Political Musings for Today

I was going to make a separate post for each of these, but I'll just cover both now.

First of all, Ace comments on an interesting liberal tendency in this post:

The liberal MSM announces categorical rules to explain their decisions when they go against conservatives (as they usually do), and then they quickly forget about such categorical rules when it comes to liberals.

An obvious example is the eight year jihad against "questioning patriotism," at least when a conservative seems to question a liberal's patriotism. When that happens, there's a categorical rule against it, and there is therefore hardly any point in investigating whether the suggestion of unpatriotic conduct has any merit.

When a liberal questions a conservative's patriotism, of course, the rule is much more nuanced, and we can freely inquire into whether, for example, it's "unpatriotic" for Rush Limbaugh to hope that Obama fails.

Another obvious one? Bipartisanship. Bipartisanship is always, categorically, the highest ideal we can aspire to in politics; except, that is, when Democrats control the levers of power, and then suddenly it's a far more nuanced proposition. To the extent it's considered at all.

They employ this deceit in order to claim they're not making political judgments at all; when they refuse an ad or condemn a Republican for "questioning patriotism," they must do so; there is no decision-making involved at all, as the rule is categorical.

These are good observations, and the part about bipartisanship got me thinking once again about the problem of liberals seeing their opinions as truisms.

I've noticed over the last couple years that "bipartisanship" often means "doing whatever liberals want." When they're in the minority, they claim that any attempts to enforce conservative ideals are "divisive," and that we have to strive for "unity," etc. by considering liberal ideals as well. Then, when they gain power, like right now, they change the narrative. All of a sudden, we're supposed to "put politics aside" and go with the flow in the interests of the country.

Again, this goes back to the problem of opinions vs. facts. In the liberal mind, conservatives know what's right and are simply slowing down the process of improving the country because they hate poor people or black people or women or something. Therefore, "bipartisanship" really means "putting aside your ignorance and doing what we all know is the right thing."

Maybe I'm wrong, but considering what we've heard from the Obamabots so far, I kind of doubt it.

Speaking of Obama, I'm still baffled by his ability to get people so excited. It's like when he talks, his supporters are hearing something completely different from what the rest of us hear, which leads to the two sides talking right past each other when discussing his ideas.

While I was watching my Monty Python DVDs, as mentioned in the last post, one sketch in particular reminded me of this dilemma: The Man Who Makes People Laugh Uncontrollably.

If you haven't seen the sketch, it features a man, played by Terry Jones, who makes people burst into hysterical laughter every time he talks. The problem is that he's not actually saying anything funny. However, people are so affected by it that they can't help themselves, even if laughter is completely inappropriate for the situation.

Do you see the parallels here? In the sketch, the guy can say something as innocuous as "good morning" and leave an entire elevator full of people gasping for breath on the floor. In Obama's case, he can make an entire crowd practically bow down and worship him by spouting inane bullshit about hope and change.

In both scenarios, an outside observer can't possibly figure out what people are reacting to, because they're on different wavelengths. The audience of the Monty Python sketch interprets the man's words as everyday banter, while those of us who aren't on the Obama bandwagon are left struggling to find substance in his speeches while others declare him to be the next (insert great political/religious leader here).

I probably could've written this entire post better, but I had to get these thoughts out into the open. Comment if you have something to add.