Impugning the Other Side’s Motives Has Got to Stop

 

Seemingly long ago, differences of opinion on political matters were attributed by one side believing that those on the other side were misguided, misinformed, ignorant or even motivated by self-interest.  Sure, silly partisan charges were leveled as in “If you oppose Federal spending on education, you are against education” or, if you promoted some governmental-funded health care for the poor, you favored socialized medicine.  Demagoguery was certainly abundant as well.  Yet venom was not common.

My belief that Democrats “back then” were more likely to offend than be offended against may or may not be attributable to my own bias.  But these days, it’s hard to dispute that the vitriol gets tossed back and forth pretty equally.  And now, increasingly, each side sees dark conspiratorial motives at work.

On the right, Fox News’ primetime hosts highlight the massive influx of outsiders crossing our southern borders as being desired by the Biden Administration.  The lax enforcement (border wall not completed, etc.) is seen as more than a policy favoring open borders.  Rather, the real reasons are nefarious.  The Democrats want more immigrants, to bolster their electoral support, so they can tighten their control over [whom they perceive will vote left] America.

Democrats are hardly so farseeing.  First, the right to vote still requires (an annoying detail, admittedly, to some) citizenship which means steps will still take many years to climb.  Secondly, statistics show that if Democrats expect second generations to move in electoral lock-step, they are likely to be sorely disappointed.

Maybe many on the left don’t see the importance of secure borders because they don’t much care for their country.  What’s worth preserving?

Some on the right feel the need to impugn the motives of those on the left who favor loose immigration policies.  Why the urge to find “hidden” explanations?

On the left, CNN and MSNBC felt compelled to attribute criticism of the violent rioting following George Floyd’s death to a yearning for racist and authoritarian policies.  But does a desire for simple law and order and the resolution of disputes in a peaceful manner mean fascism is the goal?

There are plenty of obvious reasons to differ with the other side.  Can’t these merely be taken at face value?

It’s an outdated cliché, I know, for many, but a civil society needs to live by it:  “agree to disagree”.  Don’t impugn the other side’s motivation.

Why Do People Still Support Trump?

 

That is a question which simply befuddles the Left – and that is part of the answer.  If they hate him, so what?  It’s one reason, for those on the right, to continue backing him (i.e. what you oppose, I support!).

Yet the main reason is deeper seated.  Trump, carries the gauntlet that for the millions who believe they’ve been demeaned, dismissed and disregarded.  Although polls suggest that his support from the GOP base has begun to wane somewhat, recent primary results show that his opinion on candidates still matters greatly to many.

That is not to say that his substantial character defects and often crude and nasty comments about those who cross him are irrelevant to most (although certainly to some).  But they pale when contrasted with the generally hostile and overwrought treatment he receives from the non-Fox media.  The mainstream press, with leftist opinions often masquerading as “news”, has been the nemesis of conservatives long before Trump arrived on the national scene.  But the intensity of anger directed at the ex-president makes him particularly attractive on the Right.  (“The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”  He is fighting my fight.)

It is pointless for Trump critics to cite his failure, for instance, to concede that he lost on 2020.  Yes, he lost.  But he doesn’t agree.

Don’t people often believe what they want to believe even though objective facts are contrary?  Think of Trump’s personality:  He seems incapable of admitting failure.  But the CNNs of the world are blind to the high probability that his denial of election defeat is sincere so they proclaim he is perpetuating a “Big Lie” when he insists he was victorious.  But, of course, CNN, in particular, will insist in good faith that its political coverage of Trump and other political subjects is not clouded by liberal bias.  Their denials are also untrue but unlikely to be lies.  They believe what they want to believe.  Confronting reality is an unpleasantness to be avoided.  That is why intellectual honesty is unusual.

Human nature usually rules for everyone, including Trump supporters.  As time goes by, they, too, will lessen their allegiance to Donald Trump.  Their object is getting older.  So are they.  In the meantime, they will disregard attacks as unbelievable because such are perceived to be malicious.

Even if the sources are not the liberal media or the Democratic Party, its alter ego.

 

Wokism in America Thrives

 

Have you heard the latest lunacy from the National Education Association (the largest national teachers’ union)?  It is proof that woke thinking still thrives.

The term “mother” is deemed to outdated: “birthing parent” is to be the preferred term affixed to a parent who gives birth to a child.

Huh?  Last I heard, wombs are found only in females.  Thus, giving birth is exclusively the activity of one sex.  “Mother” is descriptive of a particular type of parent which does not include the other sex.

The woke left (have their terms become interchangeable?) is obsessed with deleting labels or names which they deem offensive (to someone).  Thus, the successful campaign, for instance, to force the Washington football team to find a substitute for ‘Redskins” even though native American Indians were hardly on the warpath because they found the nickname offensive.

But the teachers’ union has gone even more nuts.  It wants to remove “mother” from the politically correct vocabulary even there is no purported victim!

[I will concede that someday, science may be able to give males the capability to give birth to another human being.  The nature of motherhood can be revisited at that time.]

By the way, for the more conventional wokers among us who insist upon the presence of victimhood before names can be changed, I suggest the following candidates from a list of baseball teams:

          Arizona Diamondbacks – what about people who are frightened by snakes?

          Los Angeles Dodgers – does that mean that people who don’t use crosswalks while “dodging” through traffic are to be commended?  What about the risks posed to the law-abiding drivers?

          Milwaukee Brewers – does it promote excessive consumption of beer and hence alcoholism?  Think of all the harm caused by that addiction.

          San Diego Padres – Spanish missionaries in California often demeaned the local populace.  Why honor them?

          San Francisco Giants – are little people less important?

          Pittsburg Pirates – why herald lawbreakers?  Law and order advocates are offended.

 

Wokers: you now have new targets to feed your need for                                            self-righteousness.  Get to work!

Should Politics Have Played a role in the Treatment of Roe v. Wade?

 

Most Constitutional scholars would not hesitate.  There is broad agreement that the abortion rights case of 1973 was wrongly decided.  That the Court made a political decision instead of pursuing sound legal analysis

Thus, in reversing the ’73 ruling, the current Court, in a 5-4 vote, corrected a 49 year old error.  The tally was not 6-3 because Chief Justice John Roberts thought that the case before it did not require such dramatic action.  And from a legal perspective, he was right.  The Court, given the views of the majority, need only have upheld the Mississippi law which banned abortions for a baby in the womb, in most circumstances, 15 weeks after conception.  But there was an unstated political reason for Roberts.  Don’t add to divisiveness in the country if such is not necessary.

The Sensible Conservative sides with the Chief Justice.  The Court is an institution which needs to maintain the respect of the broad public.  It is an integral part of our government and the crown on our judicial system.  That is a political objective and proper concern.  Plainly, and understandably,  millions of Americans are distressed by what they viewed as the revocation of an American right.  Of course, in many states – such as New York, California and Illinois – it remains one.  Yet Roe v. Wade was a symbol of good policy to its supporters (while of course that it was the product of judicial overreach doesn’t matter).  Their numbers can’t be ignored.

Conservatives should pursue policy changes, if involving matters of widespread concern and division, in a gradual, evolutionary matter.  That is much easier for those on the other side to absorb and rationalize.  Such an approach to change does not mean that the objective is abandoned, merely that the change occurring comes in a more palatable fashion and is thus less likely to fuel a heated opposition.  Don’t we have far too much of that already?

It would have been preferable for the nation’s sake if Roe v. Wade remained, but as a shell without substance.  That might have required legal sophistry.  But it would have contributed to a desirable political and national lessening of friction on the issue.  Despite what might be taught in law school, that would be a worthy result.

 

Note on slogans:

Realizing that “pro-choice” sentiment didn’t prevail, abortion supporters now promote the need to protect “reproductive health”, without noting the result for the unborn baby.