How to persuade, rather than dissuade, new people to the cause of liberty.
Despite rightly decrying government policy, libertarians can often find themselves being ‘negatarians‘ as we read out another shopping list of what is wrong with government. People often suffer in silence, or just tune out. I know my family did initially. That’s not the goal I wanted to achieve, no one likes a wet blanket. I wanted people to ‘tune in’ to our ideas, not ‘tune out’ when I opened my mouth. Do you ever suffer from this too?
Do you desire to reach out and persuade people to our cause, rather than confront them by antagonising their current misconceptions about the role of government in our lives?
Do you ever get flustered in a conversation of opposing views, with all the ideas of liberty bouncing in your head?
Do you have the ability to technically confront and debate, yet fail at converting the audience to our cause?
If you have trouble with any of the aforementioned, I know I did with all at one point or another, perhaps this article can help you. So, how did I crack this nut? I didn’t, Benjamin Franklin cracked it for me:
A few years ago, I came across Michael Cloud’s brilliant short book, ‘Secrets of Libertarian Persuasion’ which improved immensely my ability to spread the message of liberty. Michael’s book is a guide to cultivating good habits with which to make the case for liberty to the non-believers, in a very positive friendly and persuasive way. Among much sound advice, it included Franklin’s recipe for spreading liberty. It is the lessons from Michael’s book, and Benjamin Franklin, that I shall now borrow from:
Benjamin Franklin’s ‘Road to Excellence’
Thinking himself only a man of ordinary virtue, Franklin sought a method by which he could acquire the essentials for successful living. He devised his ‘Road to Excellence’ in which he sought 13 virtues he wished to turn into personal habits. Franklin concentrated on one of the 13 habits each week, practicing that virtue at every opportunity he could throughout that week, before progressing to the next virtue the following week and doing the same. When he reached the 13th virtue, he started at the beginning again. By doing this, Franklin mastered all 13 virtues within the year, focussing on each virtue exclusively for 4 weeks each by the end. Without even being aware, while focussing on one virtue, Franklin was practicing the others simultaneously. His method built upon itself.
So, let us apply Franklin’s method to cultivating some of Michael Cloud’s recommended ‘Persuasion Techniques’, so that we may better reach out to non-libertarians, and persuade them to our cause:
1. The Magic ‘If’
2. The Reverse
3. The Neglected Art of Listening
4. Six-Step Recipe for Cooking Big Government
5. Are You Tied in Nots?
6. The Wrong End of the Stick
Take six 3×5 index cards, and print the name of each technique at the top of the card. On each card, make columns for each day of the week. At the beginning of each day, read and re-read the short summary of that technique. This will only take a few moments. The 6 techniques are provided below. Carry the card with you daily, and each time you get an opportunity to employ the technique in a conversation mark it down on the card. This way you can keep track of how many times you used the technique each day. By using Michael’s and Franklin’s technique, which at first seemed odd, I realised just how well it worked. Before I knew it I was employing the persuasion techniques unwittingly, to satisfying effect.
So, here are just 6 techniques, very briefly, to get you started on your way to better reaching out to non-libertarians, and persuading them to our cause:
1. The Magic ‘If’
When someone responds to your libertarian solution to a problem with “we can’t because…”, or “people will never support it because…”
Respond with:
“You might be right” (Pause, then ask…) “But ‘if‘ it were possible… would you want it?”
“You might be right. Most people might be against it today. But what ‘if’ the majority changed its mind, what ‘if‘ we did implement it. Would it be a good thing?”
“If’ it were up to you alone, would you want it?”
If the answer is “No,” politely finish up the conversation, and move onto someone more open to the blessings of liberty (investing your energy on those who are stubborn is a waste of your precious time, seek out those more receptive when possible).
If the answer is “Yes”, follow up with:
“Why would you want it?”
Or, “How would it make things better, what else would it accomplish?”
2. The Reverse (my favourite)
If you’re tired of long drawn-out arguments, here’s a useful technique to have your opponent convince themselves of liberty for you:
Instead of telling them what is right with liberty, or wrong with government, try asking them:
“What’s one thing government does now that you think it should definitely not do?”
Or,
“What’s one government program that’s a dismal failure or a waste of money that government ought to shut down”
Then ask, “Why?”
After they respond to why, ask them to expand and tell you what the bad consequences of the program actually are.
Then play Devil’s Advocate, ask them how they would respond to possible objections: “What if someone said X, how would you respond to that objection?”
By employing ‘The Reverse’, your opponent will argue themselves into a convincing libertarian position, arguing and picking apart government for you.
3. The Neglected Art of Listening
An attentive listener is desperately desired by all speakers. They are rare and precious. By practicing The Neglected Art of Listening, people will seek you out, and treasure you.
Michael’s 3 keys to ‘high impact listening’ briefly are:
I. Home in on phrases and words speakers emphasise, and explore them.
Gently ask: “I noticed you mentioned ‘fairness’ a few times. Could you tell me more about it? What do you mean by it?”
II. Notice what they physically express and emphasise: their phrases and words and ideas and concerns.
On emotive topics, people often demonstrate important ideas physically: raising their voice or becoming more tender etc. Pick up on this, and ask “That sounds like it’s very important, tell me about it.”
This display of empathy by you will endear you to the speaker.
III. We listen with our eyes. Make warm eye contact with your speaker.
Eyes are the window to your soul. Maintain eye contact, even if the speaker turns away momentarily to gather their thoughts. This will show they have your full and warm attention, cultivating a more friendly dialogue.
