Politicians are increasingly living in a world where everything is 'relative'. It's convenient because it allows them to avoid the inconvenience of being wrong about ... or accountable for ... anything they say or do. In that world there's no such thing as a 'lie' because behind whatever they actually lied about is some moral or other superior relativistic notion.
In their bizzaro world there's no such thing as "lie", "failed", "truth", "wrong", or "fact (historical or otherwise)". How convenient, huh?
Politicians in both major parties are increasingly inclined to think and talk in relative terms but there's an essence about it that is fundamental to progressive thinking. Theory often trumps human nature, historical facts, and honest data analysis. It trumps reality. To progressives among our political elite, their claimed superior end justifies whatever becomes screwed up getting there. And justifies it to such an extent that even debate about problems and failures is irrelevant. As if we can't learn from mistakes? As if fixing whatever got screwed up has no value ... especially if fixing it requires undoing it?
Engaging in debate before taking a vote on a progressive bill requires defending one's position which is very difficult when common sense and/or even actual history are against one. Which explains why congressional progressives keep doing end-runs around any process that requires honest debate. End runs around the constitution become not only necessary but justifiable. The end justifies the means after all.
Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, routinely keeps Republican proposals from even reaching the senate floor for debate because defending his position against them using logic and common sense would be extremely difficult if not impossible. Besides, debate would expose the negatives contained in a progressive's bill; would expose the lack of common sense or even wisdom. Which is why over a hundred jobs bills from the House sit in his in-basket rather than being advanced in the legislative process for consideration or debate. Which is why Democrats feel justified in claiming untruthfully(!) that Republicans never proposed health care reform. Not doing it their way = blocking them. Whatever happened to compromise? Those Republican bills never got to debate; therefore, they never existed ... in Harry Reid's mind. Therefore, he has a convenient (but completely false) rationalization (everything's relative, remember) for his claims that Republicans haven't done anything about health care, jobs or anything else he's of a mind to criticize them about.
It explains why it has become unnecessary for Harry Reid's senate to even consider some legislation. He can hide behind claiming untruthfully(!) that Republicans are blocking him (not doing it his way = blocking him) and then let President Obama implement what progressives want via executive order. Honest debate is an inconvenient thing that would get in the way of the progressive vision for America. So they use chicanery (to circumvent the constitution and its processes) and thuggery (to bully Republicans) to avoid an honest debate and make Republicans look like the bad guys when honest analysis proves the opposite. It's congress' progressive political elites who are the bullies. Who appointed them the deciders of what's right or wrong? Who appointed them deciders of what parts of the constitution should be ignored or what legislation should even be debated?
How many Americans even understand the constitutional process that's being hijacked by progressives? The House or Senate passes a bill and sends it to the other body. That other body either passes it too, modifies it and sends it back to the originating body for signing or both sides make their own proposals that are debated in conference that produces a compromise which both sign. That's messy though. It takes time and effort. Oh, and one must defend one's position/proposals logically(!) in debate. When what one proposes is based on relativistic and theoretical arguments that completely ignore things like human nature and historical fact, common sense and logic go out the window. The proposal becomes indefensible in debate so debate must be avoided at all costs. After all, the end justifies the means (including throwing away the constitution).
Why isn't congress debating major issues/legislation? Because both sides, especially progressives, are becoming averse to honest debate or for that matter honesty in general. It's too hard to get your way when your way fails against common sense and/or true(!) facts.
Here's an article by Victor Davis Hanson that adds further analysis to this. As I said, one can find Republican attitudes and thinking that are similar in some ways but it's clearly more fundamental to the thinking of progressive political elites.
No comments:
Post a Comment