Narratives

Normally, I resist writing about what everyone else is writing about. I prefer to be off the major axes of public interest, so that my columns will at least be memorable for that. But now and then, there's no help for it: there's a single topic of importance, and all attention must flow to it.

Of course, the exact nature of that topic is often invisible to the thundering herd.

---

There can no longer be any doubt that the bombings in Boston on Monday were the work of terrorists. There's little doubt, given the methods and the bomb components, that the terrorists were Islamic jihadis, perhaps al-Qaeda affiliates. Given those things, the work of our time is the elimination of jihadism -- I refuse to call it "Islamic extremism," inasmuch as violent jihad is integral to Islam -- from our shores and, if possible, from the larger world.

But what coloration have the talking heads been straining to apply to this atrocity? That it might have been the work of "right-wing extremists." Why, given that April 15 is the statutory deadline for filing a federal income tax return, perhaps it was a group of TEA Partiers! After all, didn't the Tea Party of 1773 take place in Boston?

Why would anyone make such a foolish suggestion? Quite simply, in defense of The Narrative.

The Narrative -- the enveloping backdrop of assumptions about conditions, causes, and motivations being promoted by the government and its media handmaidens -- has several components. The parts that matter here are:

• The claim, uttered by no other than Barack Hussein Obama, that "the War on Terror is over;"
• The continuing effort to persuade Americans that the greatest danger to us consists of the private ownership of firearms.

---

A large component of The Narrative since 2009 has been the Obamunist declaration that "the War on Terror is over." This contention carries with it the implication that the expenditures and efforts devoted to combating terrorism can now be "saved:" i.e., deflected to other federal priorities, such as fattening the wallets of Obama's cronies. Ironically, even if the premise were correct, the consequent would not follow. A "war" is a delimited action in which governments strive to impose their wills upon one another by force. The terrorist threat is only loosely (if at all) connected to any government, nor has war been declared on any such. But Obama and his lieutenants begrudge the use of federal resources merely to keep Americans safe in their homeland; they don't believe we deserve such a sense of security. The Narrative must prevail.

Another rush to defend The Narrative arises from the Sandy Hook atrocity, in which emotionally disturbed Adam Lanza took 27 lives before taking his own. Mind you, Lanza didn't purchase the guns he used to kill all those innocents; he stole them from his mother, whom he then killed. Neither did he use an "assault weapon," the fanciful left-liberal term for a rifle with certain cosmetic embellishments; the only "assault weapon" found at the scene was locked in the trunk of his car. But the Left must defend the notion that the way to safety is citizen disarmament and "Gun-Free Zones." Therefore, these things must be effaced, so that nonsensical, irrelevant, and utterly unConstitutional anti-firearms legislation will have a chance of passing Congress.

Other components of The Narrative have been brought under harsh scrutiny in recent months. One notable case has been the trial of horror-abortionist Kermit Gosnell. I've striven to remind others that back in the Sixties, when the legalization of abortion was first discussed, conservative opponents predicted that legal abortion would lead to infanticide. The response from abortion defenders has usually been to claim that Gosnellian atrocities were commonplace before abortion was legalized. A weak response, to be sure, but when the Narrative requires defense, even the slenderest slivers will be rushed to the barricades. What's that you say? Senator Barack Hussein Obama actually voted in favor of allowing what Gosnell did? Twice? Shut up, you racist!

Why such passion for The Narrative? Quite simply, because we convey knowledge of causal relations to one another principally in the form of stories. The Narrative attempts to wrap left-liberal policy positions in stories with happy endings. When the endings prove to be not so happy after all, the associated story will be questioned and possibly dismissed. Can't have that, especially when America's first black president has stated so plainly that the War on Terror is over, gun-control legislation is being debated on the floor of the Senate, and ever more Americans are coming to understand the horrors unleashed by legalized abortion.

---

A long time ago, I wrote:

A number of brilliant analysts of argument and persuasion have set down the requirements of honest exchange: the supremacy of facts, avoidance of personalities, willingness to admit that one might be wrong about propositions for which the evidence is inconclusive, and so forth. Arthur Herzog, in The B.S. Factor, mentions another: sufficient decency to disdain victory through force of rhetoric.

