Wednesday, January 17, 2007
This line of reasoning, of course, is nothing new for liberals. I wish I had a dime for every time I've heard one of them say that those who didn't serve have no moral right to opine on war issues. This "chicken-hawk" argument is so childishly misguided you would think liberals, who consider themselves superior logicians and cerebral sophisticates, would be too embarrassed to make it.
The question is not who is qualified to opine, but whether an opinion has merit, irrespective of the characteristics of its proponents or opponents. Under liberal logic, the rich-from-birth Ted Kennedy is disqualified from empathizing with and advocating for the poor. And, the Framers should have limited the franchise in presidential elections to military personnel and their parents, and maybe their grandparents, but not aunts, uncles, brother, sisters or cousins.
Interestingly, Boxer pretended she had no standing to opine either, since her children are too old and her grandchildren too young to serve. But that didn't stop her from making clear her view that the war is not worth American lives, because her opinion is sanctified by its liberalism. Since she's against the war, the ending of which would supposedly end the risk to American lives, her opinion is legitimate.
What this really boils down to is the antiwar left's intolerance for dissenting opinions and their propensity to make decisions on an emotional, rather than logical basis. If you don't agree with them, you either aren't listening -- another charge Boxer leveled at Rice -- or you don't have the right to opine. But Boxer's logic is self-defeating: If your personal circumstances disqualify you from opining, they do so regardless of the nature of your opinion.
The story itself is a little dated, but the arrogance of liberalism is well illustrated in this column and that arrogance is pervasive in every issue you ever care about.
Links to this post:
Links to this post: