Note: written Oct 5, 2016
They didnt criticize the moderator
Virtually none of the political commentators criticized the moderator for not being more insistent that Tom Kane and Mike Pence stop interrupting each other. One of the reasons for this may have been the Progressive con: it’s taboo to criticize an Hispanic or a woman.
These guys yelling at each other was a travesty for hope of having reasonable discussions in today’s politics and an example of the flight of reason from today’s political discourse. Both of these guys had important and interesting ideas to express to the listening public – all 80 million of us. These ideas would have educated us not only for this election but also for the years after the election. But we couldn’t hear these ideas over the buttinskies, as well as our yelling at the TV for the moderator to do her job!
This travesty was another example of the need for us to understand the dialectic. And you can practice the dialectic in your everyday life!
When someone talks to you, listen to her – regardless of how much you agree or disagree. Gently control your thoughts and let go of the desire to think of the next thing you are going to say. Try to understand what she is saying and why she is saying it. You may even ask her how she arrived and her ideas and how she arrived at the conclusions that she has.
Insist that she doesn’t talk too long. She must give you an equal time on the floor. Then when she is finished speaking, say whatever you want to say. And politely insist that she treat you as you treated her.
If you do this, an amazing thing happens: you communicate. You actually exchange authentic ideas. You may even influence each other’s thinking, although the other person probably won’t allow this to happen until you are a safe distance away. She doesn’t want to admit that you might be right and she might be wrong.
Here are some of the ideas that were barely expressed at the debate, underneath all the noise:
How I learned to love the bomb
Kane asked Pense to justify Donald Trump’s policy idea that South Korea, Japan, and Saudi Arabia all should have nuclear bombs. (After World War II, that’s all we need, Japan having nuclear bombs.)
This idea alone disqualified Trump of ever being President. Who wants to live in a world where everyone and their brother has a nuclear bomb?
And all Trump had to do to avoid making such dysfunctional comments was to hire a few authentic and proven international experts, and then listen to them! But first he would have to admit to himself that he doesn’t know everything.
Both Pense and Kane made very lucid expressions of their candidates’ stands on abortion. This issue could have been discussed reasonably (using the dialectic) and we could have all been more educated about the topic.
Pense expressed his horror at partial birth abortions, and Kane expressed his casual acceptance of them. This is a radical contradiction between the two policies.
Kane talked passionately about how he personally is opposed to abortions, as his Catholic Church is, but how he must give others the freedom of their religious beliefs. This idea is at the foundation of the whole controversy: many Christians, including Catholics, believe that human life, even at conception, is sacred, as all people are sacred.
On the other side of the argument, many secularists believe that to terminate a fully developed unborn child is simply a medical procedure, not much different than removing an appendix.
At the bottom of this controversy are the questions:
Do individual Americans have the right to their own religious beliefs?
Is the human person and the human embryo sacred or not?
Does everyone have the right to make their own decisions regarding these (basically religious) questions?
No one mentioned the consequences of abortion. It’s one thing to give a woman the right to chose to have an abortion or not, and it is an entirely different thing to make the neurotic demand that there are no consequences for such an act. For example, it is a neurotic demand that the U.S. can have one million abortions a year with no negative consequences, spiritual as well as psychological and cultural consequences.
If one can see abortion as a “sin” – that is, an act that has a negative spiritual and psychological effect – then the above neurotic demand can be seen as the demand that we can “sin” with no negative consequences. This line or thinking is the same thing we see in the Progressive con and the moral blank check.
Pense once quoted Mother Theresa. He could have also quoted her remark about abortion, while accepting her Nobel Peace prize. She said that once a woman believes she has a right to kill her own children, anything is possible
It is my theory that much of the anger woman and minorities have towards the white male (the scapegoat) is actually an projection onto him of women’s guilt and depression over having abortions: “It is all his fault.”
It is also my theory that one reason that Conservatives hate Hillary and see her as “corrupt” is her stand on abortion. I’ve often wondered the cause of seemingly irrational hostility towards her, when she is no different than the average, successful politician.
A politician’s pro-life stand (however insincere) also explains why so many conservatives support him, even when he doesn’t have much else going for him.
Both Pense and Kane were again very lucid in their expressions of their candidates’ views, this time on immigration. Unfortunately, because of the weakness of the moderator, these views weren’t brought out and discussed more: “Let’s move onto the next topic.”
Kane asked Pense to defend Trump’s expressed idea to deport 12 million illegal immigrants. Kane had a point. This is impossible to do.
For one thing, illegal immigrants have the same legal rights as citizens. And one of these rights is to hire a lawyer. Many illegal immigrants state that they are here, not out of any loyalty to America or disloyalty to their home country (which most of them love more than America), but rather to make more money and get more benefits. It’s easier to make money in the U.S. than, say, Mexico.
And rather than getting deported and going back to lower paying jobs, they will fight tooth and nail – and with almost unlimited money for lawyers – to stay in this country. They have almost “unlimited” money because they can rationally spend the difference between the money they are making in America, and the benefits they are receiving, and the money and the benefits they would receive in their home country if deported. Subtract what they would get in their home country from what they are getting in American, and that’s how much they can afford to spend on lawyers to stay here.
One illegal immigrant told me (who was making over $40,000 a year working off the books) that she would die before she went back to her home country. She was willing to spend every last penny she had for lawyers to stay here.
And if you work out the numbers, regardless of what the legal costs are, it is a good investment for the illegal immigrant and her family. The kids get a good education; they learn English; they have an easier time to get into good colleges because of diversity quotas; they get good jobs with help from diversity quotas; and they get around $40,000 a year of benefits if the mother declares herself as a “poor” single mother, while her common-law husband works off the books.
Let’s do some math. If every illegal immigrant, on average, spent $20,000 a person on legal fees to stay in the country, how much would it cost taxpayers to deport 12 million illegal immigrants? (That’s 2 e4 times 12 e6 = 24 e10, or $240 billion. Are we willing to spend that much? You can bet the immigration lawyers hope we do.
But what is possible – what no one mentions, and Pense could have mentioned – we can deport some of them, at least the least contributory illegal immigrants.
The future of illegal immigration
Pense could have also rebutted – if the moderator would have given him time – that if Hillary Clinton’s plan was enacted (as it probably will be — “Thank you, Donald, for not doing your job as a candidate”) and all the illegal immigrants eventually were made citizens, then people from all over the world – especially in Latin America – would get the message: “Get yourself to American (have a baby if you can) and you will never get deported. You will eventually become a dual citizen.” (Thus you can keep your loyalty to your home country and help it by sending home American money.)
Of course Hillary and the rest of the Progressives will tell the white sucker the same deception that they told them in 1986: “Just let these 12 million illegal immigrants become citizens and then we will really (‘And I mean really’) protect our borders and implement our immigration laws.”
It would have been nice if these conflicting ideas could have been brought out into the open and discussed rationally. But then, once we saw the realities beneath all the sweet talk of our politicians, maybe we would have felt worse.
Maybe you even feel worse after you read Existential Eddie’s articles. I’m sorry about that. I really am.
But if you don’t live in a swing state and don’t want to vote for either Trump or Hillary, now you have and alternative: write in “Existential Eddie.”