A superior weapon is of no use if you do not know how to wield it. In a debate, the truth is the most powerful weapon we have, but few know how to apply it in the heat of the moment.
Regretfully, we are seeing this played out in the Western world across several issues – climate change, biological gender, the rise of the neo-socialists, and so on. The sad fact is that on each of these issues, the truth takes a backseat to other agendas, and those that have the truth on their side do not understand how to apply it.
The art of the polemic has been largely lost. If we don’t know how to prosecute an argument, we may as well not have one.
There is, however, a new dawn. We are seeing the emergence of several politicians and journalists who are starting to push back at some of the nonsense that has been foisted upon us.
These people are, in different ways, using the Socratic method. This method essentially involves walking someone down the garden path of their own reasoning to arrive at one of two positions:
Reductio ad absurdum. This is where you make the person realise that their reasoning leads to an absurd conclusion.
Reductio ad impossibile. This is where you make the person realise that their reasoning leads them to contradict either their actions or previous statements.
Let’s consider some exchanges to see how it’s done.
Peter Costello
Peter Costello was possibly the best polemicist Australian politics ever had, and what a shame it is we never saw him as a leader. Shortly after the 1996 election, he confronted Gareth Evans on a current affairs show. Evans, no doubt seeing an opportunity to embarrass the young Costello on national TV, took him to task about a particular issue relevant at the time. He had no idea who he was up against.
Costello appeared passive and adopted the Socratic approach of seeking more knowledge, inviting Evans to make the case as to why this particular policy should be adopted. Evans obliged and embarked on a short monologue, not only explaining the policy but also implying that the Liberals were a bad government if they didn’t adopt this obviously beneficial policy.
Evans didn’t realise that he had become the fly in the proverbial Venus Fly Trap. When Evans finished his monologue, Costello paused a moment, leaned back in his chair, and in as laconic a tone as you can imagine said, ‘If that’s such a good policy, why didn’t you enact it in the thirteen years you were in government?’ Evans was left speechless. Struck mute, he sat there opening and closing his mouth, struggling to find a way out of the trap he’d been lured into.
Piers Morgan
Piers Morgan recently provided us with a superb reductio ad absurdum. He was interviewing a podcaster on the topic of a male Scottish prisoner that identified as a woman, who had been transferred to a woman’s prison, and then allegedly sexually assaulted a female prisoner. Morgan asked his guest if anyone could identify as a woman, and the podcaster essentially agreed that yes, they could. Morgan followed up and asked if this meant he could identify as a black lesbian. The exchange from that point was very entertaining as the podcaster became trapped in their nonsensical logic.
Vivek Ramaswamy
I’ve known about Ramaswamy longer than most. Before he was on the public radar, or appeared on the betting odds for the presidency, I saw him being interviewed and it was immediately obvious to me that he was a polemicist of the very highest order. As a communicator, he possesses two rare traits: extremely good diction, which gives him the ability to speak both rapidly and clearly, and the ability to turn opponents around to his viewpoint.
A prime example of this is is a recent exchange between him and a trans activist at what appeared to be a town hall meeting. Ramaswamy had made his opening comments about the transsexual issue. The trans activist became agitated and began shouting insults. Ramaswamy stopped speaking and offered her the microphone to express her view without shouting. He said something along the lines of, ‘This is good – these are the type of discussions we need to have.’
The lady was clearly surprised by this offer and declined. Instead, she yelled a question at him.
In a confrontation such as this, many (most) politicians would have sought to appease her, and the crowd, by offering some weak-kneed and dishonest platitude. Ramaswamy didn’t give in to this behaviour. He replied to her question saying that transgenderism was often considered, medically, to be a disorder. That is, he stood his ground. This resulted in uproar from the crowd and the lady who asked the question shouted further abuse at him, flipped the bird, and turned to leave.
