Moral Absolutism Run Amuck

I'm going to touch on an issue that has a lot of people buzzing around the 'Net. Lord knows why this has even become an issue, but it's one I feel needs to be discussed. On Tuesday, Dean Barnett at Hugh's site brought up the Michael J. Fox controversy. Mr. Fox put together an ad for Claire McCaskill's dying campaign designed to make Jim Talent look like a heel; the ad focused on embryonic stem cell research, and the fact that Jim Talent voted against allowing federal funds to be spent on it.

Now the Left made a hullabaloo over this when it first came up, accusing Republicans of being insensitive, and banning all reasearch on embryonic stem cell research. That isn't what the bill was about at all. It was about federal funds going to the research. And this is research that, to date, has produced nothing close to what has been promised in the past. Nada. Zip. Zilch. But the bill didn't prohibit the research. Private comapanies with private grants and donations are more than welcome to continue their research. And personally speaking, we feel that is where it belongs. Getting the government involved is a nightmare of potential bureaucratic red tape, and more of our hard-earned dollars being thrown down a bottomless rat hole.

But the question about Mr. Fox comes from Rush Limbaugh's response to the ad. Let me be perfectly clear on this: We don't listen to Rush. We listen to one or two talk shows a day (we never miss Hugh's show), and Rush isn't one of them. Neither is Hannity. These guys are entertainers that, in our personal opinion, enjoy hearing themselves talk. On the other hand, the shows we listen to present guests and introspective thought that moves us forward; it doesn't prompt talking points, and no way to back oneself up in a debate.

The Left is throwing a tizzy over the fact that Rush dared to challenge Mr. Fox on his ad because he suffers from Parkinson's Disease. While that is a shame that Mr. Fox suffers from such a disease, his proposed victimhood doesn't give him a shield. This is a tactic that we expect from the Left. Putting up victims of fate, events, or their own stupidity, allowing them to speak using Democrat talking points, and then immediately attacking those who question these people.

Mr. Fox grossly misrepresented Jim Talent. Cindy Sheehan, AKA Mother Moonbat, lost her son. The Jersey Girls, AKA the East Coast Dixie Chicks, lost family members in the attacks on 11 September. Max Cleland, former US representative and triple amputee, is always wheeled out by the Left to perpetuate the myth that our side is insensitive. We're not insensitive at all, but we do demand intellectual honesty. And we find it most disingenuous when the Left decides to prop these people up, and attack us when we question them.

What gives these people the right to have a shield from criticism when they inject their ideology into the debate? Dean Barnett suffers from Cystic Fibrosis. He doesn't use it as a crutch, and he sure as H*ll doesn't attack people for going after him, claiming they have no right to attack him because he suffers from a particular disease. Marcie has Stage One Diabetes, and she has NEVER used her ailment as a shield against criticism. She takes the punches just like everyone else. I've got arthritis in both of my knees, which during the Arizona monsoon season usually leaves me in an undesired amount of pain each day. I don't use it as a shield.

So, where do these people get off using theirs?

It's wrong. If this is their tactics for debate, then these people seriously need to be ignored, or denied their fifteen minutes of fame by networks and candidates. Their reactions show that they can't handle the debate in the public arena. They'd rather stand up and state their talking points, and then tell everyone to shut up and not criticize them. If that's the case, get off the stage. You're irrelevant, and hardly worth the time it takes to debate you.

Now, I don't know if Rush is correct in his assertion that Mr. Fox didn't take his medication to "shock" the viewers into seeing his line of thinking. Frankly, I could care less. He misrepresented Jim Talent. That's who the ad targeted, and that's where we have our gripe. If Michael J. Fox has instead done an ad citing that Jim Talent had voted against the bill in Congress, and that he disagreed with it--that the government should be funding it--that would be different. He didn't do that. He brought up the old Democrat talking point that Jim Talent voted against any funding. Congress didn't do that. They voted against taxpayer dollars going for the research.

I'm harldy an uncaring individual. I have contributed money to research for cancer and diabetes. I understand what it's like to watch someone suffer froma debilitating disease. Our partner, Sabrina, has breast cancer. My grandmother has MS. My aunt has Alzheimers. But I'm not going to go out and make a phony ad targeting a Democrat because one or two might have a difference of opinion on those issues. It's not right. And it wasn't right for Mr. Fox to do what he did, then immediately throw his disease up as a shield against criticism.

I'm sorry, but if you open your mouth on a subject, expect the critics to come out, and they'll come out swinging. You can't just call time-out, run over to your enablers, and cry foul. (Well, you could, but it makes you look like an idiot.) Take your lumps like a man, and move on, or shut up. But for God's sake, don't play the victocrat card. If we're in a debate like that, we're going to dig in, and come out swinging even harder. Debate honestly, or don't debate at all. The schoolyard antics supported by the Left isn't just sickening. It's irritating.

We wonder why debate has devolved to the point that it's at right now. For a good example of that, I cite Hugh Hewitt's new column on his Andrew Sullivan interview. Read the transcript here, and see what I mean by the ability to debate. Andrew Sullivan isn't a conservative by anyone's standards but his own. He may have the occasional conservative idea, but then again, so do a few Democrats. (Joe Lieberman and JFK, anyone?) And the wondering can be put to rest as soon as we realize that one side always assumes the role of a victim, and berates anyone who criticizes them.

Criticism is a part of life. If people on the Left didn't want criticism, maybe they should stay home and keep quiet. Society criticizes everyone for any reason they feel like. That's a part of society, especially one which has the freedom of speech that we do. Michael J. Fox is free to say what he pleases. So does Rush. So do we all. But all we're saying is if you're going to join in the debate, do it seriously and honestly, and don't climb up on the victocrat horse when the fur starts flying. You only make yourself look like a charlatan and a hypocrite when you do.

Publius II