Dear Mr. Hannity,
I would like to address the problem with the logic some liberals and Democrats are using in order to attack Republicans and conservatives. Liberals say that in order to help America succeed we must support Obama and what he is doing because not supporting him is divisive and in these tough times we should be trying to bring the country together. However, let's set a hypothetical sceanrio:
The president is saying that policy "P" should be done in order that a certain outcome, call that outcome "O", will occur, and let us say that "O" is economic recovery. "P" is implemented (by whatever means) but after some time passes, "not-O" occurs, i.e., the outcome of "P" is not O, and in this case there is no economy revival. However, the president keeps pushing that we should could doing "P" even though the claimed outcome "O" never occurs as a result of "P". In this hypothetical scenario, under the Liberal mantra of support, we should support the president's policy "P" no matter what because not doing so would be divisive even though the outcomes the president claims will occur do not.
So, essentially what the implicit assumption driving the Liberals' logic is that we should unconditionally support the president, in this case, we should unconditionally support Obama. So, no matter happens as a result of Obama's policies we must support him. However, this logic makes absolutely no sense. Why should we continue supporting Obama if the outcomes that he claims his policies will produce never occur? Obama's policies have been consistent failures and so it follows that if the policies are failures then we are justified in not supporting him. Conservatives/Republicans have a real rational justification for not supporting Obama's policies, and the Liberal mantra that we should unconditionally support Obama is illogical.
Thanks!
No comments:
Post a Comment