Argument from Intimidation

As I finished The Virtue of Selfishness today, I learned a new term: the Argument from Intimidation. Similar to the ad hominem attack, which is an attack on the person to avoid the debate, an argument from intimidation attacks uses psychological pressure to call a person’s character into question if he holds to a certain point of view. Ayn Rand taught, “The pattern is always: ‘Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.'”

I see this argument all the time. The Argument of Intimidation is another one of those devices people use to turn their opponents’ brains off in order to avoid the debate. A few more statements from Rand.

This is particularly prevalent in college classrooms. Many professors use the Argument from Intimidation to stifle independent thinking among the students, to evae questions they cannot answer, to discourage any critical analysis of their arbitrary assumptions or any departure from the intellectual status quo.

In our political life, the Argument from Intimidation is the almost exclusive method of dicussion. Predominantly, today’s political debates consist of smears and apologies, or intimidation and appeasement. The first is usually (though not exclusively) practiced by the “liberals,” the second by the “conservatives.” The champions, in this respect, are the “liberal” Republicans who practice both: the first, toward “conservative” fellow Republicans—the second, toward the Democrats.

Thoughts of John McCain come to mind here, maybe?

I experienced a similar type of attack last year as Utah entered the debate about school vouchers for students who left public school for a private one. On one pro-voucher message network to which I belonged at the time, this debate arose. I entered with a challenge to that stance, claiming that vouchers were not good for the wannabe private schoolers. I gave my reasons and had one simple response: “Anyone who believes at all for freedom will support vouchers.” And that was the end of the discussion. No one else would join. I challenged this person’s assumptions about freedom and principles, but neither he nor anyone else ventured a single syllable of discussion after that. They all wanted to be in the freedom camp and the line had been drawn. “Not me, nope. I want to stand for freedom. I don’t care what the issue is and what the truth is. I just want to be on the side for freedom.”

At the time, I was looking everywhere for a reason to vote FOR vouchers. But I was not going to find it in this place, and I soon left that network. One can make the right choice but for the wrong reason, and therefore end up disastrous. I recognized that tendency in this gentleman’s statement, but the discussion was over and I did not have the personal knowledge to attempt any further refutation. Today, however, I learned a value tool to combat this mentality and approach.

Rand further instructs:

How does one resist that Argument? There is only one weapon against it: moral certainty.

That is a hard lesson to learn. In this experience, I lacked moral certainty. I see it now; I don’t know if I possessed it then. Rand continues:

When one enters any intellectual battle, big or small, public or private, one cannot seek, desire or expect the enemy’s sanction. Truth or falsehood must be one’s sole concern and sole criterion of judgment—not anyone’s approval or disapproval; and, above all, not the approval of those whose standards are the opposite of one’s own.…it is not merely permissible, but mandatory to pass moral judgment when and where appropriate; to suppress such judgment is an act of moral cowardice.

What great fortitude, courage, and character it takes to stand up against those who would bully you with an Argument of Intimidation. Look for it this election season. You’re sure to find it.