Message to America

This rule is deceptively powerful because it takes advantage of human psychology and behavior. If I ask you a question, you're forced - if people are watching - to answer. If I avoid answering, I look like I've got something to hide. This is why you'll rarely, if ever, see two candidates addressing each other directly in a televised debate. There's always a neutral moderator in place to ensure that one party can't control the situation.

But what about at a dinner party? What about at work by the coffee pot on Monday mornings? With no moderator, people are free to use whatever tactics they like to convince others of their positions. Here's an example: let's say a rabid Republican vomits the following on you: "Barrack Hussein Obama is a Muslim with radical friends and no real foreign policy experience. Why would any American give their support to a Muslim who is so unprepared to lead, especially after 9/11?"

I like to call this kind of tactic an "attack question" because it attacks the person in the guise of asking a real question.

Now, the natural inclination for most liberals/progressives in this situation would be to clearly and articulately defend why you support Obama. And if you do this: the rabid Republican has just won the debate, right there, without even needing to hear what you have to say. Because at that point, it doesn't MATTER what you have to say. It matters that you've taken the bait and gone on the defensive by answering the absurd question that was posed to you. Instead, take another approach...

Don't waste your time trying to defend the absurd or the ridiculous. I'll save you the time: you can't. Instead, use the oldest tactic in the book - respond to an attack question with a question of your own. Reply to the rabid Republican's "question" with:

"How can you be so ignorant - in this age of immediately accessible data - to actually believe that a Christian man with a Harvard Law Degree, who has been elected to local, state and national positions and has run a successful national Presidential campaign for 18 months is, somehow, unfit to lead America on domestic and foreign issues?!?"

Slam dunk response. You've labeled your opponent as ignorant, provided some correction of facts, cited the availability of data to prove your point and then questioned his ability to make a sound judgment. Now he'll be forced to answer your question and defend his ignorance.

This rule ensures that you can quickly and effectively put your opponent on the defensive instead of becoming defensive yourself. Always strive to take the dominant position in a debate.

This rule, truly, is the easiest because it only requires that you be curious about how your opponents came to their conclusions. Let's say, you're at a dinner party and a gentleman says, "I won't vote for Obama because he's going to raise taxes." Simply ask him in which publication he read this information. By doing so, you'll not only put an attacker on the defensive, but you'll also - at the very least - ensure that the conversation won't be based on gut emotions or rumors but rather on factual information. And you'll put others in the room on notice.

If the person you've questioned is educated, maybe they'll provide you with some solid information that proves their position. If so: fantastic. Now you've just learned something yourself. You can thank them for this.

More likely than not, however, the other person won't have a credible source. They'll have heard someone they trust say something powerful and repeat the claim. Or they'll have listened to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity spew un-factchecked hatred on the air about the issue and adopt the soundbite as their own.

Challenge them. Get facts, not opinion.

If, during a dialogue or debate, your opponents give you a compliment, thank them for their kindness. Graciously accepting a compliment raises the bar for all involved, engenders trust and allows for a moment of humanity.

If, however, your opponents lie about you, manipulate facts, or spread rumors, then immediately label them for what they are. Say it out loud, give it a name and call them to the carpet. And for goodness sakes: don't be shy about it because your Republican opponents certainly won't be.

Saying to your opponent "You're lying to the American people about my record and abusing the public's trust..." is a far stronger response than "I never said that...". Saying, "You're running the sleaziest and least honorable campaign in modern Presidential history" is an even stronger way to label your opponent...even if the statement is, perhaps, itself an exaggeration.

Starting this Friday night, I encourage you to try a little experiment. Record each debate. Then, when you have a bit more time, play it back. Get a beer. Kick back. Make a night of it. Invite friends over. Then watch carefully: do the candidates answer the questions? Pause the action and discuss. Are the candidates assuming a dominant or submissive position again their opponent? Are they labelling one another quickly and effectively? And are they the ones setting the tone by asking the questions...?

Let the games begin.