Thursday, April 14, 2005

Debate, Leftist Style

I caught this via Drudge. At a talk at NYU, Antonin Scalia was asked about his dissent in a case where the Supreme Court managed to find some text in the 1st Amendment that permitted a right to sodomy, thus striking a Texas anti-sodomy law. The words "Free Exercise" must have been their hook, despite the fact that it is in the context of religion, whose free exercise they have no problem abridging, but I digress.

The man, who identified himself as being gay, asked a question about the government's right to prohibit consentual sodomy. After getting a well-reasoned answer from Scalia which he did not like, he then questioned whether that was a practice that the Justice engaged in with his wife (who was present in the audience). The Justice very politely stated that a question reflecting such poor taste did not merit an answer.

But this is how the left argues, and this attack by an ill-mannered individual reflects some of their favorite tactics, revealing much about their bankrupt philosophies.

If they can't beat you on the merits of an argument, they go after you personally. Given that many of their arguments are based on emotion and not reason, it is perfectly natural for leftists to resort to their old favorite, the ad hominem attack. But Scalia finds himself on the losing side of an argument, he often writes scathing and lengthy dissents to demonstrate the objective viability of the legal position he believes is correct. The opinions make for compelling reading, as he is a very good writer who carefully researches the law and copiously cites his authorities. His positions are well reasoned; he wouldn't take them otherwise. But the attack on himself and his wife, notwithstanding the singularly putrid display of disrespect that it represented, has nothing to do with whether the government can proscribe sodomy. It was an attempt to personally embarrass Scalia, but even if it had succeeded, it would not have advanced the leftist's position.

Another fallacious angle of leftist thought which the question reflects is the one of mores v. morals. Whether one commits sodomy has no bearing on whether it is permissible. To recall the old saying, "Wrong is wrong no matter how many people are doing it. Right is right no matter how few people believe it." What we do does not affect what is permissible. The left likes to believe otherwise, but such a belief is mistaken.

The left cannot support what they believe by citing authority for their position. They can only argue how the law should be different because they "feel" that it should be that way. And if you disagree, the problem becomes you, not what you believe. If you don't believe me, ask Clarence Thomas, George W. Bush, Charles Pickering, John Ashcroft, Condoleeza Rice, Tom DeLay, Henry Gonzalez, and most recently, John Bolton and Arthur Finklestein.

The problem is that the left has very little with which to shoot. They offer a very loud and emotional, but generally unintellectual and ungrounded viewpoint. They hate being wrong because politics is everything to them. So to try to keep competitive, they seek to cow those who disagree with them into submission for fear that their families will be embarrassed or a less than glowing past will be revealed.

But their emotionalism is their downfall. They lack self control, and they eventually expose themselves as the intellectual infants they are. Because the byproduct of their political emotionalism is irrational orthodoxy, which gives rise to a disturbingly primal hate for those who have different viewpoints. It is much the same thing one expects to see in a preschool classroom or among wild animals. But that's the left.

1 Comments:

Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

Gee... I'll admit it was rude and disrespectful, but this guy points out Scalia's obvious hypocrisy and you spend a thousand words decrying the ad hominem attacks of the leftists. Fair enough.

But a few articles down your blog you call Hillary Clinton Lady Macbeth. Dayton the Fool..? Grand Senator Kleegle...?Joe Biden is a camera opportunist...? I could go on but then I would be admitting I read too much of this blog then I would care to.

Mmmm.. Smell the hypocrisy? It's good on this site.

6:39 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home