Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Liver & Ice Cream

Morgan Freeberg once again shows his uncanny propensity to be thinking about the same things I'm thinking about -- and in the same way. Speaking of the Democrats:

It’s just like liver and desert. There’s something we gotta get done…there’s something else that’s fun to do. It’s a human failing to do the thing that’s fun to do, instead of the thing that we know we need to get done — form a plan.

I’ve often heard it said that it’s a “conservative Republican canard” that Democrats have not yet formed a plan to deal with Iraq — that they have, they have, they have, and those poor oppressed Democrats, nobody’s talking about their plan. Well, how can we? They won’t talk about their plan. They just like to talk about how much they disapprove of the things that are going on…dessert before peas.
Except in today's day and age, progressivist parenting tends to rationalize that ice cream has eggs and milk -- which are nutritious -- so Bobbie really doesn't need to eat those peas in the end after all.

I have been mulling several related ideas lately -- and that is one of them -- and I need the time to congeal them into one post or coherent series of posts. But that first one that Morgan refers to... it's very easy to be against things. When you're against something, you get to sit back and second-guess what people who have actually formed a real plan and are doing something, that is, acting -- as in "taking action".

Acting is not going to the street with banners and signs and anger and moral outrage. That is very easy to do. I often hear from the Left that being openly anti-war is brave. Nobody likes war, so it's actually a very easy position to take. I submit that it is not brave at all, unless you have a workable, alternate action that you can show has a greater chance of attaining the same goal. Protesting had become for the left for the most part, an exercise in narcissism.

Nobody can criticize your solution because you have no solution to criticize. Your "solution" is to criticize.

The culture of moral outrage is long on name-calling and platitudes, and short on substance. Long on allegation and short on factual foundation.

Facts are usually the enemy of feel-good activist. They run from them like a cat from a vaccuum cleaner. They answer questions with questions. They change the subject to another in their rolodex of outrages and labels of Facism & Nazism ... or the latest fashion "corporate greed".

In politics in official settings like the house floor or press conferences or official statements -- progressivists spout vague ideals like "change of direction" and "new plan" without articulating a direction or a plan. It's not hard to figure out from their talks to special interest groups, when they're more certain they're safe in an echo chamber of homogeneous ideas, though to figure out what the apparentl "plan" for Iraq is. It's get out, and as soon as possible. The new direction is "away from Iraq". It's not toward something. It's away from something. Not to action, but away from action.

No matter what changes Bush makes in direction and strategy in this arena, it will be "more of a failed policy" because it's Bush. The Democrats' policy seems to be "not what Bush does". Anything he does. So there's this resolution on the floor to "support the troops" (whatever that means) but express "the American People's" .... "disapproval" of Bush's handling of the war.

Well, you know -- vague language can be handy. It's not hard to make the argument that the 17% swing from an approval of 51% to 34% was due to "disapproval" of the handling of the war. However, the next jump is from "disapproval" to "change of direction". And as we alluded above, "change of direction" means "out". But disapproval does not necessarily mean out. Disapproval, for many people, means "all out". Which at least this "surge" is a token effort at doing.

It seems to have gotten Al Sadr's attention.

But to the Democrats, this has never been about doing the right thing, it has been about vindication of their opposition to the invasion of Iraq, such that it was in the beginning. It's also about taking political advantage of windfall of the persistent anti-war campaign. The way I see it, once we actually invaded -- even if it was the wrong thing to do (and I don't think that's the case, but) -- the right thing to do from that point forward is an entirely different ball game.

If you sneak into a house and you shouldn't have, and say -- you cause a fire, it becomes your responsibility to see that that fire is put out before you leave. Simply leaving the house is no longer the right thing to do. It might have been before the fire was started, but that's not the case anymore. There's no do-over.

To the progressives, it's all about change, and whether we're ready to vote for someone of this color or that sex or another religion (as long as it isn't Christian) -- not about issues at all. Trust me, if America does not elect Hillary, it will be "because America isn't ready for a woman President" (which is bunk). If Obama wins the nomination and loses the election, it'll be because "America isn't ready for a Black president" (which is also bunk) or "America isn't ready for a president with Islamic ties"-- (which is probably not bunk, and for good reason at this point in history).

It's a narcissistic race to be seen as the most tolerant, the most anti-war, the most "green", the most "anti-corporate" ... and although they'll never use these excact words... the most anti-American (this is because it shows how tolerant and anti-war and anti-corporate you are).

I'm tolerant. I hate war. I want a clean environment with perserved wild spaces. And I'm a conservative.

No comments: