Thursday, October 26, 2006

Liberal Infallibility

Michael J. Fox is back in the spotlight these days, appearing in a series of political ads in Missouri endorsing a proposed amendment (Amendment 2) that deals with stem cell research and that, in addition, would open the door to cloning and other nefarious initiatives. Fox has been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease and throughout the ad, the symptoms of his illness are strikingly evident as violent tremors surge through his body. In response to the ads, Rush Limbaugh assailed Fox, accusing him of exaggerating the tremors and exploiting his illness for political purposes. Limbaugh also laid heavily into the former actor for intentionally misrepresenting the Republican opposition and subsequently misleading the public. The furor over the radio personality’s remarks was swift and harsh. Legions of media talking heads condemned Limbaugh for his audacity and “shameless” attacks on the ailing Fox. Subsequently, Limbaugh has expressed regret for calling into question the degree or intensity of Fox’s symptoms but has refused to issue a blanket apology or completely retract his other remarks. Limbaugh’s point, and it is well worth making, is that the left in America routinely props up victims of some disaster or illness and shamelessly showcases them about to advance their cause. Cindy Sheehan, the “Jersey Girls,” Christopher Reeves and Michael J. Fox are among the most prominent examples of this liberal M.O.

Having continually lost in the respected arena of honest debate, where ideas and reason hold sway over sentimentalism, liberals have taken refuge in their own cooked-up, shallow doctrine of infallibility. Desperate to see their agenda shoved through Congress and enshrined into law, random victim X is typically paraded around television promoting the popular liberal dish of the day. If anyone dares to dispute their position or questions their motives, he is immediately pigeonholed and categorized as loathsome and insensitive to the pain of the suffering victim. Of course, it is argued that the victims, being victims, are the ones nearest the issue and as such have the primary right to be heard. Nobody is stopping them from talking. But they shouldn’t be allowed to use their victim status as the sole basis for trumpeting their position’s veracity. And further, they shouldn’t accuse those who think differently of being cold-hearted or insensitive just because they happen to strongly disagree with the latest victim celebrity the left can scrounge up from among the disillusioned citizenry. This is the liberal doctrine of infallibility. To quote from the ever-polemical Ann Coulter, “If you have a point to make…why not send in someone I’m allowed to respond to? No, no, we always have to respond to someone who just had a family member die.” In the warped world-view of liberalism, simply disagreeing with a Cindy Sheehan or Michael J. Fox automatically diminishes the chance that the opposing view might actually be the right one based on the merits of the argument, as disagreeing automatically implies or is equated to “questioning the authenticity of the victim’s grief.” For example, I found the following on MSNBC.com:

"Celebrities have a long history of supporting political candidates. But there's no question that Fox is uniquely suited as a spokesman for stem cell research. The star of the "Back to the Future" films, shakes and rocks as he directly addresses the camera, the effects of his disease clearly apparent."

From the point of view of a personal experience, Fox certainly may offer his thoughts, does this alone make him "uniquely suited as a spokesman for stem cell research? Is he a scientist? Is he a bio-ethicist? No. In dealing with the questions of whether or not embryonic stem cell research and cloning are morally ethical, Fox is simply not suited or qualified to step forward. But this is the usual ploy utilized by the left. They ignore or obscure facts, among other complicated questions of science and ethics, and fall back on their doctrine of infallibility.

Limbaugh is making a salient point that can no longer be glossed over by shameless liberal chicanery. The paper-thin veil of liberal infallibility has been penetrated by Coulter’s sharp pen and Limbaugh’s sharp tongue. Feelings might be hurt in the process but in the end, the truth is vindicated.

a funny image from Rush's site

2 comments:

  1. My concerns about this type of presentation are particularly philosophical. I would say that the method of drawing upon one's sympathies is simply a neutral means made good or bad according to other factors, in this case the end cause. Take a rock, for instance. I can build a church with it or I can crush an innocent by-stander's skull with it. Here, a neutral means becomes good or bad when "in act" as determined by its end. For the issue of stiring emotions, it serves to remind you of the reality of the question. Consider the movie, The Passion of the Christ and how it enabled a greater understanding of Christ's sacrifice through its emotional presentation.

    Then there is the possibility of a good end but an inappropriate means. One just simply cannot exterminate 6 million people because there may have been some economic injustices. This, of course, is simply one example of how the end, preventing economic injustices, does not justify the means, genocide, on a global scale.

    In Mr. Fox's case, presenting his suffering enables a greater understanding of a physical evil. I have no problem up to this point. However, then Mr. Fox wants everyone to draw a subsequent fallacy after this: You needn't consider the rigthness or wrongness of this proposed law, just vote for the amendment because the end, a cure, is good. So, Mr. Fox says, in essence, that "The End Justifies the Means." Well, this is wrong; but, furthermore, this is also another end. It is the end of Mr. Fox's commercial. This end, being wrong, renders Mr. Fox's act originally a neutral means in isolation into an immoral act as determined by having a fallacious end.

    As far as the intentions of those who asked Mr. Fox were to exploit him for this political gain in an attempt to render the topic inarguable, these people should be ashamed of themselves. I don't think I'll ever know if this was their intention, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised. Politics can be very ugly.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Here is another example of Liberals knowing who the Americans are: John Kerry's recent comments about education.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLuMWiQ6r2o

    I'm glad he's looking out for us!

    ReplyDelete