The Unapologetic Conservative
Amala Ekpunobi vs. the College Student
I saw this Prageru video recently. (Watch up to the 5:02 minute mark)
https://www.prageru.com/video/i-get-these-questions-at-every-college-campus
Amala Ekpunobi is a liberal-turned-conservative now promoting conservativism through PragerU videos including her own series “Unapologetic”.
PragerU videos are brilliant. I haven’t found better.
The video demonstrates the general course of a conversation between a conservative and a liberal. There are two conversations in the video, I am limiting this article to the first conversation (which ends at the 5:02 mark).
The issue at hand is the claim that minorities are being over-policed and that it would be better to reduce police funding and direct those funds into social programs.
Both speakers are sincere and speak respectfully to each other. They don’t play to the crowd or try to make each other look stupid or otherwise try to humiliate them. They don’t shout or intimidate. Kudos to both of them for their civility.
Amala is courteous, answers questions directly, addresses all points raised, and presents what, I would say, were cogent facts in a clear and logical manner. Personally, I agree with everything she said. For someone responding on the spot to someone with an opposing view, she does well.
So, there is a lot of good to be said about how both of these people conducted themselves in this conversation. Unfortunately, it was not an effective exchange. The two just got frustrated with each other. It does not appear that anyone’s mind was changed.
The student finally gives up, ending the conversation, saying “we will fight later“. That was a silly thing to say given that there would be no such fight later, however, let’s credit the student for the wisdom to end a conversation that needed to be ended. He may have learned that his proposal is not as obvious as he thought. Maybe later, he will consider some of Amala’s points. Or maybe he will just shake his head thinking that Amala just doesn’t get it.
In these regards, it was a pretty typical political conversation.
On the downside, these two people talked at each other. They had alternate sets of facts and conclusions with which they took turns countering each other. They both spoke too long in their responses to the extent that the one listening got frustrated and was thinking more about their rebuttal than taking in what the speaker was saying. The college student was guilty of using some emotionally charged language which Amala wisely avoided and wisely avoided reacting to. The conversation deteriorated near the end, as arguments often do, opening whole new cans of worms about “Don’t Say Gay” and funding Ukraine.
How would you handle this conversation? Before I proceed, let’s recognize that critiquing a conversation after the fact and actually having the conversation in real-time are two different things. This isn’t about assessing Amala’s debating skills or suggesting that I would have done better. This is about exploring some options that we might try in our own conversations.
To those who find themselves in a conversation like this, I would offer the following advice:
1. Rather than try to cover every point, focus on one (or one at a time) and probe it deeply
2. Keep responses short
3. Rather than counter directly with facts, ask probing questions
4. Consider the feelings behind the statements and try to direct the conversation away from anger and toward compassion.
Amala deftly counters every point the student makes. That is impressive. But in the process, she multiplies the points to discuss and reduces the chances of any one of her points being addressed. For instance, perhaps Amala’s most powerful point is that fatherlessness is the root problem at issue but that is not addressed by the student.
With the benefit of hindsight and much thought, I would respond to the student’s proposal to reallocate police funding to social programs by asking “What social programs do you have in mind?”
That response is short, shows interest in the student’s proposition, and requires the student to think through the solution he is proposing. It leaves the premise of over-policing unaddressed along with how to fund the social programs but it opens the door to discussing the problem of fatherlessness. “Do you think that fatherlessness could be part of the problem? Would your programs address that?” or “Would your programs fill the void left by absent fathers?”
This line of conversation has another benefit. Liberal concerns for the poor almost always have two elements (as this one certainly does): anger towards some oppressor and compassion for the oppressed. The student is concerned, as most liberals seem to be, more with anger towards the oppressor (over-policing, police aggression, goons, racial bias, etc.) than compassion for the oppressed (little mention of the social programs beyond allocating funds).
Probing the student’s ideas for social programs works to shift his thinking from the anger to the compassion. Now, we don’t know how the conversation is going to proceed but we have a general principle to follow. The student is likely to drift back to the anger with talk about relieving these communities of the burden of over-policing, possibly providing reparations, the fatherlessness being the result of racial discrimination in the past, etc. (I can say “likely” not just because this is what happened in the video but this also seems to be what liberals generally do.)
Our probing could keep us back on the constructive, compassionate track: “Since we can’t change the past, what would these programs do now? Will they provide people with both the support and discipline they need to stick with a job instead of stealing? Will they help angry youth to curb their aggression and direct it to productive pursuits?” These are truly challenging problems. Perhaps the student will have thought them through, perhaps he won’t. Either way, addressing these challenges at least promotes the constructive, compassionate state of mind that we need more of.
We may not change a mind in one conversation but perhaps we could move the needle.
And maybe that conversation might end, not with, “We will fight about this later” but with, “We should talk about this more sometime.”
