Tactfully dealing with *the war* being mentioned

I am going to be as vague on this as I can (you'll see why) but this took place over the weekend.

A member of my extended family (not a blood relative) was in town to visit us and we went out to run an errand. He is a Republican/of a three generation Marine family and I am not a Republican (obviously) so when (if) we talk politics it is general terms, unless we really want to get into it. The main point of his was that there was just too much damned money involved and that everyday Joe's don't have a voice.... I just let him keep talking nodding in agreement....when he says

(sigh)"This war.. is...it's not going too well and... I just don't know what we are going to do.... the whole thing is just one huge mistake"

Okay now if we were arguing about stuff I might let him have it but I respect the guy for who he is (aside from politics) so I couldn't do it. I just had to let it sit there and stew in his brain. He knows how I felt about the war from day one, no reason to serve up crow though.

What to say next? I asked about someone in his family who is in the service and had been to Iraq. This service member is a very close relative to the guy riding with me and I have met him, nice kid. He signed up and, well, lets say he went full bore. He was in Fallujah before almost any other American. So I asked about him

"He is much more quiet than he used to be...(looks at me) he isn't too much on war these days....he's had enough of killing people"

If he knew your views all along that took a lot for him to admit. By not piling on you'll make it easier for him to admit other things that 'are not going well'.

It's extremely hard for someone to let go of long held, fervent beliefs. Making that first vote for 'the other side' is a watershed event. Getting there can be a fragile process.

to admit you were wrong. To admit something you really believed in was a sham. To admit you've been lied to and that you bought into it. Denial is ever so much easier, when it comes to saving face and maintaining one's own self-respect.

For this guy to confess, freely and openly, without being pushed or coaxed or argued into the ground, that he's come to this realization is MOST significant.

YES, it was well-handled. EXTREMELY well-handled.

Eventually, it may be possible to throw in the face-saver:

"...because I TRUSTED my president, and he LIED to me."

Or, slightly adjusted, "...because you TRUSTED your president, and he LIED to you." It is a gentle assistance device for those just coming out of their stupor. Also happens to be absolute truth in most cases. I think people fell for his bullshit because he scared them, and they desperately wanted something to believe in - in a topsy-turvy, tumultuous, treacherous world. They desperately wanted to have faith in something strong and solid and sure and true. They wanted him to be correct. They wanted to believe. They wanted to give him the benefit of every doubt. They wanted to be good, loyal Americans. This instinct can't really be faulted too vehemently, at least at first. However, to keep clinging to it resolutely after you're shown fact after fact and evidence upon evidence to disprove it, despite all the credible and multiple reasons and testimony to the contrary - THAT is the crime and the idiocy and the willful ignorance. THAT is beneath contempt. This fellow clearly has moved beyond all that into The Light. He's let his better judgment and his bullshit detector start working for him.

has turned these patriotic heroes into useless cannon fodder. Their motives were true but their government lied.

kid gloves when they pretty much had access to the same information during the run up to the war as everyone else -never mind what has gone on there since

I applaud your sensitivity with him and he probably knows that he gave you a wide open door for an "I told you so". Good for you.

first, i think you handled it excellently ... showing your concern for someone who was in or was back from Iraq is outside the "liberal stereotype" most republicans hold ... that's exactly the right thing to do ...

when i'm in my "tactful" mode, i usually try to broaden the discussion ... you could say something like: it really concerns me that our guys over there don't seem to be getting the protective gear they need ... that just doesn't seem right ... you know what i'm really worried about: what if we go into Iran ... that's a much bigger country with a much stronger military ... i'm just worried it would put too much strain on our military ... i don't know ... we can't fight everyone ... it just doesn't seem like we can afford to be at war for the next ten years, or maybe 15, or maybe even longer ... i'm afraid all this war is really killing the country ...

i find that expressing my views as "i'm concerned that" is more effective in "tactful" mode than "well the whole reason this sucks is because of bush" ... "tactful" mode emphasizes your concern ... in a sense, describing something that concerns you is less confrontational and giving your controversial opinion is more confrontational ... in "tactful" mode, less confrontational is more effective ...

I have found though that "protective gear" perks their ears up and they come right back with the pro-Rummy talking points. Still it is a good thing to say.

"tactful" mode doesn't guarantee the other Party will remain in "tactful" mode ...

the reality is that you really do have an agenda and no matter how subtle you are or what technique you use to gently get someone to hear your message, and perhaps be receptive to it, they still may transition to argument mode ...

so, for example, when you say you're concerned about "protective gear" or you think it's wrong for the troops not to have more "protective gear", that's much less argumentative than saying bush doesn't give a damn about the troops because he sees them as meaningless pawns to be exploited in his imperialistic chessgame in Iraq ... regardless of style, the ultimate message is the latter and the reaction to either style may well be the same ...

One wrong step, and ka-boom! Holey underpants.

It sounds like you handled it pretty well. Let him draw some of his own conclusions, if he's able to. If he needs some advice or some fuller information, I'm sure he knows how to ask for it directly, being a grown man and all.

In some other context it might also be useful to say that sometimes it's not necessary to go through a horrible experience to gain wisdom to avoid it. That is, a lot of the anti-war folks might have some valid insight about why going to war is a bad idea even though they have never put on a uniform or fired a shot in anger, or patriotism, or defense.

A number of military folks feel that non-combatants don't have any valid reason or experience to render a competent opinion on war, but I do know that even the best military is only as good as its leadership. I didn't trust the corrupt Bush administration before September 11, and I didn't think they'd suddenly gotten any better after that time, so I pretty much knew they'd screw up any military adventure they went into unless they had a full and fair hearing from all sides of the electorate. The fact that they totally shut out any anti-war opinion and dismissed out of hand a slower approach was the flashing red light complete with braying klaxon that they were heading into a disaster.

Sometimes, just like in therapy, they need to vent just like the rest of us. And when they finally come to this realization that moron* is a moron* and the war is fucked up, sometimes, silence is a bigger statement than dressing them down.

If we want more people to convert to our side, allowing them the time to admit their mistake and then accept them.

Telling them I told you so, just makes enemies.

This whole situation is just so sad.

thanks

Don't derail it. You did good--he'll get there eventually.

It does make one want to bust though....

nothing for the average Joe, ReThug or Dem.

We're all just here for the voting numbers, but too many of both parties are only pandering to their big campaign contributors (bankruptcy bill anyone?) and we need to work on getting the country back for 'we the people'

First, we need to get it back from the criminals currently destroying it, but then we're going to have to work on some serious other issues too.

We're a democracy, not a theocracy or a corpocracy. And we're going to have to level the playing field so that ordinary American's interests are represented based on what is good for all of them.

I added in the bit about the National Reconnaissance Office and Kerry (without making it about Kerry) he was amazed.

you cannot convince ANYONE to change politics. They get defensive and resist. Just be receptive to them when they want to be critical of *.

When they start questioning things themselves, they'll be ready to hear what we have to say.

Great thread.

Your relative is in the process of thinking thru this on his own and you had the wisdom and restraint to acknowledge that. I am hopeful that the process he is experiencing is happening to other Bush voters across the country.

Thanks for the post.

Now, go out there and be fruitful, and multiply!