Every political movement requires both polemics and apologists to advance an ideology. In societies with a free political system—whether it’s parliamentary, democratic, or republican—the ultimate cause of all policy is conflict. Ideas come from both politicians and civilians, get debated in homes and in public, and lead to policies. The products of our relatively collegial Congress is borne of conflict. As in football, where the team has an offensive and defensive line, movements need both attackers and defenders.

Before I start laying out what I believe how these roles are defined, let’s take a moment’s diversion into the topic of civility and respect. Today’s political environment has shown that the majority of Democrats and other denizens of the American Left place a value on civility, honor and respect which they historically do not abide by. Not only do they demand it, they enforce it using such tactics as Congressional reprimands and parading the barely-living husk of a former failed president to declare that criticism of the President is racist. As a self-avowed political polemic, I disdain these efforts to stifle debate by demanding that their opponents cleave to the standards of respect and civility that they themselves, in times past, have not observed.

The Wikipedia definition for polemics seems inadequate in the context of a political commentator. It says: Polemics is the practice of disputing or controverting significant, broad reaching topics of magnitude such as religious, philosophical, political, or scientific matters. [...] The antonym of a polemic source is an apologia. The use of the term varies: a polemic is a person who writes a polemic work, in so doing engages in polemics. Some would call the practice “polemicism,” though I consider the word redundant and close to being emotionally loaded.

So who’s a polemic, and who’s an apologist? The apologist writes in defense of the cause. He uses convincing arguments so people ally themselves in his favor. The polemic writes in offense against an enemy. He presents his target’s bad arguments to persuade others. In theory, both apologists and polemics work together to advance an agenda. However, the American Left has succeeded in two things that make life difficult for Conservatives.

They’ve turned Conservative apologists and polemics against each other.

The Left has had a long stranglehold on the media and schools. The results of Gramsci’s long march include a rarefied, politically-correct environment where challenges to authority are framed as bigotry. It’s a sad state where American Conservative apologists, especially the mushy types like David Brooks and Peggy Noonan, expend valuable energy reproaching American polemics.

The Left has redefined what it means to be polemic. They are not without help by the Right on this matter.

By using loaded terms like “bombthrower,” “shrill,” “offensive,” and attack dog,” going on the offense takes you close to being called crazy. By framing the debate in such terms, the Left has backed the Right into a rhetorical corner with limited options. The Right itself has been anemic in the defense of its true polemics, happy warriors that they are. They’ve made the mistake of lumping polemics with the loonies, like conspiracy theorists such as today’s Birthers. The Right, in policing its ranks, went overboard with broad strokes to please its enemy. The left has turned Conservative apologists into its polemics and Conservative polemics into apologists, and in so doing, have placed their greatest intellectuals into uncomfortable positions.

I see the need to clarify the definition. That much is clear.

Intellectually, true polemics are on the same level as apologists. The difference is in the method. By eliciting emotional responses to rational critique, the polemic is able to rally righteous anger and disgust in his favor. The polemic is the child that yells about the emperor’s nakedness. He encourages his audience to examine his enemy then turn away, but not towards himself, but towards the apologist. This is why I have stressed the importance of the role of the apologist in this entire discussion.

The apologist knows that the cause is self-evident only to himself and his allies. The apologist knows his cause by heart. He speaks for it with great passion, and is able to muster the forces of reason to make his argument shine through the darkness cast by his opponents. If the polemic is the sound and the fury, the apologist is the light, comforting hand that salves the wounds of ideological battle.

An effective polemic is professional. He approaches his task with clear rationality, even when the goal is to breed anger and distrust against his target. He knows his limits, even with the knowledge that no subject is sacrosanct. He knows when to avoid certain discussions and topics, not so much for shame, but because it runs the risk of backfire. He knows that this is part of a greater strategy, and that calling attention to the self instead of the opponent is a definite road to irrelevance.

The best polemics do not promulgate lies. They may exaggerate; in fact they are expected to. They may torture the limits of truth, but never leave its boundaries. Their mission is to expose the idiocy and sheer wrongness of their opponent. Their best tactic is to take the words and deeds of their opponents against them.

Great polemics never apologize for their ideas. In moments of social faux pas, they may be forced to admit their awkwardness. They have an air of invincibility because they never allow themselves a fall into a defensive stance. Case in point: when Joy Behar asked Ann Coulter if she has fallen in line to be waterboarded, Coulter asked Behar if she’d like to get aborted, seeing as she supports abortion. Coulter, in one amazingly simple tactical move, left Behar speechless.

While I personally believe it’d be healthier to have more Coulteresque polemics, it’s more important for the polemics and apologists to work together. This means that the more effete intellectuals on whom we rely for apologia need to grow a thicker hide. When the Left tries to hang us on their necks, they need to laugh it off, not capitulate. This also means that we polemics need to understand that by the very nature of our methods, we cannot sustainably lead a movement. We are cogs in a machine, and if we are as Conservative as we wish to be, we need to accept that people will be free to take themselves wherever they wish. If we have succeeded in fomenting dislike against our target, then our work is mostly done. We need the more temperant (note that I have not used the word moderate in any context aside from mentioning that I have not mentioned it) thought leaders and politicians to put together a message that brings both sides together.

Sometimes, taking a hint from fantasy to confront reality works.

I started this article with a sports paradigm. Let me end with a literary one. Fantasy literature expresses a great truth of the human condition: diverse talents and characters complement each other against a great enemy. Most fantasy villains are singular forces bent on sublimating into themselves the quality of perfection. The epic battles at the end of these stories feature massive coalitions of diverse talents. Sometimes, the quest is smaller and more personal, as in The Wizard of Oz or Stephen King’s Dark Tower series. Enough examples? Okay, let’s cut this quick: no epic fantasy battle was won by a homogenous army of swordsmen alone. They brought in nature-defying wizards, nimble elves, even ruffians who choose to act when their very world is under threat.

I get it: tribalism is appealing. We saw how the “Beltway dinner party circuit” reacted to Sarah Palin. The Noonans and the Frums have been warned many times that they will be left behind as the movement marches forward. We don’t want to marginalize them, but sometimes, they do it themselves. They gain attention by mourning the death of a movement that hasn’t died, but just left them behind.

My only advice to any political commentator is to embrace your role, whichever you choose, with passion and joy. Happy warriors fight seriously. They also know they can’t be so serious to the detriment of their lives. No movement will survive if its most ardent supporters are burned-out, empty shells. The nastiest, most dishonest and angriest pundits are those who have no sense of humor, and labor lugubriously on some quest to gain personal importance or glory. In this, they have defeated themselves before the fight has even begun.

Postscript

Today, Irving Kristol passed away. This father of neoconservatism is a great example of a polemic who bucks the stereotype of a combative, unhinged lunatic. His speech at the American Enterprise Institute, The Capitalist Future, is amazing work.

Thanks for the love (or, Sometimes Linkers Don’t Show Up As Pingbacks But Deserve A Mention Because It’s The Good Thing To Do):

Texas 4 Palin, who links this as their quote for the day. Also featured in Smitty’s FMRJA link roundup over at The Other McCain.