We Are Cursed Because We Think
One of the great things about the American Thinker website is that (most) readers are able to think!
But with that ability comes a curse. The curse is the propensity of AT
readers to examine all facets of a proposal or issue, to consider
ultimate results, to recognize unintended consequences, to evaluate its
merits, and to pronounce a bad idea as bad regardless of how it makes us
feel.
This
ability to think complicates our lives, which would be much less
complicated if we conservatives could do what liberals always do: feel
rather than think.
Below are some examples of what I mean. I'm certain that AT readers can think of others.
Let's begin with J.R. Dunn's article of 6 Nov. 14. Dunn thinks about the ultimate result of Barack Obama's "Open Doors" immigration policy.
Dunn first explained from where Obama's immigration plan came:
LBJ,
fifty years ago, started the "War on Poverty" so that liberals could
feel good by ending poverty (and buy votes). Twenty trillion dollars
later, the poverty level remains largely unchanged. But the votes stayed bought.
and the War on Poverty sound good, and they let liberals feel good.
But the price – a wrecked economy and a large portion of society lost –
is high for feeling good. And liberals want to continue the feeling.
"Despite five decades of the War on Poverty and $20 trillion spent, with
no sign of victory in sight, Obama said the 'war' must be stepped up."
Today's
welfare state, and its antecedent, the "War on Poverty," certainly have
and had unintended consequences. Thinking fifty years ago could have
recognized them, but thinking didn't feel good then. And thinking
doesn't feel good today.
Minimum wage: Derrick Wilburn, in a 21 Jun. AT article,
provided some useful information. Unfortunately, reading the article
and analysis of the facts he presented would require thinking –
something liberals will not do. So let's look to another article, one that requires no thinking. That should appeal to liberals.
article is that it doesn't foster good feelings, so liberals simply
ignore it. Ignoring facts allows liberals to keep on feeling good by
ignoring actual outcomes.
Even Obama confuses (on purpose?) the minimum wage issue in his 2014 State of the Union address. Perhaps Obama should consider what Economist Dr. Walter E. Williams wrote:
"Mandated wages are one of the most effective means of pricing one's
competition out of the market, ...[.]" But that will never happen
because "consideration" requires thought and interferes with feeling.
ObamaCare:
Sure, it sounded good, and liberals felt good about providing health
care for everyone. But (and there's always a “but” when Obama is
involved) someone must pay. The latest reality check
suggests that all is not going to liberals' plan. More people
receiving health care = more cost = higher premiums. I'll bet even
Nancy Pelosi could have thought of that had she taken the time to read
the ObamaCare bill before voting for it. But no, she was too busy
feeling good.
And
let's not forget our national defense. People who wish to do us and
this country harm often place themselves and their weapons in schools,
hospitals, and residential areas because they know that liberals will cry out
if our military kills or injures non-combatants while attacking them.
Hamas, with close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, a group favored by Obama, admits that it places its weapons in schools and hospitals. In (what I assume to be) an effort to feel good, Obama said he has no sympathy
for Hamas. Was his condemnation not sincere, meant only for public
consumption, knowing the MSM would spread his feel good sentiments
worldwide?
It's
unfortunate that party politics has to enter into this discussion, but
ultimately it does. The vast majority of MSM journalists are liberal
and vote Democrat. They present their "facts" from a liberal
perspective that favors Democrats, ignoring and omitting information
that does not further both groups' agendas. They feel rather than
think. We (mostly Republican) conservatives must therefore dig out
information that is what the late, great Paul Harvey referred to as "the
rest of the story" so we can think about the entire situation or
proposal.
I
know some conservative Democrats, but they can never explain why they
associate themselves with that party. The Republican Party comprises
mostly of conservatives, but there are a few RINOs out there. So the
"problem" goes beyond party politics. It is a conservative-liberal
phenomenon. For liberals, and therefore for most Democrats, feeling
trumps thinking. And we thinking conservatives are cursed.
Bottom line: liberals feel, then stop there. They never think – never have, never will.
Dr.
Warren Beatty (not the liberal actor) earned a Ph.D. in quantitative
management and statistics from Florida State University. He was a (very
conservative) professor of quantitative management specializing in
using statistics to assist/support decision-making. He has been a
consultant to many small businesses and is now retired. Dr. Beatty is a
veteran who served in the U.S. Army for 22 years. He blogs at
rwno.limewebs.com.
But with that ability comes a curse. The curse is the propensity of AT
readers to examine all facets of a proposal or issue, to consider
ultimate results, to recognize unintended consequences, to evaluate its
merits, and to pronounce a bad idea as bad regardless of how it makes us
feel.
This
ability to think complicates our lives, which would be much less
complicated if we conservatives could do what liberals always do: feel
rather than think.
Below are some examples of what I mean. I'm certain that AT readers can think of others.
Let's begin with J.R. Dunn's article of 6 Nov. 14. Dunn thinks about the ultimate result of Barack Obama's "Open Doors" immigration policy.
Dunn first explained from where Obama's immigration plan came:
HisDunn then explained why Obama's policy had/has unintended consequences:
“plan” was simply to carry on what the American left had been doing
since FDR: encourage creeping socialization by taking advantage of the
moral weakness of the American populace.
