NRO's Kevin Williamson writes a provocative piece, "Obama: Incompetent or Evil?". I urge you to read it, but then be sure to read at least a sampling of some of the thoughtful responses it, well, responses it provokes.
As you probably guessed, it provoked me as well, but I'll limit myself here to just a few of those provocations. (Tired of the word "provoke" yet?)
First, it presents a false dilemma. Obama can be both incompetent and evil.
Second, I resent the implication that if one strongly disagrees with Barack Obama, then one necessarily thinks him evil.
Third, I resent even more the implication that to think him merely incompetent is somehow reasonable, while disagreeing with him passionately is a sure sign of certifiable derangement.
Fourth, I'm not sure if this was original with Bill Buckley, but I do know that I heard him repeat it at least once. He said that if one is not in principle a conservative, then one will inexorably drift, if not not march, toward liberalism. I agree with that and think that it suggests a corollary: If one cannot, or will not, see the evil, yes, evil, that invariably attends socialism, especially after a more than 100-year record of serial failures and atrocities, then one will, necessarily, accommodate it. Which means, just in case you got lost in that last sentence, accommodating evil.
Fifth (five's enough), even if it could be demonstrated that socialism, pure and simple, or any variant thereof, was the system of economics/government most consistent with the Platonic Ideal of economics/government, it would still be inconsistent with our founding principles. For that reason alone, it would merit our resistance. Or at least it would until such a time when our founding constitution were amended suitably to accommodate it.
Sixth,..wait! I said five was enough, didn't I?
No comments:
Post a Comment