< PREVIOUS ] [ 1990 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
Whenever you go into a place where books are sold, you
always see several rows of how-to
manuals which
range from repairing your bicycle to performing a complete
overhaul on your personality, at home in your spare
time.
Despite this abundance, one seems to be missing -- a book that explains modern ways to handle criticism and opposition, so that you can get your own way.
· Accuse your opponent of bashing.
This
saves you from having to answer his argument. For instance,
a recent essay in the New York Times Book Review took issue
with several aspects of deconstructionist
literary
theory, which prevails in many modern university English
departments.
A perturbed professor replied. Did he explain what
previously hidden truths and insights were made available
to scholars by deconstructionism? Of course not. He instead
said the essayist had just indulged in another round of
academic-bashing.
· If your opponent is not a basher, he suffers
from a mental disorder. If you point out that there are
many deadly diseases besides AIDS, and that if public money
is to be spent on disease research, there are many
legitimate contenders, you're not raising an issue of
public policy deserving of discussion. Instead, you're a
homophobe.
Should you wonder why the public tolerates special
campaign funds like EMILY, which go only to female
candidates, when there would be a huge uproar if there were
similar funds serving only male candidates, you won't get
to discuss that issue. Instead, you'll be a
misogynist.
· Make it a constitutional issue. The recent flap over Linda Chavez not giving the commencement speech at UNC is a perfect example. Her constitutional right of free speech was never in question; at any time, she could get up on a soap box and promote Official English. The question was whether she should be paid to do that.
That's hardly a constitutional issue, but by hollering about her rights of free speech and by handling out copies of the constitution, she fooled a lot of people into thinking it was.
· Refuse to discuss it. Would a voucher system result in a better educational system? The NEA says such heinous ideas should not even be studied. Would re-legalizing drugs produce a saner society? Our governor says we shouldn't even think about such things.
Combine these methods, and you should be able to push
just about anything through. The baseball stadium promoters
might go about it this way: There is no reason even to
consider the unbased conjectures posed by those taxophobic
sports-bashers who are intent on attacking the American
ideal of
pursuit of happiness
by young
millionaires.
Any day now, we'll probably see a statement like this
from a former Silverado executive, probably living in a
tropical country which has no extradition treaty with the
U.S.: This is just the latest round of plutophobic
banker-bashing to undermine public confidence in our
constitutional institutions, and there is absolutely no
reason to question the sacred obligation of the working
people of the United States to pay off those widows and
orphans who shopped around the country for the highest rate
of return on their $100,000 CDs.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1990 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >