearly love to see how many "progressives" you've changed the minds of concerning gun-control. I mean, being "extremely effective" and all, you must have a score-card that would impress even the most entrenched conservative. Let's see it.
It's all about knowing your audience and understanding their needs, finding a path that already exists and using it to make a short bridge over to a new idea.
So your argument really changes depending on the audience you're addressing? And what "new idea" do you offer them to convert from a liberal anti-gunner to a pro-2A supporter? Obviously the truth, that the 2A means what it says and history proves that it protects an individual, God-given right, isn't enough. The Constitution is my short bridge, and people for whom that isn't good enough will never come around to seeing things my way just because I condescend them with my hypnotic finesse.
Blues