The current political debate surrounding President Obama (whom I refer to as B.O.) has taken countless turns and twists. Most recently and really since the campaign of 2008, the political Left and specifically B.O.’s own camp has made race an issue. In fact, he is the only significant public figure to inject race as an issue into the campaign and current public debate.
My contention is that there is no rational defense for any of B.O.’s political ideology or policy and therefore only irrational, unreasonable people support him. My challenge to B.O. supporters has been, for several months now, for them to offer a rational defense for any of his policies or conduct. They can’t and they don’t. This leaves open the possibility that support for BO can be rooted in race or any number of things. The fact is, I do not know what motivates a person and I am not willing to charge that race is the major or final motivator of any BO-supporter. But, because of BO's own references, we are forced to consider the possibilty. I do think that support for him is largely emotional and the BO-supporters cannot be bothered with pesky things like facts. They are, in general, non-thinkers.
The greatest amount of time (back and forth on facebook or email) is taken up defending the very question itself - what policies of BO's do you support and can you give me a reasonable defense of any of them?
At first B.O. supporters say they do not have to defend his policies. They’re right. The right to free speech is also the right to not speak. But, one cannot at once claim moral and rational ground (let alone superiority) while letting the challenge lie unanswered. By not answering the challenge, supporters tacitly admit that their support is merely emotional, partisan or even racial.
It’s hard to escape the sense that (92% of) black folks support B.O. because he is black, at least partially black - black enough to be self-identified as black. I don’t want to make too much of this because it’s not central to my argument. My argument is that supporters have NO logical defense of B.O.’s policies and conduct whatever their true reason for supporting him and them. Suffice it to mention here that since the inauguration in January 2009, support for B.O. has fallen in all demographic categories except amongst blacks. They’re holding strong. On one hand we could see it as a racial issue. On the other hand, I can sympathize somewhat. I have been told for many years now by people (mostly missionaries) who work in Africa that Africans are intensely loyal. There is much to admire about this loyalty. But, when it becomes to national policy, I prefer to deal with those who conduct policy that is logical and consistent. In other words, please don’t support a tyrant who is destroying my liberties even though you may be inclined to be loyal.
At long last, a Facebook friend answered my challenge and posted his “defense” for BO’s policies. As I will point out, the statements are not true rational defenses but they are as close as I’ve seen and I nearly bullied my FB friend to get these responses. My analysis illustrates my contention – no rational person can offer the first defense of BO’s policies. They cannot even specify what his policies are.
My FB friend David’s initials are DB. Mine are still NC. Amazing.
DB: I support Wall Street Reform.
NC: Forget for now that this and David's other statements are not rational defenses - they are dogmatic statements of support. And those are fine . . . but they do not magically become rational propositions.
Exactly what does this mean? For BO it means rhetoric. And here’s what I mean – he promotes the new banking and finance bill as “reforming Wall Street” and assuring that a financial crisis like we’ve had will never happen again. Take a step back for just a moment. Why the hell didn’t we have this bill before? If we are to take BO seriously, this bill could have prevented the current crisis. All congress would have had to do is pass it. Jimmy Carter, Ronald Regan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton or George W. Bush could have signed it. Why the hell didn’t they enact this bill that has the capacity to prevent any financial crisis from ever occurring? Do you really believe BO when he says this bill will prevent a financial crisis from ever happening again? Are you serious? This is juvenile rhetoric. And it’s demonstrably not true.
This is what I mean by your unreasonableness, David. I’m not trying to throw insults your way. I’m trying to wake you up. It is not rational to just say “I support Wall Street Reform” as if this is BO’s policy. Who wouldn’t want to reform Wall Street? For that matter, who wouldn’t be in favor of reforming nearly anything? We all want to improve things. We all could use a little reformation. But, it’s an incomplete statement and it says nothing. Are you in favor of reforming the prison system? If not, why not? Is it perfect as it is? No? Then, you should be in favor of reforming it. The same could be asked of the entire justice system, the court system, the laws regarding pedophiles and protection of children and all sorts of euphemistic labels attached to anyone’s pet concern.
So, this and your other statements are prima facie unreasonable and wouldn’t be taken seriously in any rational debate.
DB: I support Credit Card Reform.
NC: Here we go again. A lot of people do. But, BO has never had a policy about “credit card reform” so I would want to know precisely what about BO’s policy on credit card reform you support. I know it cannot be the bill he signed last week because neither you, nor BO, nor the Democrats who voted for it, nor the RINO’s who voted for it have actually read it. Again, you then have to speak in generalities about a politician’s general ideas. And I would like for you to describe BO’s general ideas about the market, the economy, banks, private enterprise, etc and exactly where you agree and why. Otherwise, anyone’s answer to your statement above could be “so do I; vote for me.”
DB: I support Health Care Reform until proven that is not better then our current system.
NC: Now, here is an issue we can debate not because it is a clear and rational defense but because I am grasping at anything that even appears to be an attempt to defend BO’s policies. But, also because BO ran on this issue and promised reform. A rational statement would be quite the opposite – until I see a better system, I do not think that we should make major changes to the very foundations of it and radically alter it. Fix parts of it. But, before you change it, demonstrate that the entirely new system you seek to put in place actually works.
The problem with this of course is that the system that BO has put in place has “worked” elsewhere – it has worked to the detriment of England and all of Europe.
This health care “reform” is not reform in any proper meaning of the word “reform” and you know it. Reform implies changes. It could be evolutionary changes, gradual over time. BO is not reforming the major systems – he is radically altering them. And he said that he would. His promise and prediction was “we are a few days away from fundamentally transforming America.” Please pay attention to two words, “fundamental” and “transformation.” Fundamental means radical. This is where we get the charge of “radical.” Radical change is not always undesirable or bad. “Radical” surgery is required sometimes in order to correct a major problem. Radical political change is not in itself bad. There are times when a radical change is required. The institution of slavery did not need to be reformed, did it? The entire system that allowed and supported it had to be radically changed, not slowly and slightly altered. Our nation’s revolution was radical although not in the sense of the same revolutions that bloodied the European continent in roughly the same period of time and Russia 135 years later. It was somewhat evolutionary (in the 150 years of colonial life leading up to the revolution) while the confrontation of England had to be radical and fundamental.
Nevertheless, if you think that America needed a radical transformation including the dismantling of our institutions, our entire free market, a health care system that is the envy of the world, unequalled economic growth then you have your man. These are not my accusations – these are his promises – “fundamental” and “transformation.”
But, let’s not call it reform. Transformation is not reformation. Transformation is a reordering of things. Reformation doesn’t need a destruction of the major institutions and systems. In fact, it requires that they remain essentially in place. Transformation is different.
Even so, my statements are meant to argue against the recent health care bill. What about DB’s statement though. Is it rational? I think not. A rational statement would be “the new health care reform is demonstrably better than the current system and it makes greater sense logically . . . and here’s how.” It’s not rational, let alone wise, to institute a “reform” that is tried and found wanting but insist that it’s better to give it another shot so that only another colossal failure would justify returning to the system we left behind. A rational approach does not say “trust me” like the politicians who foisted this health care bill upon America admonished us to do. And this is the basic approach DB has – trust them until their plan fails! This is not the voice of reason. It’s the voice of blind trust.
This discussion involves another question that David asks: What exactly do you consider a radical activist?
NC: First of all, reference my treatment above on the difference between “radical transformation” and “reform.” Mark Levin says it concisely (pg 14, Liberty & Tyranny)
“The Conservative believes, as Burke and the Founders did, that prudence must be exercised in assessing change. Prudence is the highest virtue for it is judgment drawn on wisdom. The proposed change should be informed by the experience, knowledge, and traditions of society, tailored for a specific purpose, and accomplished through a constitutional construct that ensures thoughtful deliberation by the community. Change unconstrained by prudence produces unpredictable consequences, threatening ordered liberty with chaos and ultimately despotism, and placing at risk the very principles the Conservative holds dear.”
