Caring and Political Success

Conservatives (myself included) often deride the proclivity of liberals in general to proclaim that “they care.”  President Bill Clinton, for instance, famously said to the American public:  “I feel your pain.”

But expressions of empathy and caring are not policy.  Rather they are mush, those on the right retort. 

Ah, but they do win elections.

For conservatives, the recent election results were especially galling.  Exit polls showed that voters wanted to repeal Obamacare, opposed raising taxes to reduce the deficit, thought that Romney would better handle the economy and, by a 51%-43% margin, believed that government is “doing too much.”

It is small consolation that the GOP won the policy debate but lost the election.

The reason probably lies in the response to other exit poll questions:

                   *Who is more in touch with people like you?                                                             Answer - Obama 52%; Romney 43%

*One-fifth of all voters said the most important candidate quality is that the person “cares about people”.  Those with that view split 4-1 for Obama!

Of course, one could observe that such reasons are silly.  The President is meant to be the leader of our country.  Whether he is empathetic or caring shouldn’t matter.  What he does, or will do, should.

Obviously, conservatives, like liberals, can also be guilty of ignoring human nature.

People do want others – leaders included – to care about them.  And we do prefer those over others who seemingly do not.  That is human nature. 

As a practicing trial attorney, I sometimes notice lawyers in court whose competence is questionable but who, by their manner, obviously care for their clients.  I’m sure that client will likely be pleased with his attorney even if I know that a better advocate might have obtained a superior outcome.  The client is usually unable to judge competence, but he can spot empathy.

Likewise, how many voters prefer a positive emotional connection with a  candidate running against an unappealing candidate whose views actually coincide with theirs?  Most.

Think of Ronald Reagan whose staunchly conservative positions were decidedly on the right of the mainstream.  He was elected president two times -- the second time by a landslide. 

Emotion trumps intellect almost every time.  Or, to put the truism another way, people are inclined to vote with their hearts, not with their heads.

We conservatives must heed these lessons if we are to secure the Presidency in 2016.  George W. Bush evidently was on to something when he campaigned as a “compassionate” conservative in 2000.

Is It OK to Use Drone Strikes on Our Enemies Overseas Even if They Are American Citizens?

I don’t see why not.

Al-qaeda and other radical Muslims are sworn enemies of the U.S. who do much more than voice a point of view.  In the 1990s, the war against the U.S. came to pass with attacks on our military ships in Yemen and several embassies in Africa. 

Should an enemy be treated less harshly if he was born in the U.S.?  On the contrary, he deserves less consideration, because he’s a traitor.

That’s not how some observers see it, though. 

MSNBC’s Ed Schultz, an unabashed leftist, chides the Obama Administration as does Fox News’ Sean Hannity, interestingly, for seemingly vague standards when choosing drone targets, especially concerning Americans.

Separating citizen – from non-citizen – enemies when setting justification standards for drone attacks is a meaningless distinction – as if citizenship affects the enemy’s lethality.

If the enemy were here, he would most likely* be entitled to different treatment since the U.S. Constitution applies within – not without -- U.S. borders.  But such rights apply irrespective of the subject’s citizenship.  An alien has as much right to a jury trial in a felony case, for instance, as does a native-born American.

Not surprisingly, most of those on the left have been mum about President Obama’s drone policy. He can do no wrong, right? 

Of course, they’re hypocrites.  Liberals were vocally antagonistic when President Bush supported overseas rendition and “enhanced” interrogations.  And the aforementioned Ed Schultz was among them.  So at least he deserves credit for his consistency in opposing national security measures.  As for Sean Hannity, one suspects that his motive is to poke silent liberals in the eye rather than pose serious policy objections. 

It’s hard not to sympathize with the point from an emotional perspective.  But it is not one a sensible conservative can endorse.

*Note:  There is an interesting question as to what constitutional rights, if any, a member of an enemy force has if detained on U.S. territory.  During World War II, German military saboteurs were captured on the East Coast, tried before a military tribunal and sentenced to death. 

