Thursday, July 15, 2004

Liberals & Avoidance

It amazes me how people - liberals and conservatives - avoid certain facts to uphold their vision of the world. Being conservative, I see it more in liberals. But that must be inaccurate on my part else the upshot is that liberals are stupid. Since I have friends that are liberal, I would rather not think that about them.

Let's focus on the word "stupid" for a moment. The process began with Reagan and continues with W. Liberals label both as “stupid.” A friend of mine with second-hand-but-reliable information says, “W’s not a quick study.” Another friend says, “We need someone smart in the White House.”

There’s a long-term observation about military intelligence that is apt. No, not the one about it being an oxymoron. I mean the one about people being promoted when they do well in their jobs – so a Lt. Col. becomes a full Col. But then they don’t do well, so they don’t get promoted anymore. However, in the process they have risen exactly one level beyond their competence. Are our national leaders one level beyond their competence?

Running the country is not much different than running a large state – except for the defense component. Both Reagan and W ran large states well before entering the White House. Both have shown great ability in defense matters. So why the “stupid” label?

Ben Franklin said something like, “It is better to keep your mouth shut and thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.” That may be accurate in personal and some business relations, but apparently not in politics.

Bill Clinton is asked about diddling Monica and his “no sexual relations” comment. The question was framed like – “What did you mean by that?” Recall that this is still in the denial phase of that pig’s recovery. (Oh, sorry, I still get emotional a little bit, particularly when I recall my angelic 9 year old daughter asking me to explain what oral sex was.) He says, “I think we all know what I meant by that.” He opened his mouth and lied – but was thought of as brilliant. What a putz.

An example of W’s brilliance is quick for me to find: the press wanted him to apologize during that press conference a few months ago. Time and time again he deflected the issue politely but firmly. He saw it for what it was: a set-up. “Bush says he erred in …” “Bush apologizes to the country for …” You’d swear those reporters called each other before the press conference to make sure they wore compatible clothing. The wisdom of a father shone through.

Does he speak extemporaneously in meetings? I sure hope not. If he does, he just doesn’t get it. His words mean something. His decisions are final. To sit about and chit-chat doesn’t fit the role.

Stupid? Not in the least. So why do liberals toss it about? I think it is easier to label someone “stupid” rather than “equal but different.”

There are two visions of how our country should be run. The extremes are pure socialism versus pure capitalism. We do not and will never have either. But the tension comes in how much socialism to introduce into our otherwise capitalistic society. Do we address the healthcare issue by nationalizing 1/7 of the economy? Seems extreme, almost (dare I say) stupid – just look at Canada and England for examples of how it does not work. But do we just ignore those folks that cannot afford healthcare (including me at the present time)? Seems cold-hearted. So we have welfare programs that provide a safety net. Yet the liberals want more and more.

Back to ignoring reality, the present condition of the economy is a great example. How many liberals say it is “so bad,” “squeezing the middle class,” and “something has to change”? My undergrad was in Economics, so when reports come out about future economic indicators and non-farm payrolls, I actually have some vague recollection of what they mean and how they portend changes in macro-economic performance. Anyone who looks at today’s economy and says it is doing poorly is just not paying attention. My, if I were a liberal and the person were W, I’d say he were stupid. But Kerry thematically offers the “worst economy since the Great Depression,” “a jobless recovery,” and so on. On each and every account, he changes tunes because the facts bury his accusations. Yet he is not thought of as Chicken Little.

Why is that? Ends-oriented thinking on behalf of liberals. Liberals ignore facts that don’t support their view of the world. And they freely condemn as inferior those that conflict with them.

C’mere, honey, it’ll be ok. I feel your pain. Let daddy give you a hug. It’ll be ok. I promise. Big bad W will go away, I promise. Just four more years and he’ll be bye-bye. Just four more years to straighten out the mess BJ Clinton made of the economy (creating a false balloon), the military (not even money for spare parts), and terrorist management (they tracked OBL, they have pictures of his camps with him there, they knew he was behind the WTC parking garage, but they did nothing). Then big bad dumb W will be all gone. Then you kids can run the country again for a while. And then people like Hamilton Jordan can smoke pot on the White House roof, and the First Lady can tell a Secret Service agent he is “of no f*$%ing use” because he needs to keep his hands free and cannot carry her luggage (on her first day at the WH!), and the Surgeon General can tell everyone that masturbation is not only normal but that it should be encouraged, and the Attorney General can authorize the shooting of an unarmed mother holding her baby, and the President can do girls the same age as his daughter, and … you get the point.

Four more years. Relax. There will be a little pin prick, and you may feel a little sick, but then the pain will recede.

No comments:

Post a Comment