AsDunn closed his article with a summation of Obama policy:
a result of asinine policy borne of multiculturalism and his obsession
with third-world immigration, the doors were left open and deadly
disease -- always overlooked by sophisticated urbanites, familiar with
only the mild "childhood" diseases -- came roaring in: the result has
been the importation of potential epidemic disease into the U.S.: Ebola,
enteroviruses, and others.
ButThat is a great example of thinking. Obama's immigration policy, as Dunn pointed out, had/has some unintended consequences, but the policy sure felt good.
it acts as a pure metaphor for the Age of Obama: failure, incompetence,
willful negligence, dishonesty, the collapse of the elites, and utter
indifference toward the public welfare.
LBJ,
fifty years ago, started the "War on Poverty" so that liberals could
feel good by ending poverty (and buy votes). Twenty trillion dollars
later, the poverty level remains largely unchanged. But the votes stayed bought.
...The current situation is just as bad. Liberals feel just as much today as they did fifty years ago.
between 2009 and 2011, a shocking one third of Americans slipped below
the federal poverty line for at least two months, data show.
TypicalWelfare
liberals, who are filled with lots of emotion but low on the facts, are
worried that children and disabled people will now go without. If
they did a little research, they would know this expired waiver
[requiring work in order to receive welfare] will only affect
able-bodied people with no children.
and the War on Poverty sound good, and they let liberals feel good.
But the price – a wrecked economy and a large portion of society lost –
is high for feeling good. And liberals want to continue the feeling.
"Despite five decades of the War on Poverty and $20 trillion spent, with
no sign of victory in sight, Obama said the 'war' must be stepped up."
Today's
welfare state, and its antecedent, the "War on Poverty," certainly have
and had unintended consequences. Thinking fifty years ago could have
recognized them, but thinking didn't feel good then. And thinking
doesn't feel good today.
Minimum wage: Derrick Wilburn, in a 21 Jun. AT article,
provided some useful information. Unfortunately, reading the article
and analysis of the facts he presented would require thinking –
something liberals will not do. So let's look to another article, one that requires no thinking. That should appeal to liberals.
TheThe second quote sums up the liberal position. They confuse the end with the means in order to feel good. The problem with this
whole argument of a guaranteed minimum wage is fallacious. It is wrong
in principle, therefore it is wrong in practice. It leads to evils
much worse than those it proposes to cure.
The
whole trouble is that it is so easy to confuse the end with the means.
The main objective, its proponents say, is to give everybody a living
wage.
article is that it doesn't foster good feelings, so liberals simply
ignore it. Ignoring facts allows liberals to keep on feeling good by
ignoring actual outcomes.
Even Obama confuses (on purpose?) the minimum wage issue in his 2014 State of the Union address. Perhaps Obama should consider what Economist Dr. Walter E. Williams wrote:
"Mandated wages are one of the most effective means of pricing one's
competition out of the market, ...[.]" But that will never happen
because "consideration" requires thought and interferes with feeling.
ObamaCare:
Sure, it sounded good, and liberals felt good about providing health
care for everyone. But (and there's always a “but” when Obama is
involved) someone must pay. The latest reality check
suggests that all is not going to liberals' plan. More people
receiving health care = more cost = higher premiums. I'll bet even
Nancy Pelosi could have thought of that had she taken the time to read
the ObamaCare bill before voting for it. But no, she was too busy
feeling good.
And
let's not forget our national defense. People who wish to do us and
this country harm often place themselves and their weapons in schools,
hospitals, and residential areas because they know that liberals will cry out
if our military kills or injures non-combatants while attacking them.
Hamas, with close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, a group favored by Obama, admits that it places its weapons in schools and hospitals. In (what I assume to be) an effort to feel good, Obama said he has no sympathy
for Hamas. Was his condemnation not sincere, meant only for public
consumption, knowing the MSM would spread his feel good sentiments
worldwide?
It's
unfortunate that party politics has to enter into this discussion, but
ultimately it does. The vast majority of MSM journalists are liberal
and vote Democrat. They present their "facts" from a liberal
perspective that favors Democrats, ignoring and omitting information
that does not further both groups' agendas. They feel rather than
think. We (mostly Republican) conservatives must therefore dig out
information that is what the late, great Paul Harvey referred to as "the
rest of the story" so we can think about the entire situation or
proposal.
I
know some conservative Democrats, but they can never explain why they
associate themselves with that party. The Republican Party comprises
mostly of conservatives, but there are a few RINOs out there. So the
"problem" goes beyond party politics. It is a conservative-liberal
phenomenon. For liberals, and therefore for most Democrats, feeling
trumps thinking. And we thinking conservatives are cursed.
Bottom line: liberals feel, then stop there. They never think – never have, never will.
Dr.
Warren Beatty (not the liberal actor) earned a Ph.D. in quantitative
management and statistics from Florida State University. He was a (very
conservative) professor of quantitative management specializing in
using statistics to assist/support decision-making. He has been a
consultant to many small businesses and is now retired. Dr. Beatty is a
veteran who served in the U.S. Army for 22 years. He blogs at
rwno.limewebs.com.
