We conservatives are often on the receiving end of the liberal line, “You don’t know what it’s like to be [a woman/gay/etc.], so your opinion [on abortion/gay marriage/etc.] is invalid.”
The implication in saying that we may not opine on such issues since we cannot experience womanhood or homosexuality is that we do not have the emotions that those demographics do; that we do not feel the same things they do.
But is that not the very thing that makes it possible, or at least much easier, for us to see such issues objectively? When a man is on trial for rape and murder, no person who has personally gone through a rape or been close to a murdered individual will be permitted on the jury. This is precisely because a person for whom rape or murder is a sensitive subject is more likely to let his emotions dictate whether he finds the defendant guilty or not. If a jury member knows what it’s like to be raped, then he has no business being a part of a jury that is supposed to look purely at the facts presented before the court, devoid of emotion.
My lack of emotional attachment to the issue of gay marriage is precisely what makes me a better judge as to whether gay, governmental marriage makes any sort of rational sense. I have no emotional connection to the issue, so my ability to reason remains unhindered.
Democrats lately have been playing a flagrant but undeniably skilled game of demagoguery. They have realized that they cannot win the recent debate over gun control using that most pure of judges called numbers, so they have made a left turn, down the path of emotional appeal.
We saw this game being played two weeks ago when President Obama exploited four children, students of the recently massacred Sandy Hook Elementary, by having them share the stage with him while, before an emotionally hypnotized nation, he told us his need and intention to bypass Congress in creating new gun laws.
The game continued yesterday in a Senate hearing on gun violence. Recently retired Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who just over two years ago was one of the victims of a shooting in Tucson, gave a short speech before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Her words, that we must “act now” to end the violence (read: confiscate guns), were stressed by her clear annunciation and halting cadence, an effect of being shot in the brain, and lent even more emotion to her words than even the fact of who was speaking them.
Now, Giffords seems like a sweet lady with one of the more benign of intentions among her fellow Party members. But she has no logical business giving a statement about guns. The one and only purpose of her presence there was to rev up our emotions and make legislators more susceptible to gun-control proposals that they would otherwise scoff at. As written at The Washington Post, “Her appearance contributed emotional resonance….” That was her sole assignment.
The only legislation that can be drafted under the influence of feeling rather than thinking is poor legislation. Of course there will never be an end to emotional appeals in politics. If only there were men and women in Washington completely devoid of emotions, it would allow that much more room in their brains for reasoning and logic. What we need is Mr. Spock.