4. Six-Step Recipe for Cooking Big Government
Universal healthcare is often lauded as the mark of a ‘civilised society’. “The government should do something for those who cannot afford healthcare!” the cry is often made.
Or, “public schools are failing, we need more money to educate our kids, the government must do something”.
We’ve all heard these statements. But, responding to these statements directly can make libertarians appear against the well-meaning intentions underlying the programs, and are against those relying upon them. We don’t want to look like a Grinch. and we don’t have to. Because, we have a Six-Step Recipe for Cooking Big Government.
Step 1: Empathise with the speaker’s positive intentions:
“I agree, it’s awful that so many who are sick or injured are without medical care. We shouldn’t stand by while they suffer. We need to be active!”
Step 2: “Big Government programs don’t work.”
Give examples of failed big government programs. If you don’t have any to hand, but would like to, I personally recommend Dr Mary Ruwart’s Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression (the 1st edition of this book is available for free here), or you may wish to visit Mises.org, Reason Magazine, Learn Liberty, The Institute of Economic Affairs, among others.
Step 3: “Big Government programs often make things worse for those they intend to help.”
Offer examples of things that were made worse, the above sources will again be extremely helpful.
Step 4: “Big Government programs create new problems”
As with step 3, offer examples of the new problems created or existing ones exacerbated, the above sources will again be extremely helpful.
Step 5: “Big Government programs are wasteful and costly.”
Offer examples of government waste and budget blowouts, these are easy to find on the internet, or the above sources may be helpful.
Step 6: “Big Government programs divert money and energy from positive and productive uses.”
Demonstrate the libertarian solution, and provide free-market success stories. Or, refer to one of the sources’ articles from Step 1.
Or, ask your questioner, “How do you think you and I, working with our Churches or service organisations like the Salvation Army, Rotary Club, Lions Club, or local businesses might help to solve these problems in our community? If the government didn’t take so much of our money in high taxes, if government regulations didn’t get in our way, how could we solve this problem locally?”
This six step recipe deliciously cooks big government, clearing the way for discussion of libertarian solutions to problems. For it to work, you will need to familiarise yourself with examples to cite. Reading from the sources at Step 2 is a good start, but the wider read you are, the better equipped will be.
“We don’t rise to the level of our expectations, we fall to the level of our training.”
~ Archilochos.
5. Are You Tied in Nots?
“Libertarians do not support drugs”
“Libertarians do not support licensing”
“Libertarians do not support guns”
These statements are technically true. But, the often reinforce the falsehood.
Why?
They tie us in nots. The ‘not’ ties (links) us to the false accusations. “Not” is a language tool. It negates what it refers to. To understand a “notted” sentence, you need to focus on what is being negated. And, what is being remembered.
The audience remembers the subject, verb, and object. Intensely. And, the negation… barely, if at all.
For example:
“Emily is not an evil person. Emily did not lie cheat and steal.”
People remember the name and the charge. The accusations. “Emily… evil person” and “Emily… lie cheat and steal.”
To deny we must assert. To negate we must affirm.
To communicate what libertarians ‘are’, we must communicate positively.
For others to remember what libertarians ‘advocate’, we must communicate what we are ‘for’.
What are we ‘for’? “Libertarians are for small government.”
What do we ‘advocate’? “Libertarian want to end the insane War on Drugs.”
What do we ‘believe’? “Libertarians are committed to personal responsibility… Because personal responsibility is the price of liberty.”
Notted: “Libertarians are not callous towards the poor.”
Un-notted: “Libertarians support charity toward the weak frail and poor.”
Notted: “Libertarians would not support military intervention in other countries.”
Un-notted: “Libertarians believe that our military should defend our shores against foreign invaders”.
Notted sentences confuse, conflate, are defensive, are often weak, and reinforce the belief being negated.
Advocate, do not negate.
Say what we do believe, not what we do not.
Affirm what we will do, not what we will not.
Cut the not.
Say it positively to communicate it clearly. So others will remember what libertarians are for.
6. The Wrong End of the Stick
“I agree that 20,000 gun laws are too many. Which ones would you keep?”
“Government is too big. But which parts would you libertarians keep?”
“Taxes are too high. But we can’t just get rid of them, which ones should ‘we’ keep?”
These are common question, and centre around “Which parts of government do libertarians support and condone?”
This may be important philosophically. But, when trying to persuade someone who probably has an opposing view to you, you’re reaching for The Wrong End of the Stick…
Instead of arguing over which parts of government to keep, why not team up and focus on which parts of government we agree absolutely must go? The ‘Right’ End of the Stick.
Example:
“20,000 gun laws is an awful lot to sort through. If it were up to you, which one would you get rid of first? Which do you think is the most harmful? Why?”
“I agree, government is too big. Which parts of government do you think are worst? Which parts would get rid of first? Why?”
“What’s the worst thing about high taxes? Why? If it were your decision alone, which tax and or how much tax would you cut? Why?”
The Right End of the Stick is:
“Which parts of big government would you get rid of first?”
“Which parts of big government do the most harm? Are wrong, bad, immoral, impractical?
When reaching for the ‘stick,’ instead of choosing the end that gives us a tug-o-war, choose the one that gives us a helping hand: The Right End of the Stick.
If you found this article helpful, and would like to know more techniques on persuasion and the above ones in greater detail, I highly recommend Michael Cloud’s book: ‘Secrets of Libertarian Persuasion’, from which I relied upon in this piece. I might add that I am not receiving any benefit from Michael or The Advocates for this. This is simply what has worked so well for me in persuading others to liberty.
Good luck!
“La Liberté guidant le peuple!”
Emily Greene is a contributor for The Libertarian.