What was Ramaswamy to do? Those few that may have the courage to speak their mind may well have doubled down at this point, and as she stormed out said something like, ‘I’m sorry if you don’t like the truth.’ But Ramaswamy didn’t do this. He said, ‘Hold on, hold on, let me explain what I mean, and then I’ll give you the microphone to reply. This is good, this is good – we need to have this type of discussion…’
That is, rather than seeking to shut the heckler down, he did the opposite – he offered her the microphone. This showed two things. First, he valued and respected her as a person who had views that he wanted to hear. Secondly, he had confidence in his ability to prosecute his case.
At this, the lady stopped, turned around, and gave him her attention. He then went on to explain that gender dysphoria, in most cases, is the consequence of a confused child and that most grow out of it after puberty. He then said that while he had no problem with adults doing what they want, surely for a child, a sex change was a drastic last resort and should only be used after all avenues of counselling had been exhausted. He said the innocence of children was precious and should be preserved. At this the crowd applauded him.
He then asked the lady if she agreed with him and she said she did. He then went on to say that biological men should not be competing in women’s sports. The lady agreed with this too, and they bumped fists together in a show of reconciliation.
This exchange showed polemic skills of the highest calibre. He wasn’t fazed by the abuse he copped, but respected his opponent by giving her a chance to speak and making her feel ‘listened to’. I’m of the view that he’ll be the Republican nominee in 2028 and will win, independently of what happens this year.
In terms of dealing with journalists, Ramaswamy is eloquent, ruthless, and clinical. In the first Republican debate, he turned the tables on the NBC moderators. He asked the NBC’s Kristen Welker, a Democrat, why she was moderating the debate. He pointed out that Democrats wouldn’t get Greg Gutfeld to host a debate. Then he pointed out that she’d promoted the Russian collusion hoax for the 2016 election, and asked her why she hadn’t apologised for it. And as with the trans activist situation, he gave her a chance to respond: ‘Okay – go.’
Donald Trump
Trump is hated by most of the journalistic community because of his famously ruthless approach to CNN journalists and their ilk. He brooks no compromise when it comes to journalists who ask stupid questions with a view to trapping him in his words. He is therefore utterly dismissive of these people and denounces them as ‘fake news’. It lacks the subtlety of a Ramaswamy or Poilievre, but is somewhat intimidating, and therefore effective.
Would that we had this in Australia… The only time I’ve seen this is in 1983 when Bob Hawke was ruthless when a smarmy journalist asked him about the manner in which he replaced Bill Hayden. Hawke began with, ‘You haven’t improved, have you…?’
What of Peter Dutton? Will he be any better at handling journalists than Tony Abbott was, who, when asked leading questions by journalists, would stammer and stutter and stumble over his words? I think he might. Last year when Dutton was visiting Alice Springs, he gave an impromptu interview with an ABC journalist who asked him a typically stupid question. Dutton began his reply with, ‘That is such an ABC question…’
Pierre Poilievre
Poilievre is part-Ramaswamy and part-Trump. There is a clip where he uses the Socratic approach to demolish a left-wing journalist whilst nonchalantly munching on an apple. He is asked if he is taking a populist view, and he asks the journalist to define populist. Then he says that his appeal is emotional, and he asks him what that means.
The hapless journalist then uses the ‘some would say’ approach to accuse him of taking a leaf out of Donald Trump’s playbook. Poiliviere then asks him, ‘Who are these people?’ The journalist of course can’t name anyone so Poilievre then says, ‘Well you must know someone – you asked the question.’ There are multiple YouTube clips of him demolishing journalist on other issues as well, as he points out the dishonesty of their questions and the errors in their assumptions.
The next Canadian general election is still a year and a half away, but on the current trajectory, Trudeau’s days are numbered.
The next few years will be very interesting. Ramaswamy is a rising star, and regardless of whether Trump names him as VP or not, he will be the Republican nominee in 2028. Let’s hope Peter Dutton and other real conservatives around the world can learn from both Ramaswamy and Poilievre, and start to push back at the poisonous left-wing culture that has infested the journalist class.
Dr Mark Imisides can be found at @DrMarkImisides on Twitter
