Robert Heinlein, speaking in “Take Back Your Government”, a handbook for neophytes in politics:
Your object… is to win elections, not arguments. If you will always remember that, you can’t go far wrong.
The second thing to remember is that elections are won with votes; those votes are out in the precincts, not down in the politico-financial district, not in political clubs, not at political rallies.
The third thing to remember is that a vote for your side never becomes a reality unless you see to it that the holder thereof gets down to the polls and casts it. This should be printed in red ink and set off with flashing lights.
The fourth thing to remember is not to waste time arguing with a hard case. In the years I have spent in politics I cannot honestly say that I recall ever having persuaded anyone to change his mind about how he was going to vote on an issue or for a candidate if he had already made up his mind when I approached him. Yet I know that I have influenced and sometimes changed the outcome of elections through my own efforts.
Now, go tattoo those on your forehead between now and next November…
Dated though it is, after 63 years of political degeneration, this book by Heinlein detailing what he had learned in his own political experiences is proving to be a very valuable investment of a (very) little money and my time to read. Dated? Well, yes. Heinlein goes on at length about “honest politicians” being the norm in his experience, but his definition of “honest politicians” doesn’t seem to fit many nowadays. *sigh*
Thanks to Instapundit for the mention.
Amen and Amen.
One of the most useful phrases in my arsenal is “Well, it’s clear I can’t convince you and you can’t convince me, so let’s agree to disagree on that point and move on to the next one.” Ironically, though I’m widely considered “two steps to the right of Stalin” politically, I’m not usually the one who won’t quit the tryin’-to-convince game. As a self-admitted “hard case” for truth, I still seem to understand point 4 better than most allegedly “tolerant” liberal types.
Heinlein has a lot of intelligent things to say – rare enough in a writer of fiction, even more so in a writer of science fiction (and that comment points the finger back at myself more than most people will ever know). I’ve always thought him one of the rare exceptions to my personal rule that people who spend their lives focusing on the arts should try to remember that they’re paid to deal in fiction, and that generally speaking, Those Famous For Art ought to remember that a brilliant artistic mind does not actually render them fit for public commentary on real things.
Well, the book referenced was written in 1946(?) out of a couple of decades of Heinlein’s own personal involvement in politics. As he said in his own introduction to the book,
BTW, “Take Back Your Government” is a twc “recommended read” for any citizen concerned with the direction our various governments are taking.
And that, I think, lends more weight to the book than Heinlein’s well-recognized writing ability.
(BTW, you hinted that you wrote scifi yourself. Want to send me a snippet? If you feel it would unnecessarily jeopardize your anonymity, then I understand why you might not want to clue me in. Notaproblem. I can live with mystery.)
Random Yak commented, “Heinlein has a lot of intelligent things to say – rare enough in a writer of fiction, even more so in a writer of science fiction…”
The very best Sci-Fi writers, which are rare indeed, are able to weave reality into their stories, stories which use Sci-Fi as the vehicle which moves the story, not because it’s based in fiction; rather the opposite, with fiction you can get away with telling the absolute truth without having to prove anything or worry about getting sued for it.
I really appreciate writers that ground their fiction in reality. Strange that some of the best at that are scifi writers. Jerry Pournelle comes to mind, as does David Drake (he freely admits that he “steals” the plots for his “military scifi” from historical accounts of real events). Of course, telling a cracking good story while grounding the events and believable characters in reality AND placing all this in a science fiction genre takes not just talent but real writing chops.
Some can do it; others can do some of it; most can’t.
Heinlein had the ability to do this sort of thing, even in his “juvies” and THAT takes real ability. (David Drake has managed to write a couple of “juvies” that are worth adult eyes and read time, too, but, IMO, just a couple that were both “juvies” and worth my time to read as an adult with advanced presbyopia. *heh*)
For some very interesting scifi reading that meets my criteria for persuasive characters, firm grounding in reality that allows for comfortable suspension of disbelief and cracking good stories that are still “far out” scifi, Eric Flint’s partnering efforts with David Drake in their Belisarius series and again Eric Flint’s “Ring of Fire Series” series of books authored by him and by a number of collaborators as well as others he has “sponsored” into his “shared universe” (including a college buddy of mine) certainly almost all meet my own criteria for “good reads”. And in each of these cases, I’ve been encouraged to review what I know of historical events (in the first case, of Mediterranean and Near Eastern history; in the second of the 30 Years War, the Protestant Reformation, etc.), to learn more and to have “Aha! Someone else is on the ball!” moments as a particularly gritty little historical fact I’m well aware most folks are blithely ignorant of is used as a place to stand while levering the plot to take another twist. *heh* Both of these series would be real fun reads for history buffs. (Of course, the same can be said of some of David Drake’s or David Weber’s future “military history” novels that are built around real historical events and persons of the past–Drake’s more closely modeled on historical plots than Weber’s.)
But, of course, it’s not just scifi writers who can write well and still have something worth learning along with a good story (and without being didactic about it). Others do as well, but strangely, “literary” writers of the 20th Century seemed to focus, for the most part, on writing dreck. See “How to Write Suckitudinous Fiction” for a distillation of the worst legacy of 20th Century “haute literateure” *gag*.
I cannot honestly say that I recall ever having persuaded anyone to change his mind about how he was going to vote on an issue or for a candidate if he had already made up his mind when I approached him…couldnt agree more David.
Angel, “against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain” as Schiller said. *heh* (I’ve actually said that to one or two really offensive louts, when I really didn’t care whether I persuaded them or left them to wallow in their miry trough.) Sometimes you’ve simply got to know when to fold ’em. 😉
Heh. *used* to write science fiction is more like it. These days, it’s historical fiction, and with an eye to publication, though it’s currently in the “seeking agent” category. I doubt the sci-fi will ever see the light of day – with very, very good reason. The historical, on the other hand, has had a little attention and probably will go. If and when the time comes that I launch another website, in non-anonymous form, I’ll key you in. Heck, I’ll key you in in advance, with snippet, when I’m getting ready to stop lurking and start publishing something other than non-fiction.
RY, I’d be glad to get my eyes on an ARC, if you’d be willing–or even just a teaser or three.
I read Heinlein’s book “Take Back Your Government” many years ago, late 61 or early 62 when my dad was in Vietnam. I remember being struck by Heinlein’s arguments which seemed aimed at getting rid of the FDR/Truman Democratic party. Great reading by the way and for young political hacks like myself at the time an eye opener. Two years later I was stumping for Goldwater and though we lost, the experience was awesome.
You read a book which was never published in RAH’s long life? Really! TBYG was first published 8/1/1992 not 1962
“Never published” is a [teen-einstsy, itty bitty, not much of a :-)] bit of a stretch. “Never published by a commercial house” before 1992 is absolutely true, but it did have a limited circulation, as I now understand. GM may be “misunderrecalling” or conflating it with another book of similar vein (though such is beyond my knowledge; I’ve read loads of politics and history and while this book is evidence I’ve missed some, no other has the kind of insight and “nuts and bolts” approach I’ve found in this little book) While I was unaware of it until this year–even unaware of it in all the onslaught of issues and reissues and such after Heinlein’s death in 1988–I had other distractions at the time of its publication by a commercial house. AAR, I’m willing to cut some slack GM’s direction, if just out of respect for one of the few commenters here who’re older than I. *heh* I know well what “holes and gaps, lacks and losses, absences, insipidies and the like” can color memory by my age…
Thanks for the visit, WFYS