Liberals Care… So What?

It’s fair to say that most liberals take pride in knowing that their policies supporting the expansion of government show that they care about people, unlike callous conservatives.

Yet most also fail to acknowledge – or understand -- that such displays of “caring” often don’t help – in fact hurt – the objects of their attention.

Consider the State of Hawaii.  Its government promotes welfare policies that put it alongside California and Massachusetts as places which loudly proclaim they “care” for less fortunate inhabitants.

In fact, for a state with remarkably low employment (5.3% vs 7.8% nationally), a surprisingly high percentage of its population is on food stamps (11% vs 13% nationally) and has more than double the U.S. homeless rate. 

What’s going on?  Is it possible that the very generous welfare policies are encouraging many to become dependent on government aid?  Is that the result of liberals’ “caring”?  A cynic might suggest that that is the plan – expanding the populace’s dependence upon governmental aid adds to the liberals’ base of support. 

But for me, that seems too neat an answer. 

From my own experience with liberals, their motivations are generally good.  The calculating and Machiavellian among them are few.  Simply put, perceiving that one is doing good by offering money or benefits to those in need shows that one cares.  And that makes liberals feel good.  [It may be a factor that the self-righteousness comes not from one’s pocket but from the taxpaying benefactors.  The cost of feeling good, therefore, can be free.]

But what if, as statistics from Hawaii and elsewhere strongly suggest, such liberal policies are counterproductive in promoting self-sufficiency and self- respect (certainly good outcomes).

The typical response is denial.  It’s as if wanting to do good should be sufficient.  So the well intentioned liberal tells himself that since he is good, wants to do good, he can only do good.

Recently, liberal Democratic Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa of Hawaii appeared on Bill O’Reilly’s popular Fox News show and was confronted on the apparent anomaly of the state’s prosperity and its high welfare rolls.  Her response – “it shows we care.”

Like good intentions, “caring” can pave the way to hell.

Does It Make Sense for Women to Serve in Combat Units?

It depends. 

Without question, female pilots have proven to be proficient in combat zones.  So if the question is restricted to the aerial arena, the answer can be unqualified.

But what about as ground combat soldiers?  Doubtful indeed.

Of course, there are obvious general differences between the sexes.  Physically, men are usually bigger and stronger.  However, some women are bigger and stronger than some men.  Still physical differences aren’t the main problem with the idea. 

What do you think is going to happen when 18 year old men are serving as combat infantry men alongside equally young females?  With testosterone and estrogen flowing vigorously through their veins, the consequences are obvious. 

For a unit to fight effectively, cohesion is essential.  Isn’t it likely that sexual liaisons, both completed and resisted, will detract from that objective?

It is a pleasant sentiment to say such co-ed arrangements should be implemented because they’re fair.  But fair to what or whom?  In war, the primary goal is to win, not to be fair.  Is it fair that oil and water don’t readily combine?  Is it fair that a man’s sex drive, particularly young males, will cause him to lose focus on his unit’s objective if temptations are close at hand? 

That’s like saying that it’s not fair that men and women are different or that human nature is what it is.

Liberals surely wish that such facts were not so.  As if ignoring them makes them disappear.  The history of sexual misconduct at our co-ed military academies provides a window of what awaits our “sexually integrated” front line units.

Females were admitted into our national military academies in the mid 1970s.  Concurrently, strict policies were implemented to bar improper fraternization between the sexes. 

At the time, there was good reason to believe that such proscriptions would be followed.  After all, students at our academies are, almost by definition, highly motivated since they have volunteered for a rigorous and demanding course of study leading to military leadership and the very real possibility of dying for their country.  Discipline should be a given.

Things haven’t exactly worked out as hoped.  Simply put, sexual  misconduct is commonplace at each academy.  Google the subject and read it for yourself.  If these highly select young men and women can’t control their sexual urges, how likely is it that high school graduate recruits in the U.S. army, for instance, will be able to do so?