Loading ...« CNN lends support to illogical Chickenhawk premise | Home | Republicans and Diversity »
CNN interview: Blumenthal makes my job easier…
By sage of monticello | July 30, 2007
In regards to Blumentha’s chicken hawk argument, I pointed out that his argument functioned on the premise that one cannot politically support a public policy which one does not directly participate and claimed that what makes an argument as to whether a public policy is bad is not whether or not those who support it directly participate.
Furthermore, and sensing the hypocrisy of Blumenthal’s claim, I stated that it was intellectually dishonest for Democrats and liberals to utilize the chicken hawk premise for achieving the political goal of eroding political support for Iraq, but not apply the same premise to public policies generally supported by liberals, such as food stamps and other social welfare programs; and when the chicken hawk premise is applied it undermines the political support needed to sustain such programs - as those who don’t participate in social welfare programs, as many Americans don’t, can no longer support them.
It was easy to do then, but Blumenthal made it even easier last night on CNN when he said:
It’s possible to absolutely support a war, but at this point, with the military worn thin, I think at this point it is hypocritical, since this country probably needs them to serve.
This is certainly an added twist. Before one couldn’t support a policy unless one directly participated in it, regardless of the national resources (other than political) needed to support the policy. So now, people can’t support policies if they are not direct participants and if the resources needed to support them are “worn thin”.
Like my last post, let’s apply this premise to social welfare policy.
You should quickly see, that if Democrats held themselves to the same standard as they hold war-supporting College Republicans they would have to acknowledge that they could no longer support Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, or SCHIP because they are not direct participants (many of them) and because the resources necessary to support these programs are “worn thin” - as all of the programs mentioned above will become insolvent in the next decade or two.
Democrats would have to do this or risk admitting their thinking is illogical and intellectually dishonest.
In the realm of logic why should conservative proposals be treated differently, and as the case is here, less fairly, then their liberal counterparts?
Topics: CNN, Iraq, political dialogue, welfare |
