Lies, distortions, and outrageous appeals

Don’t be misled by lies, distortions, and outrageous appeals to the lowest and most anti-social of human passions.

Sometimes the liberal/Democratic propaganda for their view on item X is so repulsive that after imbibing it for a while I find myself edging toward the conservative/Republican view of X.

But then I surf conservative sites for a while to get an eyeful of their lies, distortions, and outrageous appeals to the lowest and most anti-social of human passions in connection with X.

And that reminds me the propaganda is not what actually matters.

Then, sometimes, I demand an accounting from myself.

I root about inside my head to find out whether there is actually any sensible reason – sensible to me, that is – why I should care about X, one way or the other.

And whether the balance of such reasons favors the position of either party.

Being an atheist and an amoralist, any reasons I might find would be neither religious, moral, nor even political so far as these last – political reasons – suppose the existence of natural, human, or moral rights, or rest on judgments concerning justice.

But there are plenty of other sorts of reasons to care about politics, anyway.

In like manner, when the government imposes something upon us undemocratically, unconstitutionally, or both, to the cheers of some and the sneers of others, one has to ask how objectionable it is that the position, if preferable, was thus imposed.

Large and crucial parts of America’s social democracy, for instance, and it’s progressive, regulatory state are, on a fair reading, unconstitutional.

It may be that it would be well to fix that by passing appropriate amendments to the constitution.

But should I then prefer those things had never been created, or that they be abolished until such amendments actually are passed?

Would you expect an American black, convinced that Brown was wrong and that something a lot like the libertarian/paleocon view of the US constitution is right, to want to see Jim Crow and American Apartheid restored pending suitable amendment of the constitution?

Would you expect him to look back at the civil rights revolution of the 20^th Century with regret, so far as it relied on anti-democratic and even unconstitutional government actions?

Too, ordinary people are generally safer from the power of the few under democracy than otherwise, but this does not mean that in each and every case what the people want, or what their legislative creatures want, is really what’s best for all or most ordinary folks, or for us or those near and dear to us in particular.

Think of how religious or racial attitudes of the many can be, sometimes, more dangerous than those of the few for minorities or persons not of the relevant religion.

And for that matter, given the actual contents of our existing constitution and the actual nature of our legislatures, there can be no general presumption that either the constitution or the laws as we find them in force right now actually reflect what our people mostly prefer, or even what they would prefer were they relevantly informed.

Nor can there be a presumption that the people, in case they do not approve the law or the constitution in some regard, could do a single bloody thing about it.

Hence, that some measure is imposed unconstitutionally or undemocratically does not mean it is contrary to the preference of the people, anyway.

And it is usually partisan eyewash to suppose it does.

Republican partisan eyewash.