So, comrades, how do we approach people like this? In my case, I'm in good with the guy, so my lefty takes, while strange and to a degree frightening to him, don't come from an an unknown place. But what if I just met the guy, say, after a screening of "9/11"? If, as many here have suggested, it's up to us to take what we can from the film and expand it to those in our daily lives, then what is a good approach? Because at some point you will hit a wall. Do we chip at it, try to smash it, or simply climb over it?
============================
I answer this question differently nearly everyday and not just in a theoretical way, but in practice since I have many friends, colleagues and more-than-nodding acquaintances who don't share my politics (keeps me honest).
Sometimes the 'history' approach makes sense and is effective. For example, a liberal friend, not long after 9/11, experienced a Chris Hitchens-esque cultural clash freakout and declared that we're at war against the greatest barbarism in human experience and so on and so forth. He believed this because there surely couldn't be anything the US had done that might inspire desperate men to commit such a spectacularly desperate crime. So, with a straight face, "they hate freedom" became his mantra.
Over time, I repeated two things over and again whenever we'd debate, working these linked ideas into the discussion: a.) of course, nothing excuses the murder of innocents and b.) but people who commit such off-the-chart crimes must be motivated by much more than an abstract hatred of Britney Spears' mini skirts, spring break and other celebrated symbols of American 'freedom'. This lead, naturally enough, into a discussion of the past 50 years of US foreign policy.
It took some time, but the movement of events, patient consistency of debate and good will helped him to discard the civilizational clash model in favor of something more nuanced. We still don't see eye to eye (he clings to the idea of the US as a uniquely benevolent global actor, if one that "makes mistakes" - the liberal reflex) but he understands my arguments are not "liberal cowardice" or some excess of multi-culti enthusiasm (early counter-attacks he made) but a serious alternative explanation and critique of militarism as a response to terrorism.
I'm guessing you see the dependencies here: time, good will, strong factual base, consistency of argument, openness of all participants to listening (I took his position seriously and didn't dismiss it and asked the same of him).
These are not always (or often) present and so we're often forced to fall-back on having all the facts right (the Chomsky approach) and what Micheal Moore is now perfecting for left leaning audiences - entertaining and emotionally strong counter-propaganda.
Facts, in and of themselves, are clearly not enough. If they were, Bush's approval rating would've dropped to 5 percent the moment zero WMDs were located in Iraq and stayed there. Clever and heart-tugging agit-prop is more effective, ideally when supported by facts but even this combination is not sufficient for many.
>From my debating experience, I've concluded that
ideology which supports a believers' self-image (for
example, the strong, decisive, friendly, can-do
American against, well, everybody else) is the
toughest to crack.
By debating the issues, you may seem to be merely asking people to change their minds about purely political or social matters but in fact you're telling them their understanding of the world is wrong.
Tenacious resistance is the logical outcome.
I'm sure this is a well understood (or at least often described) bit of human behavior.
.d.