Liberal Aversion To Logic

Solving problems and protecting their assets and interests, liberals utilize logic everywhere else in their daily lives.  Like everyone else, they want to be themselves efficient, which saves time, energy, and money.  They want to appear intellectually sharp, so as to impress their friends and to please their boss, and so as to avoid looking foolish and incompetent.  Logic, or sound reasoning driven by both a pursuit of the truth and the resulting facts, accomplishes these things for liberals, and is something of which they most definitely employ, and to which they obviously aren’t opposed.

So then, why are they so averse to logic in political matters?

If damaging information comes to light that exposes the Democrat Party and its politicians, liberals, voters in particular, simply refuse the information.  It’s right-wing propaganda, lies, fake news.  It’s anything but true, and despite ubiquitous reporting proving the contrary.  Dismissing the information, it isn’t then allowed into the chain and process of logical reasoning.  And then in arguing their positions, the ignored fact—the fact that exists and is true, but that decidedly doesn’t exist and isn’t true—becomes a link in the logical chain that liberals just, ignore.

The logical on the other hand, the truth-seekers and problem solvers, they stop at the link during debate, and say:  “Uh, wait.  What about this critical piece of information?  This incontrovertible, ubiquitously reported fact?  This missing link in the chain of rational and solution-seeking logic that you’re ignoring, but that devastates your argument?”

Liberals then say, “What about starving children in Somalia?!”  Or, “What about the climate crisis?!” or some other meaningless non-sequitur.  And then liberals continue on with the debate as if the devastating fact doesn’t exist, which actually doesn’t exist for them having refused the information.  This is precisely why liberal arguments never make any sense.  Liberals blind themselves to a key fact, to an important marker on the road to truth and an issue’s ultimate resolution.

In other words, debates with liberals come to a fork in the road, where there’s a sign, or a crucial, debate-ending fact.  The choice is:  recognize the sign and stay on course to resolution, or ignore it and wander off into the intellectual wilderness.

Liberals wander off into the intellectual wilderness.

And here’s the really inexplicable part:  the logical follow them!  And in terms of debate, what happens?  Debates rage on and on about meaningless issues.

Advantage:  wilderness wanderers.

Take immigration, for example.  Immigrants must come into the United States through legal pathways, and for legitimate, security-related reasons.  That’s the law, and thus an indisputable fact that ends the immigration debate.  Yet introduce that fact to liberals in debate and you find yourself being accused of racism and heartlessness, arguing over a broken immigration system that is in no way broken, and debating the loss of strawberry crops for not enough migrant workers to pick them.  Aka, meaningless issues.

Liberals simply ignore the fact, which is in this case immigration law!  Liberals don’t wander off on “the road less traveled.”  They wander off on the road to nowhere.  And what do the logical do in response?  Well, they tag along behind—“But-but, didn’t you see the sign back there?  Illegal immigration is illegal; that’s the law.  Hey?  Wait-a-sec.  The sign.  Didn’t you see it …?”

Meanwhile, liberals are scoring debate points by presenting themselves as mankind’s only compassionate friend, and the only dependable caretakers of children—illegal alien children, that is.

Immigration law?  Pfft.  Screw that, liberals say.

So, while liberals do utilize logic to advantage in their own daily lives.  It is apparently outlawed when it comes to politics and political matters.  Anything that upsets their political beliefs, warped as those beliefs are, simply won’t be tolerated as true.  Allow me to further demonstrate.

In the 2016 democrat primary election, party officials rigged the outcome.  That’s right—rigged it.  Or, arranged it.  That sounds more like what the liberal news would label the violation.  “Rigged” sounds so … criminal.  Therefore, democrats arranged the outcome.  Yeah, that’s better.

Nevertheless, party leadership effectively said:  We don’t care which candidate our constituency wants; those rubes don’t know what’s good for them, anyway.  We want to install our own nominee. 

 So, democrat officials implored their voters to go to the polls, who then rose early and stayed late, to stand in long lines, to vote, and without any of the effort mattering one bit towards the outcome.  And afterwards, party leadership—Debbie Wasserman-Schultz—resigned for the fraud, proving the fraud, and to basically no penalty public or private.

The party’s leaders had done their job—getting their choice, not the voter’s choice, to the primary finish line.

During the presidential campaign, Democrat Party leader and operative, Donna Brazile, fed the party’s fraudulently-selected candidate, Hillary Clinton, debate questions meant to be kept secret.  That’s right—Brazile cheated.  Emails exposed the fraud.  Yet Brazile lied about her participation and role for months before finally confessing.

“My job was to make all our Democratic candidates look good, and I worked closely with both campaigns to make that happen,” she said.  “But sending those emails was a mistake I will forever regret.”  In other words, and like Wasserman-Schultz’s resignation, “I’m admitting to my unsophisticated constituency I cheated.”

Now.  These incidents should trouble democrat/liberal voters, right?

Well, they should.

Hillary Clinton receiving 66-million votes in the election, however, proves the incidents didn’t trouble liberal voters at all.  The incidents are either facts of which liberals weren’t aware, or that they simply, ignored.  Regardless, having successfully and without penalty “arranged” a primary election and cheated in a debate, and yet received 66-million votes in a presidential election after the facts, is it any wonder Democrats have such flagrant contempt for their constituency so as to “arrange” elections and cheat in debates—not to mention lie routinely and without shame?

And finally, there’s this:  along with his political opponents, President Trump and his personnel face an angry, contentious news media, daily.  A news media asleep for the last eight years—having ignored the numerous, egregious, and evidence-laden scandals of Barrack Obama, his administration, and the Democrat Party—is suddenly engaged and on the job.  As daily White House news briefings and nightly news casts reveal, the media are not only rabid, unruly, antagonistic, defiant, and openly disrespectful towards the president.  Without compunction, they are provably lying and intentionally misinforming the American people about him, too.

Given this fact, it is illogical to the logical to read opinion-piece headlines such as, “A Relentless Attack on Decency, Grace,” the related story accusing President Trump of attempting to murder decency and grace.

So let’s understand this:  it’s decent to rig elections and to disenfranchise voters, and to cheat in debates?

It’s gracious to openly disrespect a duly elected President of the United States and his staff, daily, and in front the world?

It’s gracious to call him names, to relentlessly accuse him, and to attack his administrative personnel and family?

It’s gracious to provably lie about him, and about those he chooses to serve the country?

Why, it’s decent and gracious if you’re wandering around in the intellectual wilderness.

Liberals aren’t averse to logic and facts in their personal lives; it offers too many benefits.  Liberals are averse to logic and facts in the political realm because, one, liberals are exposed as fools when facts and logic are part of debate.  And two, because they lose debate.  Actually, that isn’t true.  The logical wandering around in the intellectual wilderness with liberals assures the debate continues.

So that’s technically a win.  Or is it …?

—Originally published in Clarion News 9/6/2017

©2017 John Mark Warren

New Rules Book Cover

New Rules:  Relationship Logic for the Darkside

Author: JMW


Leave a Reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s