« Considering Consequences | Main | The 2008 Campaign Goes International »

February 12, 2007

Argument 101

If there is a war looming with Iran, and there are those who are quite convinced that it is, I am quite curious to see what those who are convinced it is coming will say if it does occur. Will they blame themselves for not convincing others of the coming threat, or will they blame the rest of us for not listening? Were I a betting man, I'd say the latter.

Jim Henley was kind enough to link to yesterday's essay discussing the logic of going to war with Iran. His commenters are, to put it mildly, not overly impressed with my arguments, which is fair enough. One of the reasons I have comments on the blog is to allow people to observe where I have erred, even if I don't always agree with their assessment. But what I found amusing was that the arguments were phrased to be as insulting as possible. Again, that's their right, but it's hard not to get a chuckle out of the notion that these people are the same ones who complain that nobody listens to them when they warn about the coming war.

Any attempt to prevent the U.S. from going to war in Iran will hinge on convincing people that the administration does, in fact, plan to do so and that doing so would be a bad idea. And, as I've noted many times in the past, convincing other people of the rightness of your position takes a lot more than simply being correct, or we wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq four years ago. Human beings are emotional creatures. While logic does play a role in how we come to a decision, it is not the primary motivator. When people are angry or insulted, they frequently make logical errors. Therefore, if we are to convince the general public that we are correct, we have to argue on both logical and emotional levels. That does not mean we should try and scare people into believing us, but it does mean that our arguments need to consider the emotions of those we disagree with.

This makes a lot of people angry in itself. They think to themselves, 'Hey, I'm right, I shouldn't have to worry about the feelings of the people who are wrong!' That is only true, however, if they don't care if they convince others. Consider our situation right now in Iraq. The surge is viewed poorly by a majority of Americans or Congress. If a majority vote were required to make the surge go forward, it would probably fail. Yet it is going forward, and even if Congress passes a resolution condemning it, the resolution will be nonbinding. Even though a majority of Congress believes the surge is a bad idea, they are unwilling to take any real measures to prevent it. How much more difficult will it be, then, to convince Congress that war in Iran is a real threat and that they must act to prevent it? It will require more than a majority belief that is the case, based on what we're seeing in Iraq. That means convincing a lot of people to think differently than they do now. And as unfair as it may seem, when one begins by insulting those who don't already agree with us, it's a foregone conclusion we're not going to convince many people we're correct.

I find it particularly amusing that this attitude seems prevalent on Jim's site, because Jim is, of course, a libertarian. Those familiar with the Libertarian Party will understand why. Whereas the Democratic and Republican Parties are very open, the Libertarian Party is the exact opposite. Libertarians (big-L), as a very broad rule, would rather be pure and lose than make compromises and win. Which is a great recipe for losing.

Like it or not, if those opposed to expanding the war to Iran hope to see the administration stopped, it's going to require accepting the aid of those who are, perhaps, insufficiently ideologically pure on other issues. If you're not willing to accept that, I've got to wonder just how serious you are about actually wanting to address the problem.