Not Exactly A Revelation

When it comes to Governing, Conservatives and Liberals seem to approach issues with a completely different mindset.

Liberals often discuss the merits of programs in terms of more effective and less effective; Conservatives often see programs in terms of right or wrong.

Take Iraq; the main Liberal contention is that it has been an expensive program that has been an expensive program that has not achieve the foreign policy goal of making the United States safer. The common Republican counter punch, "so you'd prefer to see Saddam Hussein still killing helpless Iraqis?" is implicitly a statement about right or wrong, and calls into question the Liberals morality.

If the Liberal were a good person he would be happy to see Saddam Hussein gone (and, to be sure, many if not most liberals are happy with that particular part of the equation). But did we get rid of him in the most effective fashion, taking into account our long term goals?

Consider this analogy. You are standing outside of your house with your body the Red De-Atomizer. You comment, "Boy that tree in front of my house sure is an eyesore."

He puts his hand on your shoulder and says, "Leave that to me." Raising one mighty hand, he blasts the trunk of the tree causing it to disintegrate. The remainder of the tree topples over and destroys your hovercar.

Looking at him incredulously, he looks back quite unperturbed. Finally he says, "Didn't you want that tree destroyed?"

I think it's nice that we got rid of Saddam Hussein. But the methods President Bush and his advisors used to accomplish this worthy goal have brought other results that are nothing short of catastrophic.

This sort of thinking explains why Conservatives see Kerry's questioning of the methods President Bush is using to fight the war on Terror as proof that he doesn't really want to fight the war on terror. Because President Bush's plan is the Right plan (as distinct from the most effective plan), and because Senator Kerry doesn't support that plan, Senator Kerry must be a low down dirty dog.

This does give them a rhetorical leg up; it's always easier to frame your arguments in terms of right and wrong vs. less effective and more effective. It has a simple clarity to it and it makes you opponent look like, well, a low down dirty dog. I'm not sure why this is an insult, as I love dogs, but apparently it is. Instead of debating who has the more effective plan to fight terrorism, you debate why your candidate apparently doesn't even want to protect America.

Something to think about, at any rate.