Comment: The best way to handle this situation ...

(See in situ)


The best way to handle this situation ...

... is the Socratic Method. Socrates asked QUESTIONS that were designed to get at the fundamental principles that the person was advocating, and then he used that person's own ideas to show how they were contradicting themselves.

This can make people very angry because most people do not question their own belief system, they just become entrenched. (For a good laugh at politicians getting angry at this sort of thing, check out YouTube and look up Jan Helfeld's interviews of politicians.)

However ...

In a normal conversation, you do NOT want to make the person angry. You want to win them over. The problem is, we don't know if the person is close-minded or open-minded. If they are truly close-minded, then go ahead and offend 'em. ;-)

Most people, though, are at least somewhat open-minded and if you come right at them and tell them why they are WRONG, they will quickly become close-minded.

So instead, make it a two-part process. First, ask them questions to get them to commit to some sort of base principle. Then, show them in a nice way why what they currently think is correct might not be so and that a different idea might be better. Then, leave it up to them to find out more.

It could go something like this:

HIM: We gotta vote for Newt or Mitt, whoever the nominee is.
ME: Why do you say that?
HIM: Because we can't afford another 4 years of Obama.
ME: I agree with you that would be bad, but you and I might agree for different reasons. So, why do you think 4 more years of Obama would be bad?
HIM: Because he is spending this country into bankruptcy with all the bailouts and everything.
ME: That's true, and what else?
[Get multiple reasons before moving on to Step 2.]
ME: So, we agree that Obama is bad because he is spending the country into bankruptcy, do you think that's because he's a liberal?
HIM: Yes, he's a commie.
ME: So, are you in favor of less government spending and less government overall?
HIM: Yes.
ME: Are you in favor of ending all the bailouts?
HIM: Yep.
ME: I agree, but the problem you and I have is that Newt Gingrich has said many times that his favorite president in history is Franklin Roosevelt, not Ronald Reagan. He supported government bailouts of big business, he thinks you should have to pay higher taxes because of global warming, and he has supported government-run health care. Of course when he's running for office, he pretends he never said those things, just like Obama didn't say what he really wanted when he ran, either. And Mitt Romney is no different. He has supported government bailouts, government health care and all the rest. He tries to claim that he is a changed man now, but that's because he's running for office. The more you think about it, the more you realize that both Newt and Mitt are big government Republicans who are really no different from Obama. A vote for them is a vote for more of the same, until the country really does go bankrupt. If you really want someone who will END that stuff, take a look at Ron Paul.

At this point, he might change the subject and say Ron Paul is not "electable," in which case you can go through the same process. If the person is open to new ideas, he will have a real conversation and have real concerns. If he is close-minded, he will just keep changing the subject no matter what you say, and then you can choose to end the conversation or go into "Plan B" and really make him question his own principles, but you might not make a friend if you go there. LOL.