Let's take a look at the sayings on the buttons. The Nation provides this characterization: "These 6 buttons... elegantly portray both sides of the political debate, with a refreshing dose of honesty." Um, yeah. Elegant? No, they are base, vulgar, and anti-intellectual. Both sides? No, as is typical of the Left, they are either unable or unwilling to understand the positions of their ideological opponents, preferring instead to create caricatures and strawmen. Honesty? Again, no. Stereotyping people and misrepresenting their views has nothing at all to do with honesty. It's rhetorical vandalism.
So, let's address these glib, vacuous statements. I do want to add a caveat, however. I'm not specifically defending Republicans. My main thrust is to point out these vapid representations of what they think people believe.
Hate government? Let big business run your life. Vote Republican. For all the noise the Left makes about being nuanced in their positions while their ideological opponents see everything in black and white, there sure is a lot of black and white here. But you know, it isn't even really about the binary choice they present (as if there were no other possibilities), it's the triple whammy of a three-for-one strawman. a) Republicans don't hate government, they want limited government. b) Republicans do not advocate big business running your life. c) The choice is not between big government and big business, it is between oppressive, coercive government and liberty.
Reward selfishness. Vote Republican. The Left loves to tell us how we can't legislate morality, but then they turn around and demonize greed and selfishness. So how do they intend to eliminate greed? What laws are going to do that? If we vote for their candidates, will selfishness be magically eliminated? And you'll note that somehow only Republicans are selfish. Apparently, it isn't selfish to pass judgment on how much money a person should be allowed to have, and then take "undeserved" money from people via the power of coercive government. But it is selfish to earn money, and want to keep it.
We're all in this together. Why don't the Republicans get it? This is typical leftist rhetoric, where a *so clever* bumper-sticker slogan is imputed with an intellectual weight that isn't really there. A thinking perso would read the button and immediately ask, "We are all in what together?" "What is 'this?'" "Who is 'we?'" "What don't the Republicans 'get?'"
Let's start with "we." "We" means the people who get it, who are smart, who care. "We" are the in crowd, in contrast to those who don't get it. Republicans. Them. But we understand that we share a mutual something. What that something is, we don't know. But we do know that it isn't about "me." That's selfish, you see. Like Republicans are.
So what we have here is an artificial communalism presented as a template for "getting it." But there is no amorphous "we." There is no such thing as a communal identity. It's a myth, just as "women's issues" and "world opinion" are myths. This attitude manifests from marxist ideology which insists on grouping people into classes that are struggling against the power structure.
So that makes the statement that "we are all in this together" into sort of a universal, common, shared understanding we all supposedly agree on. Which means if you don't agree, you are not part of "we." Therefore, you (Republicans) are working against the greater good of what "we" want. You don't get it, so you are stupid. It's self evident what this greater good is, so "we" can meaningfully ask why they don't "get it." Every sensible person should be able to "get it."
Rage is not a political position. Another typical leftist rhetorical technique. First, mischaracterize your ideological opponent's motivation. In this case, disagreeing with a Leftist is "rage," which is something, of course, they could not know. Second, create a false correlation. Here, rage is connected to a political position, as if someone somewhere has asserted such. Third, imply that the "rage" comes only from one side, which means that their ideological opponents are all irrational and are clouded by blinding emotion. However, they themselves are rational, thoughtful, and right thinking. So once you are characterized as driven by animal instincts, you can be summarily dismissed without so much as a rejoinder to the argument you presented.
Tax cuts for the rich is wasteful spending. This statement is premised on the idea that failing to tax "the rich" at a sufficient level (the amount of taxation deemed adequate and proper is never stated) denies the Federal Treasury of funds. In other words, allowing the rich to keep too much of their money is the same thing as profligate government spending! The only way one can arrive at such a conclusion is if one assumes that government is entitled to your money. Therefore, it is government's money. Government allows you to have a portion of your money if you are deemed eligible, but any money it gives to you is money that could have been spent more wisely had it been left in the government's coffers.
Such a concept ought to offend every thinking person.
God loves the rich. Vote Republican. Another glib, vacuous statement. This is so over-the-top idiotic, I don't even know where to start.
You know, I'm just going to leave it there. Such monumental stupidity is not worth my time to refute.
No comments:
Post a Comment