Class #2 of Accelerated Churchillian Development (ACD) - #TCOT

Setting a dialogue with a liberal:

Once again, Leahy begins the session with quoting Winston Churchill “If you're not a liberal when you're 20, you don't have a heart. If you're not a conservative when you're 40, you don't have a brain.”

I don’t think I realized that this was actually a premise for ACD. So I guess my question is…and yours should be too. “Okay, so what changes?” During the first class you mentioned that it’s lack of knowledge. Well, I have a heart and I’m more knowledgeable in America’s history and politics than most of my friends who consider themselves conservative (young and old). I would very much like to know the theory on that (so far it hasn’t been addressed in depth). Gracefully moving on…

This session was directed towards actions after engaging with “a liberal.” The focus is now creating a dialogue.

Leahy asked a member of ACD (I believe his name was Zach) to talk about his tactics with religion conversion during his LDS missions.

I think it’s fair to mention that I lived in Utah for a couple of years. I learned a lot from my practicing friends about missionaries and “purposes.” In fact, I remember being approached a few times. Once, a man held up a picture of Jesus and asked if I knew who it was. My thirteen year old ways provoked me to say “No” and they continued to show me additional pictures of baptism and such. I remember thinking ‘Do people really buy into that?’ Aside from my lack of Mormonism interest at thirteen, I think I learned a very important lesson on how NOT to approach people. So, naturally bringing up missions and missionaries made my ears perk.

Zach made a very important point about the lessons he learned “It’s not about you, it’s about giving the information.” Everyone goes on to discuss that the goal of ‘creating a dialogue with a liberal’ is to “plant a seed” so that someone else can “harvest it.” I believe this is a good goal to have, because no one wants to hear that their initial beliefs are based on false premises or less-than-solid foundations. I’m discovering (through my own personal experiences) that letting someone come to the conclusion themselves is so much more effective. You should be there to guide them, that way they feel obligated to pass the message on. Zach finishes by saying that “we don’t harvest the seed all the time…it’s not about winning.”

More members of ACD began talking about their experiences with ‘engaging a liberal.’ One member mentioned an attempt to engage that ended with quickly closed doors and another (Jimmie) talked about ME!

Leahy told the first member that there are clues very early on of “lack of open mindedness…”and that they wouldn’t be a good “conversion prospect.” He said that these encounters can be good “experience to see the processes that they go through.” Then, there was a reminder that when creating a dialogue with twitter - everyone can see the conversation and it’s even Google-able. “Twitter is a unique kind of animal.”

Then, Leahy mentioned five rules:
1 Be polite and courteous and start out with the expectation that the other side will be also
2 NEVER let a factual misstatement go unchallenged
3 Listen with sincere intensity to understand the point they are trying to make
4 Acknowledge factually correct assertions made by other side
5 Never forget arguments made in framework of higher purpose-return limited gov’t to country we all love

Leahy says that if you follow these five rules, there isn’t anything in the public record that will embarrass you or hurt “the cause.” He mentions “We’re tweeting the modern version of the federalist papers.”

Jimmie then brings up his conversation with me that took place after my last blog. Leahy quickly inserts “Oh, Tifanei! ….She is our critic...remember the rules of engagement.” Yes. Remember the rules. I’d prefer the message unfiltered, but I appreciate your alert censorship Leahy, lol. Really… I appreciate the credit you gave me.

Jimmie began to tell the class that he had a conversation with me and it left an open dialogue between the two of us. This leaves room for more conversation and a foundation for an on-going thought process. I would like to say that it did leave me thinking (I do love when my thought process is challenged.) I even talked about Jimmy’s approach with a friend later. While the conclusion I came to wasn’t parallel to his it did definitely have me respecting his opinions and adding to mine. “Inviting more conversation”

As the class got further along, the dialogue began to get for inclusive and I became more confused.

One member made this comment: “Even though it’s a Christian school most parents are liberals.” [Interesting. Jimmie this is one of the reasons I kept referring to ‘one truth’] I was distracted by this bizarre and subtle assertion that Christians should be conservative, but I still gathered what she said. I believe her point boiled down to the fact that the students become enthralled by their parent’s passions and beliefs. The only thing that crossed my mind was ‘well, duh…’ Isn’t that the point of parenting? Isn’t that why there are parenting classes? The role of a parent is to instill within your children what you believe is right. I think maybe her point should be more of ‘should we address new parents or the children when they come of age to independently and critically analyze on their own?’ You simply cannot change that the child is going to be influenced by their parents. Forever, they will look at the world through whatever screen/filter their parents influenced.

