|
torture are very different animals.
(Please, bear with me, I do not mean to accuse you of an argument establishing false equivalences, but on the whole, the consequences of the Bush raft of "asks" from his side and the inconsistencies of our side are not really the same league--I just pull these two as the most glaringly disparate.)
To the extent that one decided after no especial written agreement that it would be effectively throwing the race to the smear campaign to do one, and to the extent that the other, after a body of written agreements, treaties, and moral arguments against occuring throughout history, decided to toss away habeas corpus and order torture, I don't see one of "ours" exactly doing what one of "theirs" did.
To go through the list of "giving them what they wanted" we received: a growing measure of economic inequality, a failure of government to service those who needed it most, judges who placed ideology ahead of freedoms, a disservice to those who expected and needed a good education in order to perform well in this society, a restriction on the freedom of scientists to persue valuable research, and a denial of the benefits of that research to those who might a) profit--for the research would mean business or b) find treatment and relief of illness, in that this was a valuable avenue. And as to ignoring global warming--the reslt is pushing back the time we have to try and stop the damage, and the furthering of the effects of climate change.
I try to imagine to what extent our desires would have equally harmful consequences, and am unpersuaded that they would. On the whole, although "liberals", our means and ends are the more "conservative" in effect.
I think I've felt this way for a long time, really. About the last ten years. I call it "The Blue Dress Paradox", privately.
I think I might need some examples of a Democratic "worst-case scenario" that doesn't resemble a freepers' fever-dream to see where we'd wink at similar:
And still be getting what we asked for.
|