Argument differs from rhetoric in many ways, but one above all others: the goal of argument is not to defeat one's opponent, but to increase one's understanding. Rhetoric is a sheaf of techniques for prevailing at verbal combat, regardless of the rightness of one's position. Demosthenes, the classical icon of rhetoric, was said to be capable of taking either side in any controversy and prevailing through sheer rhetorical skill....

In these United States, free and open communication is the rule. (We shall omit consideration of the universities and the Old Media for the purposes of this screed.) There's essentially no prospect for a regime of censorship that would suit the purposes of the Left. Its thrusts at imposing the shackle of "political correctness" on Americans' speech by the cultivation of unearned guilt have all rebounded catastrophically against it. What remains to it is the pollution of the intellectual waters, such that we recoil from them in disgust and futility.

Sadly, unless the defender of freedom is intellectually well armed and possesses a robust sense of humor, the tactic works more often than not.

The sense of humor is a shield against the sense of outrage Alger alludes to in his piece above. Outrage in a discussion format only feels energizing. In fact, it's wearying. It also tempts one to unsuitable responses. If an honest debater feels outrage stealing over him, he must invoke his sense of humor at once, both as protection and as the beginning of the only effective available retort: the leap to the meta-argument.

The "meta-argument" is to the argument itself as the rules of a game are to the play of a particular game. It "summons the referee" to bear witness to a dirty trick. If one can show that the opponent is violating the rules and hoping not to be called on it, the gain can be immense. Given the pattern Alger cites, imagine a reaction like this:

[Hearty chuckle] What Phil is doing here, friends, is stating a group of rumors and outright lies as if they were unchallenged facts. He has to assert them quickly and move on to other subjects, to keep them from being challenged and destroyed. An honest arguer wouldn't do that. But Phil's not interested in argument; he's trying to prevent argument and spread propaganda in its place. Phil, as our listeners don't have any patience for that, we don't have any time for you. [Click]

If you detect the sort of behavior described above, the meta-argument is your best recourse. Granted that it won't work on a case-hardened liberal. Granted that honesty demands that you admit that you, too, could be wrong. But if you're playing by the rules of honest argumentation, the mere fact that you've caught your opponent in a violation of those rules is a heavy stroke in your favor.

The Narrative, being a tissue of lies, can be countered factually. Indeed, the leftist's primary aim is to spread lies. If you can demonstrate to your audience that he's attempting to win their assent by dishonest means, you can protect third parties from his wiles.

The problem of Main Stream Media defense of The Narrative is much stiffer. People will tend to accept what's repeated at them sufficiently often, especially if it comes from a source deemed authoritative. Ironically, the media are treated as authoritative for no other reason than that they are the media. You, on the other hand, are a mere peon, subject to being dismissed no matter how eloquent or well supplied with facts you might be. After all, if you're so smart, why aren't you on television?

Quite a three-pipe problem, Watson.

---

If there's an effective counterstroke to The Narrative, it probably lies in the promotion of a competing narrative founded on actual events: true stories to counteract lies.

True stories possess an inherent advantage over deceitful ones: an attentive listener will grasp the causal relations for himself. He won't need them pointed out to him. A man is far more likely to believe his own inferences than those presented to him ready-made, and far more likely to defend them energetically when challenged.

The time has come for massive efforts in this direction. Indeed, it came long ago. We have firm evidence that we're under attack by the adherents of a vicious theocratic-totalitarian ideology. Despite that, and despite the complete lack of Constitutional or utilitarian justification for infringements on our rights to keep and bear arms, rapacious governments determined to extinguish the vestiges of freedom and eager to use fear in that effort are straining to disarm us. Meanwhile, soulless creatures are killing fully born, viable babies because, after all, what's the difference between a partially-born infant, head still within the birth canal, and a wholly born one? The proponents' principal tool is The Narrative.

It's time to knock it flat and crush it into dust.