Another member made the comment “They just got out of college so…” referring to their obvious political affiliation. I found that amusing, because I am genuinely confused when I meet a peer who is conservative and I have some immediate assumptions of them that I chose not to share. Here’s why this is important to your cause “Why are these students who are obviously educated choosing to advocate for the left side?” (I challenge you not to say “because they have a heart," ha.)

Leahy moves onto the next slides and says that a great way to start dialogue is: “Why did you vote for Barack Obama?”

The first answer that Leahy says you will hear is “He’s cool.” He says that the second answer you may hear is “The country is going in the wrong direction,” and something about having a better life. Later in this discussion it is said that Obama promised that he would take care of everything and that we should hand over our money and “let government do everything.”

That is not why I voted for President Barack Obama. That message sounds like communism! I voted because I heard “The government is going to take care of business which means you need to as well. We’re doing this together.” That’s why I voted. The American people need to take a responsibility. I don’t think eliminating bigger government programs is going to convince privileged people to help the under-privileged. We SHOULD encourage more responsibility from Americans, but that can surely be done with the aid of government implemented programs.

Some people NEED these programs and can’t turn to churches or charities. Think of how charities are suffering right now with the economy. How much have you donated to your church to help them? AND(!!!) I have never donated to a church and had a say where that money was donated to, so how do you presume that is any different than the way the White House allocates funds? “Money taken from you to give to someone else” – this phrase has been beaten to death and frankly I don’t think either side has it figured out. The church certainly isn’t the answer and not regulating markets so people can take advantage of it certainly isn’t the answer either. This is an issue that definitely needs collaboration from both sides and people who are critical, analytical, and compassionate are the ones who should do so.

For the record I don’t feel that “The country owes me something.” No one should believe that anyone owes them anything that they don’t provide for others.

Another question was “What should the government be responsible for?” I always assumed the purpose of government was for it to BE the people. Why are conservative views trying to make it a separate entity? Seems to me like that is the problem.

There was also continuous reference to how large governments impose on freedom, because they determine what’s ‘good or bad.’ Is ‘good’ vs. ‘bad’ eliminated with conservatism??? I don’t understand. We may shift the levels of decisions on ‘good vs bad’, but would that just mean that ignorant Joe down the street now can tell me what’s moral instead of someone we elected as President. Not sure I see too much of a fundamental difference, except maybe education levels.

A free-market is another dialogue that the ACD class encouraged to initiate with a young liberal. “Consumer demand for a product or service tells a company what they can produce that will make a profit for them.” I bet if I Googled the amount of companies that made profit from consumers that demanded something that they didn’t know was a danger to themselves and society I would be able to add another page and a half to this blog.

Another member (sometimes I didn’t understand the names or they just weren’t given) jumped in and spoke about mandatory ethanol used in school buses. She talked about being angry that it means the buses have to run to keep the ethanol from freezing. She complained that it may be an excuse to make it mandatory for her child to go to school when the weather is bad. I’m going to need someone to explain to me why eliminating carbon-dioxide emissions and global warming are conservative vs liberal arguments. If health and taking precautions to maintaining your childrens’ children’s future aren’t important then what is? Money? Is that what it’s all really supposed to boil down to? Is that truly our goal to sustain that mentality?

I guess so, another one of the comments was that “natural youthful interest is to ‘do something for the higher purpose’ and that is something that we must have gotten from the movies. Actually, the media certainly makes me want to believe the opposite. I got the idea of wanting to contribute to the well-being of other people from several different American history books.

I’m going to end this rather abruptly, because it’s gone on pretty long. I don’t have liberal views because I want to ‘level the playing field’ that American privilege has given me. I have liberal views, because I don’t think that maintaining my privilege should be at the expense of others. America may have a high ‘moral’ standard, but that doesn’t mean those standards and who created them are infallible. It simply means we should continue to look for a place to aim higher.


I spoke with a friend (Stephen L. High) about this second class and he took a moment to gather his thoughts and said “I don’t think they have it right. They (young Americans) didn’t vote for Barack Obama, because they necessarily agree with everything he said – even though they might… maybe instead of getting young people to adapt to them, they’d have better luck adapting to young people.”


This blog was in response to:
Accelerated Churchillian Development
Top Conservatives on Twitter
Michael Patrick Leahy and Ellen Paxton as instructors.