In my last post, I spent some time discussing the radical elements on the far right of the conservative movement. My point being that there are extremists on either side of the political spectrum. There are a couple of issues that make the liberal extremists a bit more visible these days than the conservative extremists. First off, the liberals are in power and they are setting the agenda. As history has always shown, it is far easier for the minority element (Rs) in government to criticize what is being done than it is for the majority element (Ds) to actually get things done. Secondly, the extremists in the liberal element have much more influence in the leadership of their party than do the extremists in the conservative element. The extremists are there on both sides; it is simply the case in the Democrat Party that the inmates are running the asylum.
When considering the far reaches of either political persuasion, I have often tried to put my finger on what differentiates one from the other (apart from policy). They are both crazy in their own ways, but there has always seemed to be something...somehow...different about them. I believe I have solved at least part of that mystery for myself. See if it makes any sense to you.
Given their incestuous relationship with the mainstream media, it has always been a simple matter for the Democrat Party to control political messaging. At some point along the way, this luxury resulted in the Democrats simply assuming that they could say anything about anything and it would be fact. In other words, if you tell a lie often enough...it becomes the truth. Black is white. Day is night. Good is bad. Bad is good. Up is down...etc.
The liberal approach to debate on policy typically tends towards the shallow, superficial, emotional arguments that have little or no foundation or substance. When you control the spin, there is no need for foundation or substance. There is no need for consistency when you are not held accountable for what you said or did yesterday. There is no place for reason or civility if you are untethered from logic or responsibility. If it sounds good, say it. If it feels good, do it.
An illustration of this strategy can be found in how the Democrat/Liberal elements "evolve" the terms used when debating policy. "Global Warming", being disproved and exposed as highly suspect in the area of science and reality, morphed into "Climate Change". No one can deny the climate is changing. The important questions are why the climate is changing and what is causing it.
The Constitution of our great nation is based upon the principle of "Equal Opportunity". But the Liberals and the Democrats, largely through BLM activism and CRT advocacy, have replaced this premise with "Equity". In a logical world, equity is the result of equal opportunity; but in today's strange world, the Liberals and the Democrats want to reverse engineer equal opportunity from the beginning point of equity. Two plus two does not equal five; no matter how many times you say it.
I find it particularly amusing that Democrats are shying away from the term "Liberals" and now want to be known as "Progressives". A rose by any other name is still a rose.
This liberal, gymnastic approach to vocabulary is especially revealing when we consider the issue of "Tolerance". Both the left and the right lay claim to a healthy dose of tolerance for the rights and liberties of others; but a closer took at their attitudes reveals two sides of the coin. Conservative belief is that each individual citizen has the right to dignity and the pursuit of happiness, so long as those actions do not infringe on the dignity and pursuits of others who might differ in approach. The Liberal attitude towards tolerance is much the same and, in fact, traces back to the same origin. The difference I perceive is how they choose to define "Tolerance".
A conservative will defend the right of a person to choose their own lifestyle and make their own personal decisions, even if they disagree with those choices or decisions. This is the area where we can all agree to disagree...within reason. If you stay out of my face with your decisions that I do not agree with, then we have no problem. Live and let live. On the other hand...if you try to jam them down my throat, demand that I publicly endorse the correctness or normalcy of those actions, or allow the rights of the few to infringe on the rights of the many...then there are going to be problems. Accepting another's right to make choices or decisions is far different than embracing those choices or decisions.
The liberal approach to tolerance incorporates different requirements. In their view, it is NOT SUFFICENT to simply allow someone the freedom to live as they choose. No; if you disagree with their actions or beliefs, then you must openly betray your own convictions, endorse those actions as normal or ethical or moral, and subjugate your own principles to theirs. You are portrayed as the bigot...the intolerant...because simple tolerance is not enough. You must give yourself over to the collective and heel to the uber-Karens who influence and massage public opinion and mores.
Tolerance for the sake of tolerance is quite simply a total lack of principle. Put another way...if you do not stand for something, you will fall for anything. America is falling hard these days.
Moving on to some current events....The President has introduced his FY23 Budget and it includes $88.2 BILLION in pandemic funding. This is on top of BILLIONS already authorized and partially spent (wasted?) from prior legislation and prior Administrations. Will we ever learn that (1) the federal government is likely the most INEFFICIENT mechanism to distribute tax dollars and (2) the solution to all of our problems IS NOT throwing more federal dollars towards them.
I say one more time...Yes, there were some bad things going on with our last election. But...Trump and the Republicans knew that train was coming and still laid down on the tracks. It does no good to close the barn doors once the horses have escaped. Are we in for a replay in November of 2022?
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/03/more-evidence-of-2020-voter-fraud.php
Two federal entities that should be apolitical to the bone and absolutely above reproach are the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). The Democrat Party, largely through Presidents Obama and Biden, have converted both into corrupt, partisan hacks.
https://amgreatness.com/2022/03/31/more-scandals-envelop-the-scandalous-fbi/
One of the first actions taken by President Biden upon assuming office was to terminate the Keystone XL pipeline. That pipeline, upon completion in 2022, would have yielded about 800,000 barrels of oil per day. Last year, the US imported 672,000 barrels of oil per day from Russia. Crude oil is trading around $100-$130 per barrel. Do the math. Why have we helped finance the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Why are we bypassing American jobs and energy independence and then begging for increased imports of foreign oil? With energy costs going through the roof, why are we not reopening domestic energy sources? At a time of national security concern, why are we increasing our energy dependence on foreign adversarial nations while siphoning off our precious crude oil reserves? Does any sane person actually believe that a barrel of oil can be produced in a more climate-friendly fashion in Russia/Iran/Saudi Arabia/Venezuela than it can be in America? How much longer will this madness continue?
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/03/is-biden-panicking.php
Dangerous times are upon us and our national leadership is weak, unprincipled, incoherent, and ineffective.
Unfortunately, the problem does not stop with our President? You might ask...What could be worse?
No comments:
Post a Comment