Monday Night Politics

 I've tried to wrap my brain around how people can easily abandon assumed firmly-held beliefs. For example, the host of national cable show recently tweeted how horrible it was that the political party she despises is holding up a bill she supports and is blocking debate on another issue.

The problem I have is that the holdup is with the party she supports and the rules on debate for the other issue were also put in place by her party of choice. When this is noted, neither she nor the trillion people who liked and retweeted it cared. They just changed gears. They went from being morally outraged to not giving a tinker's dam.

A friend of mine posted a story on his Facebook page a few years ago in regard to a current event. His sister called the story a lie. She said it was a smear job and that nobody could possibly believe the facts presented were true.

Then the video was posted.

Of course, she claimed it was edited and doctored.

Finally, the fully, unedited video was posted.

Suddenly, she changed from "you're all liars! nobody would support such a thing!" to "of course they're doing that! it's a good thing!"

Now, why do some people abandon supposed principle at the drop of a hat? Let me suggest (from years of dealing with these sorts of things) two explanations.

First, I would suggest that some people just want their team to win. When the team wins, they win. If my party wins, I win. The reality is that elections do decide who is right on any given issue or set of issues. Primarily, elections are decided by how people feel about different issues or the candidates (despite their positions on the issues). But in the end, we interpret a win for our side.

My other conclusion has a more sinister side. I believe some people use their political positions in hope of justifying life choices or "getting back" at someone or something. That is, they want to use the force of government to "get" people for them. That can take us in a lot of directions, so I want to pivot back to the idea in regard to justifying life choices (or circumstance).

Before I put meat on those bones, I still contend there are two explanations for the lack of true principles. The desire for government to "get" someone on your behalf is often an outgrowth of life decisions. 

In regard to the life decisions themselves, some people need society to sanction their life choices. Whether they failed to work hard in school or decided to live an immoral life or they just need an excuse for why their life isn't as good (however defined) as others, they adopt outwardly virtuous positions against imagined foes.

They oppose imagined boogeymen in the name of virtue. They post signs in their yards declaring their virtue. They make grandiose statements. They create strawmen. They dishonestly represent those who may oppose their positions; opening their minds to believe whatever lie reaffirms their worldview.

Hitler was able to get everyday Germans to believe that much of their suffering was due to Jews. It was an easy out. It wasn't public policy. It wasn't personal failure. It was the Jews. We have not reached that point, but there are groups today about which you can openly mock, deride, and blame for all your woes. 

Women now receive a strong majority of college degrees in this country, yet men are still cast a barrier to the achievement of women. Failure of public policy is ignored as politicians, with no objective criteria, blame unspecific things like "racism" and "sexism" and Islamophobia" and "homophobia." 

In education in particular, there are tremendous advantages for all the groups supposedly "oppressed." We see on social media and across the culture "white guy" being used as a pejorative. Attacks on "white guys" ("white" remaining undefined) often rewarded.

And I cannot close without noting the final irony in the charge of "Islamophobia" from people who had create a fictional TV show about Christians who forced women to wear something on their heads, etc. These people don't really care about women's rights, they care about "getting" someone or felling good that they say they care about women's rights.

As a conservative, Bible-believing, Christian who has two daughter in advanced STEM programs at major universities. the caricatured charges wantonly thrown out at "white guys" that we are Neanderthal whose only goal is suppression of women, is not only false and insulting, it is dangerous.

I'm not sure where I stand on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett just yet. I've heard things that don't thrill me. My principles are my principles. But the idea that her conservative, religious upbringing is the kind of thing that hinders women? That's insane! What do they think? "If only she were allowed to pursue her goals, imagine what she could have done in the legal world!" It's an indefensible argument (and stupid) on its face.

Meanwhile, if anyone dared question a devout Muslim on her beliefs... well, we all know how that would end: yard signs and a lot of renting of garments for public consumption.