The danger of gloating

posted at 9:45 pm on March 20, 2011 by Steven Den Beste

It is natural, when one of your political opponents changes position on some issue and comes around to your side of it, to laugh loudly and point and shout, “See? you moron, I was right all along!”

But even if it is satisfying to do that, it’s also counterproductive. Our goal isn’t to score points, it’s to make policy. When opponents come to agree with us, it gives us greater chance of making the right policy, doesn’t it?

If changing their minds leads to public mockery, that will make them stubborn, and less likely to come over to our side.

So the right thing for us to do is to be gracious. Accept them when they change, with a minimum of abuse, and move forward. And defer all the criticism until the next election campaign.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I welcome them with one hand and arm outstretched to throw around their shoulders, pull them close and hug them, welcome them to the realm of common sense, and figuratively shiv them between the ribs with the other hand, for I know that it will be only moments hence when they begin anew actively seeking to destroy my family, my country, my economy, and my liberty.

They are not to be congratulated, they are to be defeated, destroyed and vanquished to the point of never holding power again.

Let me state it in a way that borrows from your post:

If changing their minds leads to *sufficient* public mockery, it will, perhaps, make them less likely to pursue their patently ridiculous and evil ambitions in the first place.

As we all know (yes, we do), being reasonable and gracious with them yields nothing from them in the end. There is no evidence to suggest that it will be helpful, and a wealth of evidence to suggest that it does, in fact, make things worse in the long run – they don’t reflect upon their wrongheadedness – they resent us for it all the more.

Midas on March 20, 2011 at 10:15 PM

We should be gracious about the difference of opinion, but scathing in our mocking about the process. It’s one thing to have one’s say and be ignored, it’s quite another to be denied the opportunity to speak at all — and if that causes defensiveness and increasing marginalization, they can own that when circumstances turn.

cthulhu on March 20, 2011 at 10:43 PM

So the right thing for us to do is to be gracious. Accept them when they change, with a minimum of abuse, and move forward. And defer all the criticism until the next election campaign.

Be gracious to whom? Where did this article come from? What did I miss?

gryphon202 on March 21, 2011 at 12:32 AM

minimum of abuse

Define minimum.

I get your point, but some days minimum might mean to forgive without caveat, other days it might mean impeachment.

Robert17 on March 21, 2011 at 6:00 AM

A Chinese proverb that has helped me maintain a good perspective and some sanity in these troubling times.

It’s titled “Misfortunes and Blessings.” It begins:

In the northern frontier of ancient China, there lived a man who was particularly skilled in raising horses. People knew of him and called him Sai Ong – literally “Old Frontiersman.”

One day, for some unknown reason, his horse got loose and ran off into the Hu territory beyond the Great Wall. The Hu tribes were hostile toward the Chinese, so everyone assumed the horse was as good as lost.

Horses were very valuable to the people living at the frontier, so they regarded this loss as a great financial setback. They visited Sai Ong to express their sympathies, but Sai Ong’s elderly father surprised them by remaining calm and unaffected. Much to their puzzlement, the old man asked: “Who says this cannot be some sort of blessing?” …

http://www.taoism.net/living/2004/200408.htm

SoldiersMom on March 21, 2011 at 6:17 AM

So the right thing for us to do is to be gracious. Accept them when they change, with a minimum of abuse, and move forward. And defer all the criticism until the next election campaign.

ummmm, you should be telling this to the dems….the gop always plays mr nice guy not wanting to rock the boat and the such…

cmsinaz on March 21, 2011 at 9:06 AM

Yeah, guys, don’t rube it in.

andycanuck on March 21, 2011 at 9:24 AM

Who changed?

myview on March 21, 2011 at 11:17 AM

Accept them when they change, with a minimum of abuse, and move forward.

This is misguided at best. Our political opponents didn’t “change” or suddenly become more reasonable in any way. Either they were lying back when Bush was in office, or they are excusing Obama/Dems for some immoral/illegal act now. They aren’t agreeing w/ our position….they happen to hold our position on a few things right at the moment because it is politically convenient for them (or they only opposed our positions previously because they wanted to score political points.) To think otherwise is extremely naive. I am not going to but my arm around a ravenous wolf and show him our acceptance, which you think he is craving. (He isn’t.)

If you have ever talked to people who truly converted from leftists/liberal group think, they will usually tell you that they could no longer ignore the blatant hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty present in nearly every leftist’s policy position.

So yes, we should mock & ridicule them publicly for their obvious double standards; especially when we have several cut & dry, apples to apples comparisons as we do right now. Rather than trying to humbly lure a large number of dishonest hacks into our fold, we should be trying to make some incremental gains with those who are having quiet doubts about what their party really stands for. Turn up the volume on those doubts.

