[Speed Gibson,
Sunday August 1, 2004 at 9:56am]
The Children's Hour
Talk show host Dennis Prager, attending the Democratic Party Convention in Boston last week, was obviously disgusted by the speech given by twelve year old Ilana Wexler, who used the opportunity to upbraid the Vice President. (Peter Jennings, that means Dick Cheney, not John Edwards.) Ilana said that he deserves "a long time-out" for using a naughty word overheard in a private moment, though why Mr. Kerry's use of the same word in a public interview was acceptable she did not explain.
Prager then made a rather direct generalization of the two major parties. "There's an adult party, and there's a children's party in this country, and this is the children's party. Some of these people really are ... wonderful and sweet ... [but there] ... are very many people left of center who are children. They have not grown up. They feel very strongly, but they are still children, and that's why they think that it's so good to hear from a twelve year old. Because in their hearts, they know that they don't know anything more, and have no more wisdom than a twelve year old."
This is pretty harsh stuff. When I heard this, I all but dismissed it. Not because it is a broad generalization, and therefore has many exceptions; Prager stipulated that. What bothered me was that I know so many of these exceptions, wonderful, sweet, caring, and intelligent people. It was too broad a brush. It can't be true, even in a general way.
But as I thought further about this over the next couple of days, sadly, I think Prager has it about right. How can otherwise sensible adults tell me that they think I should see Fahrenheit 911, that it would educate me or at least challenge me with some good questions? This requires a total suspension of intellect. A significant number of Democrats have no more use for Michael Moore than I do, yet there are at least that many that think that Michael Moore is making a significant, valuable contribution to political discourse. Because they're children.
Then there's the "anyone but Bush" crowd, whom neither Kerry not Edwards will chastise. John Ashcroft is evil, Condi Rice over-rated, Dick Cheney is really in charge, George W. Bush is stupid, they say, all without proof. The Patriot Act is regularly derided, yet no one has a single example of how it has curtailed anyone's civil liberties. Senator Diane Feinstein and several other Democrats support the Patriot Act, but that doesn't count for some reason. Because they're children.
Bush lied, they say. Proof? Well, he knowingly misled. Proof? Well, he should have known better. Proof? Well, he was going to invade Iraq regardess. Proof? Well, you just don't understand what's going on here. It's the old "if I have to explain it to you, you wouldn't understand it anyway" canard.
How do you know that there "really aren't" any Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq? Because we went in by force and looked for them, and we still might find some. Saddam had kicked out the inspectors, who were already considered inept by many of both parties. All intelligence available throughout the world agreed on this point of Iraq having and building WMD's. The US, Great Britain, Russia, the U.N., other Mideast nations, even France all believed the same thing, and Saddam certainly acted accordingly.
But now, we somehow have independent knowledge available without attacking Iraq that there were no WMD's. That the Democrats would put themselves in the rhetorically awkward position of proving a negative is one thing. But to claim prescient knowledge obtainable no other way but by force, is, well, childish.
It would be fair to say that a number of Republicans are childish, too, those who extol Michael Savage possibly. But this is a Republican Party molehill compared to the Democratic Party's mountain. I may revisit this, but for now I'm truly sad to say that Dennis Prager could well be right. I just don't know why.
Prager then made a rather direct generalization of the two major parties. "There's an adult party, and there's a children's party in this country, and this is the children's party. Some of these people really are ... wonderful and sweet ... [but there] ... are very many people left of center who are children. They have not grown up. They feel very strongly, but they are still children, and that's why they think that it's so good to hear from a twelve year old. Because in their hearts, they know that they don't know anything more, and have no more wisdom than a twelve year old."
This is pretty harsh stuff. When I heard this, I all but dismissed it. Not because it is a broad generalization, and therefore has many exceptions; Prager stipulated that. What bothered me was that I know so many of these exceptions, wonderful, sweet, caring, and intelligent people. It was too broad a brush. It can't be true, even in a general way.
But as I thought further about this over the next couple of days, sadly, I think Prager has it about right. How can otherwise sensible adults tell me that they think I should see Fahrenheit 911, that it would educate me or at least challenge me with some good questions? This requires a total suspension of intellect. A significant number of Democrats have no more use for Michael Moore than I do, yet there are at least that many that think that Michael Moore is making a significant, valuable contribution to political discourse. Because they're children.
Then there's the "anyone but Bush" crowd, whom neither Kerry not Edwards will chastise. John Ashcroft is evil, Condi Rice over-rated, Dick Cheney is really in charge, George W. Bush is stupid, they say, all without proof. The Patriot Act is regularly derided, yet no one has a single example of how it has curtailed anyone's civil liberties. Senator Diane Feinstein and several other Democrats support the Patriot Act, but that doesn't count for some reason. Because they're children.
Bush lied, they say. Proof? Well, he knowingly misled. Proof? Well, he should have known better. Proof? Well, he was going to invade Iraq regardess. Proof? Well, you just don't understand what's going on here. It's the old "if I have to explain it to you, you wouldn't understand it anyway" canard.
How do you know that there "really aren't" any Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq? Because we went in by force and looked for them, and we still might find some. Saddam had kicked out the inspectors, who were already considered inept by many of both parties. All intelligence available throughout the world agreed on this point of Iraq having and building WMD's. The US, Great Britain, Russia, the U.N., other Mideast nations, even France all believed the same thing, and Saddam certainly acted accordingly.
But now, we somehow have independent knowledge available without attacking Iraq that there were no WMD's. That the Democrats would put themselves in the rhetorically awkward position of proving a negative is one thing. But to claim prescient knowledge obtainable no other way but by force, is, well, childish.
It would be fair to say that a number of Republicans are childish, too, those who extol Michael Savage possibly. But this is a Republican Party molehill compared to the Democratic Party's mountain. I may revisit this, but for now I'm truly sad to say that Dennis Prager could well be right. I just don't know why.