The Jade Monkey

I didn't have a superiority complex until inferior people gave me one.

Name:
Location: San Antonio, Texas, United States

5.15.2005

On the Abuse of the Filibuster (continued)

Or, On the Democrats' Stunning Hypocrisy, no. 3,489,107

It struck me the other day, while I was doing something or other that I can't remember now, and which in any event was probably too boring to be recorded for posterity, how the fight over President Bush's judicial nominations provides yet another example of the Democrats' ubiquitous two-facedness.

And that is, to be brief, as I have in the intervening days between thinking and penning lost the train of rhetorical brilliance that would have been evident had not Time Warner been in cohoots with the Democrats to squash my free speech, the Democrats' insistence that they are championing minority rights in their bastardization of the once-sometimes-proud Senate tradition/invention known as the filibuster.

We will say nothing of the preposterouness of that proposition in light of the fact that the Democrats' "compromises" to-date have been to allow White Anglo Saxon Protestant males to pass their mighty constitutional gatekeepers, while barring entry to two women (one of them African American) and a Catholic male. We will not mention the Minority Leader's laughable assertions that said African American female harbors in the apparently not-so-secret deepest darkest (indeed, blackest, if Al Sharpton or Omarosa don't object) part of her heart nothing less than a return to Antebellum Amerikkka. We will abstain from questioning his party's intentions in these regards, or from hurling labels like "racist" or "sexist" as it itself is fond of doing to any that dare oppose it's enlightened policies. No, we will not make the argument that has oft been made, and appears sadly to be more accurate every day, that the Democrats' true (or at least ancillary, but no less true) motivation in blocking these nominees is to keep African Americans on the Democrat plantation and women barefoot in their kitchen and Catholics at their altar.

Instead, we would like to examine this so-called protection of minority rights as it pertains to the judicial philosophy which they would prefer. And that is, namely, the belief that troglodytic America needs to get with the times because the proverbial "rest of the world" has passed us by. We'll leave aside the question of whether or not this has any basis in fact (i.e., whether America is truly so anachronistic as they would claim, which I do not think would be borne out) in favor of asking if we really care to be in such a damn hurry on the Road to Nowhere. Indeed, the party that now denounces tyranny of the majority in favor of it's own special brand of tyranny of the minority is the selfsame entity that haughtily proclaims that our own backward constitution must take a backseat to forward-thinking for'ners in a well-reasoned jurist's ruling, basically because it is in the minority of world opinion (or, again, at least a minority opinion of the salons in Paris et al, as that is the only opinion that really matters). The minority here must triumph over the majority because it is in the hypothetical minority elsewhere. Or something like that.

I've often said that the liberal's logic is so twisted Houdini couldn't begin to find his way out, and thus the fruitlessness of trying to argue against it. At any rate, it seems to me symptomatic of the moral confusuion that plagues the Left on a plethora of other issues, most notably abortion and capital punishment, and their attempts to ignore their own hypocrisy by claiming opposition to abortion and support of the death penalty to be hypocritcal. I myself am pretty neutral on the death penalty - supportive of it in principle, but not always in practice and only in extreme cases, just as I oppose abortion on principle, but recognize that in the rarest of cases it may be regrettably necessary - but to claim that the defense of innocent life and the condemnation of guilty life is somehow asynchronous is head-scratchingly bizarre. I agree with the new Pope that good people can disagree on a wide range of issues - the death penalty, the best way to deal with the environment, poverty, and crime, and even war, but there can be no disagreement between good people on certain issues. The Left's new tactic (in addition to the old standby of attacking the strawmen that the Right would outlaw all abortions even at the expense of the mother's life, that they want dirty air and water, that they sacrifice the poor to their corporate master Halliburton, etc) is to try to cast these as moral issues - and they are - and more important - and they're not, at least on the most fundamental philosophical level - than the social issues they the Right likes to "divide" the country on. The solutions to these other issues cannot be had or long last if the foundation is unstable; they're trying to treat the symptoms, but advance the disease (as it is symbiotic with their attempts at power). The Left tries to put the cart before the horse in this case, to claim absoluteness on issues that can only benefit from debate, and relativism on the issues that go to the very core of civilization and its defense, and which can only be confused by "debate".

To come full circle, this confusion hits into a double play on the field of reason, both in regards to judicial imposition of their politics (their only recourse since they repeatedly fail to do so at the ballot box), and imposition of their politics on the judicial nomination process. Liberalism, as always, proves itself to be logically inconsistant and philosophically untenable.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home