Sebastian points to this post at Ace of Spades, about political (dis)honesty. It's worth a read in its entirety, but I want to zero in on a particular point:
[I]f your arguments in favor of amnesty are as potent as you think they are (and you must think they're potent, because, like Obama, you seem to think the only possible objection is racism and hatred), why not actually share them with the group?
You can't convince people of your position if you refuse to state what it is and the reasons for it. [emphasis in original]
[blink blink]
That's some pure, distilled truth right there, with far-reaching ramifications on any topic, be it immigration/amnesty, free speech, or gun rights. Someone who won't state their position, let alone argue it:
- Doesn't trust you enough to share where they really stand.
- Doesn't trust that you won't overreact and/or get violent if you happen to disagree.
- Doesn't believe you are worth discussing important issues with, as fellow adults.
- Doesn't feel they need to earn your support (but still feels entitled to it).
- At the end of the day, doesn't respect you at all.
Basically, it comes down to politicians telling their constituents, "I believe what I believe, for the reasons I believe it … which I'm choosing not to share right now … or ever. Because I say so*!"
Y'know, as if we're small children.
That's not how mature adults interact with each other. Suffice it to say, that's absolutely not how elected officials should be treating their voters.
Something to consider this election season. Vote accordingly.
------------
* - "… and if you don't agree, you must be a [insert personal insult, probably an '-ist' word]!"
Over at Bearing Arms, Jenn Jacques has a post up about "compromise" with Democrats on "gun control".
It's mostly a decent article, but … she closes with this:
So if Democrats want a compromise, here it is: follow every single gun law currently on the book. Punish criminals to the fullest extent of the law. Ensure convicted felons serve their entire sentence. Only give second chances when the guilty have served their debt to society.
Do that, then we’ll talk. [emphasis in original]
While I appreciate the point she's trying to make, my answer to this would be, "No."
I agree that there are already plenty of "gun control" laws on the books, and the government should be enforcing each and every one (otherwise, what's the point of having the law?).
However, the "enforce existing laws" stance is not "compromise". That's just how it should be.
"Compromise" is giving up something to get something in return. If Democrats want to compromise on "gun control" laws, our response should be, "OK, what 'gun control' laws are you offering to repeal in order to get the new laws you want?"
If the answer is "None," then it's not a compromise. If the answer is "None, but maybe we won't go as far as we want," that's not a compromise, either. In neither case are the Democrats required to give up anything.
Give something, get something. That's compromise, and that's where the debate should start.
Sorry, Jenn. You're a bit off the mark on this one.