It’s important to see the difference between change for the sake of change and change that is well-thought out and enacted with a particular, logical product in mind.
Notice the capriciousness with which David states his support for “health care reform” in general – “until proven that is not better then our current system.” This is the very opposite of rational and logical reform. It doesn’t exchange a bad system for a good one or even a proven one. In the case of American “health care” it seeks to exchange the most advanced and accessible health care system, one that is the envy of the world, for one that, in David’s imagination, may well prove not to be “better.” Why is that rational? Why is that sort of change wise? Why does David fancy that throwing the system to a trial basis is commendable?
DB: I support both wars because we have not had a successful terrorist attack here since 9/11.
NC: 1. But, BO did NOT support both wars. 2. He was an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq calling it a war of choice and not a war of necessity. (What is most ludicrous is that he has not let his own statements stop the propaganda that “Iraq is his victory.”) 3. He said that Afghanistan was “the ball” and that Bush had taken his eye off of it. This is tantamount to labeling the Iraq War as a major mistake – taking one’s eyes off the ball. 4. If you really supported “both wars” you would have been more consistent (in this one regard) had you supported John McCain instead of BO. In other words, there is no rational relation between “supporting both wars” and supporting BO. 5. Your logic for supporting both wars (that we have not had a successful terrorist attack since 9/11) makes little sense. If I were to take your reasoning seriously, I would say that you were a supporter of George W. Bush. For now, I’m not going to imagine that you are making the ludicrous claim the BO and not GWB is mostly responsible for no terrorist attacks since 9/11. Please tell me you’re not making this point.
DB: Yes, overall I support my president of these United States. I don't think I can be much clearer then that.
NC: In my opinion it is still VERY unclear because of the oversimplification and generalization of your support statements – I support [Wall Street, credit card, health care] reform. Taken literally, this would generate support for nearly any political candidate. But, they are not statements that specifically address BO’s reforms. And I think I know why. You have no idea about the specifics of these reforms as they have actually come down to us in the form of legislation. You haven’t read the bills. Hell’s Bells! B.O. hasn’t read the bills.
It’s possible that many will never see my logic or be able to agree on what is rational or not. I think there are two main reasons for this.
The first is that language itself is in peril. In my humble opinion, the thing that is in greatest peril in these perilous times is language. It’s interesting to me that the watershed event in the ancient world that scattered the peoples and began the varieties of cultures was the confusing of language at Babel. One man couldn’t understand what another was saying because as they turned up for work one day, the two were speaking different languages. We have awakened to a culture in America where words can mean the opposite of what they used to mean. Words like “rights,” “freedom,” “criminal,” “recovery,” etc. have been conscripted to mean whatever the user says they mean. Supreme Court justices have found the "right to privacy" in the Constitution by pulling concepts and words out of thin air.
The other reason is that the Left, as a philosophical endeavor, sees no reason to make any effort at reason. Its appeal is emotional, based on class warfare and hinges on phrases like “the rich should pay their fair share.” No one bothers to ask, what is really fair . . . did you miss the day in school when they covered the principle of percentages?
I remember the consternation I felt when Bill Clinton would say “We’re going to ask the rich to pay their fair share.”
Ask – my ass! When did the government ever ask you – as if to give you an opportunity to say “no thank you” – for anything? You either pay up or the IRS confiscates, fines and imprisons. Nevertheless, the educated journalists didn’t seem to catch this gross misuse of language nor the appeal to class warfare and emotions over reasoned principles of government.
So, the words “fair” and “ask” are given new meanings while the Left bothers not one twit to make its requirements meet the test of rational judgment.
No, the BO-supporter still hasn’t produced anything but dogmatic statements of support, not reasoned defenses of his policies and conduct. God bless David. He supports his messiah. But, he still cannot tell us why
