How to Argue with Leftists about Islamism: An Ideological Combat Manual.

Note:  This is a guest post by a frequent commenter at this website, DemocracyRules.

Why would anyone deliberately ignore the imminent threat of Islamist aggression?  Conservative bloggers wonder why many Americans cannot see the clear and present danger.  On ‘Kristallnacht’, Nov 9-10, 1938, the Nazis systematically, and under government sanction, physically attacked and murdered Jews, and smashed and burned massive amounts of Jewish property throughout Germany and parts of Austria, yet many Jews remained in their home country.  Many could not get out, but others still did not fully perceive the danger–why not?

To start to answer this, interview yourself.  On a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being no risk to health or liberty, and 10 being imminent death, rank Islamist aggression as a personal risk to your own health and liberty for right now, today.  Today, I gave it a 1, how about you?  Now estimate, if all allied anti-Islamist initiatives ceased immediately, what would the personal health-liberty risk be to you in 5 years? In 10 years?  My estimate for 10 years is 6, but it’s clear from reading political commentary, that for some, their 10-year rating is 0 (no risk), and for others, it’s 9.  Both right and left seem to score similarly for the present estimates, but it is in the future estimates where the arguments start.

What would make me increase my estimate, to let’s say, to 7, in five years’ time?  (This may have been about what Churchill would have estimated for Britain in 1937, if they had done nothing to oppose fascism.)  A lot of research has investigated factors that determine action amidst the perception of physical danger, and here are five that appear in many studies.  First, temporal proximity, in which imminent death or imprisonment in 5 minutes will more likely spur action than the same risk in 20 years hence.  Second, the severity of the risk, will there be serious health consequences and freedom restrictions, or a little?  Third, how susceptible am I personally (as in, “First they came for the Jews, but I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew”)?  Fourth, how effectively can I avoid the risks, can I run away, fight back, or am I trapped?  Fifth, how seriously do my family and friends perceive the risks to be? 

To sum up, these five are ‘Temporal Focus’, ‘Severity’, ‘Susceptibility’, ‘Efficacy’, and ‘Subjective Norms’. Thus, I am most likely to take action against Islamist aggression if they live next door, are right now loading their weapons, they intend to kill, they have me specifically in mind, there is a lot I can do to protect myself, and my family and friends agree that the danger is extremely high.

American political debate is filled with these five factors.  Left-wing bloggers, when they are rational, often argue that the risks of Islamist aggression are far in the future, are not very severe, are unlikely to affect Americans much, that nothing can stop Islamist aggression anyway, and/or that most Americans agree with these perceptions.  This provides a map to structure successful debate.  If you want to change other people’s knowledge, attitudes and behavior about Islamist aggression, address these five topics. 

One interesting phenomenon is the Stockholm Syndrome, where a person is sure that escape or fighting back is impossible, but the danger is imminent, it is severe, they are personally susceptible, and their peers agree.  In a Stockholm bank robbery in 1973, four hostages were trapped in a vault with little hope, and began to identify with their captors, expressing positive regard for them, and this identification and positive regard persisted in some hostages even after their rescue.  Some Americans display Stockholm Syndrome about Islamist aggression, identifying with Islamists, displaying positive regard for them, and believing that resistence is futile.  Nancy Pelosi in a head-scarf is an example, where conservatives fear that she abjures resistance, and identifies with the enemy.

This five-factor model provides a map for debate, but with whom?  Start the debate with yourself.  What do you believe about these five factors, how certain are you of these beliefs, (do you have proof?), and how could you convince yourself to take even more political action against Islamist aggression?  Next, join with others of like mind to discuss these things. Preaching to the converted has enormous value, because you need very committed colleagues, and if you cannot convince each other of the risks, you should certainly not try to convince others.  This is not an academic exercise or a sales seminar, it’s about ameliorating real risks to American health and liberty by mobilizing political action, and you may be motivating others to war.  Be aware how wrong you can be – remember in WWII, it was the ‘leftards’ who pushed Americans, particularly the intransigent Republicans, into helping the allies, preparing America, and encouraging the fight, and they were right to do it.

The dictums of changing risk behavior are: (1) change the changeable, (2) stage your interlocutor, (3) seek teachable moments, (4) use respectful confrontation, and (5) amplify your impact.   The best group to work with are the uncertain, mainstream middle.  Change the changeable by focussing your debates on this group of mainstream undecideds, who will listen, and who are susceptible to change.  Do not expect large or sudden changes in attitudes or behavior – they’re rare in you, and everyone else, too.  (Engaging committed anti-war leftists is a waste of time, because great effort is needed to produce large changes in anyone.) Stage your interlocutor by finding out what your interlocutors believe now, so that you can focus your arguments where they will have the most effect. 

Seek teachable moments by making your arguments when values conflicts are highest.  For example, in March, 29 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
http://www.state.gov/p/us/rm/2007/82374.htm  R. Nicholas Burns, US Under Secretary for Political Affairs, said that Iran “has refused to agree to IAEA requests for access to Iranian officials and documentation, including a 15-page document that describes the procedures for casting and machining uranium into hemispheres, for which the only plausible purpose is manufacturing nuclear weapons.”  If this information reaches the mainstream media, and is widely discussed, this will be a teachable moment, when undecided Americans are receptive to arguments that Iran represents a clear and present danger. 

Use respectful confrontation, because none of us wants to change when we’re being yelled at, and this also excludes any ad hominem attacks of anyone.  Yelling at people and insulting them is better thought of as a sport, rather than a behavioural change strategy.  Amplify your impact by emulating political campaigners, who try to ‘snowball’ a movement by enlisting volunteers, who will enlist more volunteers, encouraging internal cohesion, mutually emphasizing the values driving the campaign, and exchanging ideological and social rewards and benefits amongst themselves.

So there you have it, and brief guide to changing the world.  I’m very ill, so I’m going to go have a nap now.  Also, be aware that I am an existentialist, I do not have a political party, I’m not a ‘leftard’, or a ‘repuke’.  My choice is to defend democracy because I like it.  I hope left wingers will also read these notes, and use them. This would be a good thing, because the key issues would get addressed by both sides.  If you believe in your ideas, then be confident that in a fair fight you will win, because your ideas are better.

Pro Patria
DemocracyRules

Comments

[Jim Harrison]

The prospects of rational discussion are somewhat diminished when one side is promoting what amounts to a paranoid delusional system. Paranoids are highly rational in a sense, of course, but that sense doesn't involve common sense, for example, the common sense that notices that there simply isn't a unified Islamic threat or much of a prospect of one. The enemy, as defined in these parts, is a magic opponent with supernatural powers instead of a set of ragged and divided nations and terrorist organizations that hate each other as much as they hate us.

We've been here before. The right wing used to talk about the menace of Communism is much the same irrational way as if the struggle weren't against flesh and blood but principalities and powers. The real Soviets, however, were indeed formidable while threat of Islamic fundamentalism is simply not on the same scale. The Middle East is politically and militarily impotent and hardly in a position to conduct some sort of universal jihad, even if, contrary to fact, the majority of believing Muslims were in favor of such a thing.

[DemocracyRules]

Well thank you for this reply. It’s interesting because you cut to the heart of the matter – you do not perceive clear and present danger from Islamism, the danger is neither clear or present. Let me make this argument, I will talk about now and five years hence. For right now, my personal sense of danger is not high, I don’t think I’m very susceptible to Islamist violence, it would not be very severe (unless I was very unlucky), there are things I could do to prevent my personal harm, and most people around me do not seem worried. However, if we ignore the problem, here is my picture in five years. Iran would have nuclear weapons, Hezbollah would have taken over Lebanon, Libya would have relapsed into a rogue state, and Syria would have already had a war with Israel. Iraq, with the US gone, would be ruled by radical Islamists, and be exporting terror to all parts of the globe, and the US in particular. Afghanistan would again be ruled by Islamists, as would the Western half of Pakistan. From the Hindu Kush to Cape Verde, Morocco, Islamism would be the prevailing ideology, determined to turn the clock back, and establish a global caliphate. Oil would cost $200 per barrel, and the US would have done nothing to find alternative fuel sources. These are grim images, and apparently I see them, but you do not. For sure, if this picture becomes reality in five years, I will feel clear and present danger. The danger of death from Iranian nuclear attack would seem near in time, I would feel very susceptible to Islamist violence (since it would be as ubiquitous as it now is in Israel). The severity would seem high (since Islamists mainly just kill), and my capacity to prevent personal harm would be limited, since the US would have had to concede many rights and freedoms in order to avoid nuclear attack, and accommodate Islamist hegemony. By then, most people would agree with me about the clear and present danger, and our powerlessness to prevent it without sparking global nuclear war. This would make Stockholm syndrome very common. You are right, paranoia IS a psychopathology, but its unsung twin is the madness of ignoring real threats.

[serendip]

Islam a la Khomeini is the most threatning kind of Islam:

http://islamic-fundamentalism.info/chII.htm

Robert Gates called the Islamic Republic of Iran, "The Curse of the Region".

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a.yqdi8HsNEg&refer=politics