There’s Something to be Said for Consistency, but…

09/12/201303/23/2018 henrymoore Current Events, Politicsanti-war movement, Assad, Barack Obama, Chemical Weapons, foreign policy, Iran, Non-Interventionism, Syria

It’s not the hypocrisy of (anti/pro) war (Republican/Democratic) party hacks that I mind. For at least that means they are on the right side 50% of the time, which is better than being on the wrong side 100% of the time. No, what I hate is when this hypocrisy goes unnoticed, unexposed, and unchallenged. During Obama’s first term, the hypocrisy was that of the suddenly pro-war Democrats. And for his second term, it is that of the suddenly anti-war Republicans. How hard is it to simply have a standard? One that does not depend on the context of what letter happens to be next to the name of the puppet pretending to wield power for a period of 4 to 8 years. I am personally grateful for the amount of people on both sides of the aisle who don’t think it necessary or just to waltz (whether to bombard or to occupy) into Syria on a moment’s notice. But watch most of these anti-anything-Obama-does Republicans turn on a dime when it’s Iran’s turn to face our wrath. Then watch the Democrats squirm as they try to figure out their own position.

What are your thoughts? Would it be better if people just stuck to their position, even if it was awful, or if they waffled and on occasion did something right? Both in general and as it relates to the two parties and military intervention.

5 thoughts on “There’s Something to be Said for Consistency, but…”

Brandon Christensen says:

09/12/2013 at 11:42 am

Good questions, Hank.

I don’t think politicians have positions. Public choice theory, one of libertarianism’s theoretical branches, argues that politicians have just as much self-interest as the everybody else when it comes to their “job.”

This is why statesmen like Ron Paul are so rare. It’s also why collectivists of all stripes hate him so much: he could never be bought.

Reply
- henrymoore says:
  
  09/12/2013 at 11:51 am
  
  That’s the same point reader jsong0524 made on my blog,
  
  I think your asking a lot of the demagogues in Washington to actually have and hold a coherent, principled view. The nature of the democratic political process from their mindset is to do anything it takes to be reelected. That’s why their views will continue to turn on a dime when it suits the situation and the popularity polls. I am obviously painting with a broad brush, but that is the root of the problem I believe. The system rewards the silver-tongued, not those who hold fast to principles even when it is unpopular.
  
  So to answer your question, I don’t think that, for the most part, the politicians views on the intervention have to do with their votes. The Republicans are partly getting behind the popularity of the anti war leanings of Rand Paul, seeing the popularity there, and partly they want to be anti Obama.
  
  The democrats are just toeing the party line.
  
  The end result is that the policies of each party manifest themselves in the same way.
  
  And I’ve got the same response for both of you,
  
  Yes, the politicians are simply doing what they do. Responding to incentives. But I was also referring to pundits and activists and voters. Everyday people supposedly as far away from power’s corrupting influence as you or I and yet who still can’t seem to abide by a coherent set of principles.
- Brandon Christensen says:
  
  09/12/2013 at 2:01 pm
  
  A great response. I would argue that most people don’t have political positions either.
  
  It pays to be ignorant, and is often much less stressful to boot. This is why advocating principles, as we do on this blog, is so important.
- Brandon Christensen says:
  
  09/12/2013 at 2:52 pm
  
  Actually, I guess it would be false to argue that it “pays to be ignorant.” Rather, people instinctively believe that it pays to be ignorant, even though more education correlates with higher income levels. Again, this is why I think blogging about principles is so important.
- henrymoore says:
  
  09/12/2013 at 3:35 pm
  
  Haha. It’s kinda like the idea that it takes more work to get out of doing work than it does to actually just get the work done.