The right has been mercilessly hammering home the evilness of this infamous Rahm Emanuel quote over the last few days, and with good reason. The essential meaning Emanuel, Barack Obama's former chief of staff and longtime Clinton iron-fist, was trying to convey, was that the masses are too stupid to understand the political system that's in their best interest. Therefore, it was up to leftist politicians to "capitalize", despite the irony of the term, on the emotional high only a crisis can provide--only a sustained media-hyped public event can provide--to shame principled opposition into permitting compromises on free-market, limited-government solutions.
Now to be sure, stifling debate by choosing an unassailable victim as your voice is a preferred trick of the left, and is deplorable for what it is. Whether it's the ideology they're trying to advance, or their own personal political gain, a politician who trots out a victim can quickly chill his principled opponent because even if his opponent has a better answer for how to help, ultimately, since nothing ill can be said of the victim, it appears cold and heartless for the adults in the room to even question the policies the victim seems to condone.
On the other hand, truth be told, conservatives shouldn't be begrudging the left this opportunistic phrase for what it is, it's rather the direction of their solutions that's the problem. In the wake of 9/11, for example, there WAS a proper response necessary. The right NEEDED to act, act quickly, and act decisively for the good of the country. And yes, it happened to benefit their ideology as well. But that's rather a corollary benefit, since what's good for conservative ideology is, by definition, constitutional. In other words, when this grand American experiment in republican government began, there was a proper role conceived for federal government, and conservatives today believe as an integral part of their ideology that acting within the role is proper, and anything beyond that role should be left to state or local governing bodies to decide. What the left really means when they talk about not letting a crisis go to waste, is to promote the EXPANSION of the federal government's role, the REMOVAL of individuals', localities', and states' authorities to decide for themselves what solutions fit their problems within their own sphere of influence.
Yeah, okay, that silly Tuscon sheriff has a right to an opinion, and even to be wrong about Limbaugh, and other right-wing talk-show hosts and how they may have "produced" a "climate" of distrust of government. His problem is that he's supposed to be running an investigation where facts lead to conclusions and not the other way around. But he is acting wisely to put an issue he feels strongly about in the public's face when he has the opportunity. The shooting tragedy of Congresswoman Giffords and the other victims DOES demand that something be done, and it IS time to brand while the brand is hot. But the solution is NOT speech codes, thought police, or any other kind of federal control of "hate speech". It's enforcement of current laws: Jared Loughner should not have passed his background check to purchase a gun legally. If other members of Congress should feel the need to ramp up their own security because of this incident, they should be free to do so, and maybe some general measures will make sense to security professionals and consultants. But on the whole, the direction of change the left is proposing diminishes the power of everyone but the federal government, which would abrogate new and unconstitutional rights to itself.
The right has other types of crisis it should not let go to waste. Obamacare is a detrimental policy, the right should strike it down now while public opinion against it is still high and it's not yet a fait accompli, for example. But when conservatives capitalize on such a crisis, it's in the direction of reducing federal power, promoting individual responsibility, and maintaining the freedom of this great land, by keeping its government's role within its constitutional limits.
Now to be sure, stifling debate by choosing an unassailable victim as your voice is a preferred trick of the left, and is deplorable for what it is. Whether it's the ideology they're trying to advance, or their own personal political gain, a politician who trots out a victim can quickly chill his principled opponent because even if his opponent has a better answer for how to help, ultimately, since nothing ill can be said of the victim, it appears cold and heartless for the adults in the room to even question the policies the victim seems to condone.
On the other hand, truth be told, conservatives shouldn't be begrudging the left this opportunistic phrase for what it is, it's rather the direction of their solutions that's the problem. In the wake of 9/11, for example, there WAS a proper response necessary. The right NEEDED to act, act quickly, and act decisively for the good of the country. And yes, it happened to benefit their ideology as well. But that's rather a corollary benefit, since what's good for conservative ideology is, by definition, constitutional. In other words, when this grand American experiment in republican government began, there was a proper role conceived for federal government, and conservatives today believe as an integral part of their ideology that acting within the role is proper, and anything beyond that role should be left to state or local governing bodies to decide. What the left really means when they talk about not letting a crisis go to waste, is to promote the EXPANSION of the federal government's role, the REMOVAL of individuals', localities', and states' authorities to decide for themselves what solutions fit their problems within their own sphere of influence.
Yeah, okay, that silly Tuscon sheriff has a right to an opinion, and even to be wrong about Limbaugh, and other right-wing talk-show hosts and how they may have "produced" a "climate" of distrust of government. His problem is that he's supposed to be running an investigation where facts lead to conclusions and not the other way around. But he is acting wisely to put an issue he feels strongly about in the public's face when he has the opportunity. The shooting tragedy of Congresswoman Giffords and the other victims DOES demand that something be done, and it IS time to brand while the brand is hot. But the solution is NOT speech codes, thought police, or any other kind of federal control of "hate speech". It's enforcement of current laws: Jared Loughner should not have passed his background check to purchase a gun legally. If other members of Congress should feel the need to ramp up their own security because of this incident, they should be free to do so, and maybe some general measures will make sense to security professionals and consultants. But on the whole, the direction of change the left is proposing diminishes the power of everyone but the federal government, which would abrogate new and unconstitutional rights to itself.
The right has other types of crisis it should not let go to waste. Obamacare is a detrimental policy, the right should strike it down now while public opinion against it is still high and it's not yet a fait accompli, for example. But when conservatives capitalize on such a crisis, it's in the direction of reducing federal power, promoting individual responsibility, and maintaining the freedom of this great land, by keeping its government's role within its constitutional limits.
Comments