America’s left, and its political wing the Democrat Party, have long felt the need to use strawmen to “argue” with debate opponents. One understands this, as their “thinking” is sometimes so ill-formed and unsupported by either logic or observation, that the deflections are vital tools in their debating “toolbox.”
Hillary did it, as she has done from long habit, in the Democrat “debate” of several days ago.
When asked something about “radical Islam” — two words that never shall escape the lips of the American left — she replied with all the bellowing sternness that is her trademark, “We are not at war against Islam,” she brayed, “and we are not at war against all muslims!”
The problem: Thing One — war against Islam– is something no one has ever suggested, or even implied. And Thing Two — war against all muslims — is something else no one has ever suggested or implied.
In other words, she didn’t want to answer the question so she dodged it with the typical Democrat tactic of trotting out a strawman. Of course she got away with it.
Why do they lie, evade, dissemble, distort, change the subject? Easy! Because they can.
No matter what tommyrot escapes the lips of prominent Democrat Party politicians, their worshipful lapdogs in the media simply look adoringly at them as if they had just said something transcendently wise and insightful.
Yet, let’s look at the question for a moment. The question — I don’t know the exact wording — was something on the order of “What are you going to do about radical Islam, and its ties to terrorism?” You know, standard-issue national security question.
Well, what about that? Everyone knows there is something called “radical Islam” out there. There are goons — apparently hundreds of thousands of them — who are willing to blow themselves and others up all in the name of “Islam.”
Are there, have there ever been, such things in Christianity? Judaism? Hinduism (yes: in a limited sense. Google “thuggee“(1))? Shintoism? (Yes: Google “kamikaze.” Though, that was on a much more limited scale and context), Buddhism? Taoism?
How about these things:
• Al Qaeda
• Al Nusra
• Boko Haram
• The Muslim Brotherhood
• so many more…
Those are entire organized groups whose sole mission is to go out there and kill people who don’t believe as they do. Many of them are willing to strap bombs to their bodies, and to blow themselves up in support of their murderous mission.
Surely we can find such groups — with thousands of active members — in Christianity, and Judaism, and Hinduism, Taoism… (2), and Buddhism…
Oh. Oops. Nope. Nothing like that to be found. Just in Islam, where there are just lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of these goons.
The west does have such a death cult, it must be admitted. These are people who are unwilling to die for their religion, but are certainly willing to engage in wholesale slaughter for it — to the tune of 120 million or more in the last century alone!
That religion is, of course, socialism. There’s an important reason why socialism requires “atheism” on the part of its followers: It’s the only way to allow secular deity-figures — Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot — to order people to murder on their behalf. You can’t order Christians to set up gulags, or concentration camps, or gas chambers for crowds of people. They won’t do it. Try to order Jews, or Buddhists to set up vast institutions of slaughter and slavery. Good luck with that.
But you can order atheists, socialists — and muslims — to do so, and they just go out and do it.
The American left does the strawman thing with all issues.
• Disagree with welfare? You’re a racist, or you hate women and children.
• Are you pro-life? Well, you must hate women and want to enslave them.
• Think taxes are too high? Well, you just hate poor people and want them to starve. Or, you’re greedy and just want more for yourself.
• Think the idea of “gay marriage” is ridiculous?(3) You must hate gay people, you bigot!
We on the right have failed to come to grips with the left’s constant use of irrelevancies and strawmen. It’s important to note that all those strawmen accusations are irrelevant. Yes, I’m against how welfare is done today, and the extent to which it pervades society and generates ever greater welfare dependence. When I say that, and I hear, “You’re a racist!” in return, at least one correct response ought to be:
“So what! Even if I were, that doesn’t change the rightness of what I’m saying, and the wrongness of welfare. Even if I were the worst racist in the world, that wouldn’t change one iota whether my argument is correct. Now that you’ve had your fun calling me stupid names, go ahead and produce something that you think invalidates what I’ve said.”
We on the right should say some variation of that, as well as several others that I’ve catalogued in these pages, every time some nitwit on the left trots out one of their strawmen.
(1) – A mostly muslim death cult in the sub-continent of India-Pakistan. They were much more willing to make other people die than themselves, though. They did not have a suicide component.
(2) – See Note #1.
(3) – It is. Laughably so, even.