WHY WE’RE EVIL - How To Be Right: The Art of Being Persuasively Correct (2015)

How To Be Right: The Art of Being Persuasively Correct (2015)




This is the chapter you should read now. Especially if you’ve read the preceding sixteen pages.

As you know, this book is about being persuasively right, but before you can be persuasively right you must be persuasive, above all, about being Right. Because if you can’t explain why you…are you… then you’re lost. You might as well pack up and join the circus. (Address: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Just look for the big tent and the guy in the clown suit.)

You will be asked why you’re a conservative or a libertarian more often than Tom Cruise is asked why he’s in Scientology. You need to explain yourself in the clearest manner possible. (I’m tired of saying conservative and libertarian, so from here on in, we’re just gonna say “Right.” Right? Okay. Good.)

Here is the simple answer to why you are Right: It is a more practical, generous, and compassionate way to live.

Now, I’m not saying liberals are impractical, selfish, or lacking in compassion. I could say that, but I won’t. Because it helps no one. I believe—and have evidence—that as a member of the right, you can achieve better results in bringing happiness and clarity to this ball of fury we call the world.

Who doesn’t want that?

Once you have stated your reason for your belief system—and the laughter subsides—you now have to prove that in fact your belief system is the correct path to achieve that goal.

So, why do righties accomplish these goals in a more practical, compassionate manner?

Very simply: conservatism, enacted correctly, encompasses liberalism. The act of conserving in fact acts as the back door to the liberal heart.

Conservatism is the two trees that support the hammock of liberalism.A liberal heart can be controlled only by the impulses of a right-wing brain.

The left can never lead, it can only pull.

And please note: this relationship cannot be done in reverse. Liberalism cannot contain conservatism. Here are the reasons why.

Conservatism is a set of free market beliefs that helps create wealth—a mass of stuff that then gets shared by those who cannot create it. Conservatism is the baker who bakes the cake that gets paid for by the parents but gets eaten by the kids (the cake, not the baker).

Translation: for a liberal to “get” the assistance he desires to pay for programs and education, that wealth must be created by people who cannot afford to think liberally. The engine that creates that wealth is fundamentally Right. The principles of liberalism have no place in such matters. In fact, even in predominantly liberal bastions like the film industry and academia, profit still rules. Actors and professors still ask for more, not less, for their work. All films have budgets. All colleges have tuitions. We’re all evil right-wingers on payday. And when we’re not? See: “Soviet Union—falling of.”

You do not want a liberal accountant. You do not want a liberal financial advisor. You do not even want a liberal babysitter. In fact, especially you do not want a liberal babysitter (even liberals will rarely hire these!). In arenas where safety and preservation are paramount, and vital to your future—liberalism is never the option. When there is disease, or war, there is no liberal response.

The fluffiness of liberal utopianism fails in the realm of foreign policy. Affirmative action, social programs, welfare—such inclinations do not win wars. Conservatism, folks, is where the rubber hits the road.

Liberalism is a hobby when things are going good. Liberalism is putting a puzzle together on a rainy day. It does nothing about the rain. Here’s how it works:





Blaming global warming

Filling sandbags


Giving your money to others

Earning money so you can help


Giving sympathy



Giving sympathy

Reading the law


Plastic surgery

Family care



Better teachers/administrators

Liberalism can exist only in periods of calm. In a country as vast in wealth and innovation as ours, liberalism can latch on like a conservative’s groupie—a member of an entourage that finds a place to sleep in a movie star’s sprawling mansion, largely unnoticed. As our country continues to invent amazing things that make lives easier, and longer, we can afford to shovel money into pointless projects, simply because we can. An entire political philosophy exists, and its assortment of useless overpaid, perk-grifting bureaucrats owes its entire existence to the benevolence of the free market and the competitive motivations unleashed by capitalism. Winning a few big wars also helps (shooting predators allows commerce to continue).

In short, conservatism doesn’t compete with liberalism, it sustains it. Without conservatism, there is no liberalism.


1.Liberalism is a hobby when things are going good. Liberalism is putting a puzzle together on a rainy day.

2.Conservatism is piling the sandbags when the rain turns to hurricanes.

3.Liberalism can exist only in periods of calm.

Liberalism needs conservatism to survive; but conservatism does not need liberalism to thrive. Without liberalism, conservatism thrives, beautifully. However, liberalism is necessary as a reminder that you don’t need to think about terror and Ebola all the time. Once in a while you need to enjoy yourself a little.

A Math Problem: Solving for B

Today, most young liberals think A = C. Not A + B = C. They don’t know what B is. B is for Business.

And we know business. We know that while a minimum-wage hike sounds good, we understand its consequences. That if you have a pie of eight slices for eight people, and you make the slices larger, then you have fewer slices, for fewer people. Suddenly a pie with eight slices becomes a pie with six slices. Two people get pink slips instead of pie. (Note: a pie slice is an analogy for job, in case Michael Moore is reading this, and thinks I’m actually talking about a real pie.)

So, for liberals to get their minimum-wage hike, first we need conservatives to build businesses, to think like businessmen, to sacrifice their own salaries to pay others; to sleep on floors in order to break even.

Then when they make a profit, and things are going great—when the calm sets in—liberalism can appear and say, “How dare you not pay these people a living wage?” Once the tables are full of diners, and bills are being paid, and you’re thinking about opening a second joint—liberalism arrives to demand its cut. Really, it’s a protection racket. Sort of like the Gambino family, but without loyalty, job prospects, and track suits.

You think I’m slinging bull droppings? There is science behind these simple facts.

Much study has been done on the conservative and liberal minds. The research is pretty clear: The right tends to be averse to risk, more worried or concerned about external threats like terror and disease. Conservatives—get this—tend to be conservative. They are less likely to play with fire, in just about every sense: financially, artistically, sexually. (Libertarians are inclined to legalize matches for all.) They are cautious in changing traditions (sometimes to a fault), which is why they cling bitterly to their guns, their religion, and that crazy Constitution they like so much—as a brilliant teenager once put it.

You may think there is one flaw in this theory—if the right are all about future threats, how come they aren’t leading the charge against global warming? It’s because we think, quite accurately and based on predictions from the past, that the threat is exaggerated. However, it’s also because we righties target what we can fix, and accept what we cannot. At least with ISIS we know what the threat is, and that it’s slightly worse than a missing polar bear.

Liberals are generally more outgoing, more risk-loving, more likely to try new stuff. They are open to new ideas, and less likely to feel threatened by unfamiliar things. This is why, in general, they seem to have more fun. They are more likely to try drugs, for example (which is fine, as long as they don’t end up throwing up in my toaster). In short, liberals are pretty liberal—about their own security, their own adventures, their own willingness to experiment (with our money). They aren’t looking for commies under their beds (perhaps because they’re in the bathtub). Libs take risks that the risk-averse usually pay for, over and over. Which explains the necessity for conservatism. We are the clean-up crew.

Libs may seem to have more fun (and many do), but whether they’re happier is an open question. Temporary happiness doesn’t translate into long-term satisfaction. The angriest people I’ve encountered in my life have been liberals (usually after I’ve urinated on their sandals; don’t ever do this to David Brooks—he makes the strangest sound!).

The difference between conservatives and liberals explains why one is more effective than the other in securing long-term satisfaction. One lives for now; the other for later. One lives for the desire to be liked; the other lives for the love of those they hold dear. The liberal son survives off the conservative pop.

If a conservative is risk-averse, he is more likely to save money. He is more likely to protect his investments. He is more likely to protect property, and advocate for rule of law and preservation of individual protections, as well as agreed-upon authority (like, say, the role of the police and National Guard). He doesn’t create a context that excuses looting.

These folks are the people—Asian, Arab, black—who start businesses routinely torched in cities where the leftist reflex endorses such action as a response to “injustice.”

Of course, conservatives aren’t risk-averse in everything. It’s conservatives who have risked much to build businesses. That risk, however, is rooted in fact-based belief (not faith) in the free market. Success is not a hypothetical model created on a computer by a bureaucratic elite. It’s predicated on a perceived need, and seeing if demand embraces what you’re supplying.

Over time, their risk taking creates a civilization, an infectious equation that leads to building families, businesses, and nations. Which creates more wealth. And it is that wealth that can then be used to help those in need. You need money to make money, but you also need money to give money.

Conservatism makes what liberalism takes. And so when a liberal asks you, “Why are you a conservative?,” simply state, “So you can be a liberal.”


★It beats pretending you care about hypothetical injustice.

★It’s the only reliable thing going.

★The alternatives exist only at the pleasure of conservatism.

★The women put up with your compliments.

★When the chips are down, it’s the only “ism” that works for everyone, liberals included.

★The chips are always down, and it’s the conservatives who know it.