It is increasingly obvious that there is a large and expanding gulf between leftists and conservatives. 

It is also obvious that the conventional paths of communication between individuals are not effective in reaching any understanding.  One reason for this is that, in almost every discussion of a concept, when one party is logically backed into a corner, he shifts the discussion to another topic.  When this happens, nothing about the original concept is resolved.  The cornered party escapes, having done no honest self-reflection on the challenges to his argument, and feeling no repercussions for having held a weak or wrong position.  The cornering party achieves nothing but a sense of being right.  Nothing worthwhile comes of this, because both parties are exactly the same as before.

This is not a formula for progress.

A different path, which may be worth a try, is to change the target of the discussion.  Shift it away from the idea, to the individual.  Done well, this has the potential to force the self-reflection necessary for personal growth, and thus perhaps change a viewpoint.

The concept of going after the individual, not the idea, is not new.  We observe it almost weekly, as the left tries, often effectively, to cancel someone from the right; there is no discussion about the validity of the arguments, only a rush to have the person making the movement removed from their occupation.  The difference proposed here is that we do not try to cancel our opponent and eliminate him from the discussion, but rather force him to recognize his personal weakness, in the hope that he could rejoin the discussion, this time at a higher level. 

A fundamental component of this approach is the fact that today, given the wealth of information available at everyone's fingertips, nobody has a lock on a piece of information.  It is all out there — it's just a matter of looking for it.  When dealing with someone who chooses to ignore facts and shift the focus in a discussion, you can keep the discussion on point by reminding your interlocutor that he has four simple choices regarding the point you've made.  Each choice is a negative reflection on his character, and the choices get more damning as you walk through them.  But in the end, it's one of these four.

Choice One: "You didn't think to ask yourself that question, or to look for that piece of information."  This reflects only a cursory understanding of the topic, perhaps born of a habit of scanning headlines and tweets, without any critical reading of a 500- or 1,000-word article.  Such a person would hopefully admit, "I didn't think of that!," at which point you could suggest a source to find some information.  Most likely, though, the person would not do that, which would lead you to the next choice to offer.

Choice Two: "You asked that same question to yourself, but you didn't bother to look it up."  Given the ease with which one can gather information, this does not reflect well on a person.  He's willing to get into a discussion on a topic, but without preparation.  An honest person would, at this point, stop and commit to go look up several sources, and thus be able to come back better prepared.  Our hope is that, in doing this brief research, he'll find the same data we found (we can point him to it), recognize the validity of our argument, then reshape his argument to address our point.  But there are many folks who would not admit to "I didn't bother to look it up," which leads us to the third possibility to offer.

Choice Three: "You asked that same question to yourself but were afraid of the answer you'd find if you looked it up, so you didn't pursue it."  This is otherwise known as willful ignorance.  This is not admirable at all, since it implies a suspicion that his own argument is weak, and he's not willing to work to strengthen it.  Another possible avenue is that he thinks he's done his research, but since he looks only to the same familiar sources for information, he is in his own information bubble.  We remind him that the internet does contain other information sources, and that a well informed person reads and understands contrary viewpoints. 

Do not let the person get away with simply saying "Oh, I watch Fox News."  It is ridiculous for an intelligent person to assume that all opposing thought comes from one news source.  So we can suggest other sources.  Along these lines, we should constantly remind ourselves of our responsibility to check the conventional leftist news sources, lest we be caught unaware of the breadth and depth of his arguments. 

If our discussion partner declines even this third choice, that leaves only one other option...

Choice Four: "You did look it up, you found the facts, and now you are ignoring them, being dishonest with yourself and with me."  This is the worst of all possibilities, and it is doubtful that anyone would admit to it.  However, if the above three have been repressed by our discussion partner, this is the only other possibility.

So, there you have it.  Four and only four choices: a) uninquisitive, b) lazy, c) willfully ignorant, or d) dishonest.  Note that each of these goes after the individual — no possibility of changing topics or deflecting responsibility to someone else.  Make certain he realizes that the discussion is now about him and the choices he's made.  The discussion may not be comfortable at this point, but we're not trying to make people comfortable — we're seeking the truth, and in a bigger picture, we are trying to salvage our society.  When the person tries to switch to a different topic, tell him, "We can discuss that next, but this is the question on the table," and bring them back to "which of the four choices are you claiming?"  When the person tries to say "but conservatives do that, too," tell him, "That doesn't make it right, so which of the four choices are you claiming?"

As we see our society degrade around us, driven by the lowest common denominator (leftist cancel culture), we are not powerless.  The left gained its numbers one person at a time — not by a diktat from above, but by person-to-person influence, one person at a time.  It is on each of us to shift them back.  Set a goal of influencing one person this year.  Together, we could effect much change.

Image: Pixabay (cropped), Pixabay License.