And be aggressive about it! Politics ain’t bean bag…

Cheesestick on March 21, 2011 at 11:52 AM

Who changed?
myview on March 21, 2011 at 11:17 AM

Of course no liberal ever has or ever will change. Once any individual collectivist becomes capable of independant thought then he, by definition, stops being a liberal.

Liberalism is subjectivism. That means liberals are never afraid of BEING wrong; they are only afraid of FEELING wrong. And the way to avoid that is literally childishly simple: always agree with the perceived concensus (i.e., whatever the media repeat most often.) No real change is possible until that entire worldview has been utterly destroyed.

Liberals may sometimes change their opinion – say about Obama or Global Warming. But no liberal will ever admit he was “wrong” about anything – ever. He agreed with the perceived consensus before; and once he sees that consensus falter he may mock it right along with the rest of the herd; then he’ll feel every bit as self-righteous as he did before. But as soon as all of his close personal friends on TV tell him to, he’ll fantatically jump right back onto the same bandwagon he was on before, without missing a beat.

The only way to make a liberal change is to force him to face the concept of an objective reality. That process cannot begin until the liberal first realizes that he’s been absolutely nothing but a consummate fool his entire life… and not just regarding any one specific opinion; rather that his entire way of looking at everything in the world has been completely upside-down, inside-out and backwards.

Obviously gloating cannot make that happen all by itself, but it is a necessary and helpful part of the process.

logis on March 21, 2011 at 1:25 PM

Sorry, Steven, I gotta disagree here. If we were dealing with rational actors, who might actually THINK about some future issue with a modicum of introspection concerning this history, then you’d have a point. But we’re not.

We’re dealing with people who have NO shame, and no principle beyond the pursuit and maintenance of power. They will take whatever position is politically convenient for the moment. If, in 2013, President-Elect takes office, within two weeks the anti-”war” left will be organizing massive demonstrations against President-’s evil war in Libya.

Remember that Vietnam became Nixon’s war. To this day the left pretends not to know that Kennedy started it, and LBJ doubled down. (“Hey hey, ho, ho, LBJ has got to go” has been whitewashed from history).

Remember that the left gave Kerry no trouble when he pivoted from “fer” to “agin” on the Iraq war in 2004.

Stop pretending our opponents are reasonable and can be taught — by anything other that the direct application of (what passes for) force in the political arena: defeat at the polls.

Leftists delenda est. And if ridicule helps get us there by convincing the moderate middle to avoid associating with the ridiculed and ridiculous left, so much the better.

cwilson on March 21, 2011 at 1:35 PM

Midas on March 20, 2011 at 10:15 PM

A better response than the author’s post.

Here’s the bottom line: A liberal will come over to your side only if the calculation is made by him that doing so increases the chance of his retaining or acquiring more power.

It’s all about the power, baybeeee . . .

BigAlSouth on March 21, 2011 at 6:18 PM

Sorry, I’m not buying it. These people will never change. And they were never anti-war in the first place. They were anti-republican. Pretnding to give a s**t about Iraqi citizens was just a way to damage Bush politically, as was Gitmo. They’re only principle is to a) if you’re a politician, continue doing what you have to do to buy off the electorate, or b) if you are a liberal voter, support who and/or whatever cause you must to ensure that your gravy train doesn’t come to a stop. That is the gist of it. They are unprincipled freeloaders and vote-buyers. And if pointing this out can get us a few extra independent voters and help us take the WH in 2012, I’m all about it. I’m done being nice to these freaking people. They make me sick.

moonbat monitor on March 22, 2011 at 9:30 AM

There’s an old saying: you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

The big difference between liberals and conservatives (rank and file, that is — not politicians) is not whether they “love their country” (though they may disagree about what that means). It’s not whether they care about people; it’s not whether they like dogs. It’s not whether they’re good to their mothers. Apart from the commie lunatic fringe, it isn’t about whether they support the military and salute the flag.

The big difference between liberals and conservatives is their UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS.

I’ve likened it to following a treasure map. It doesn’t matter how faithfully you go 100 paces, then turn left and take 20 paces, then turn right and go 10 paces unless you start at the right spot. Liberals, for the most part, just start at the wrong spot. They can follow impeccable logic insofar as they are correct about what is and isn’t true; unfortunately, their underlying assumptions — a big part of determining what is and isn’t true — are all wrong.

Most liberals (to be honest, like most conservatives) aren’t teachable, because they aren’t listening. But some are. And a lot of “independents” are. So I see these as the teachable moments of conservatism; be gracious, but, without calling people names, point out that conservative principals would have led to the better outcome.

RegularJoe on March 22, 2011 at 2:00 PM