Democrats Finally Oppose Busing
Blue cities and states are finally beginning to get a taste of what Texas border towns have been force fed for two years.
The recent illegal immigration “issues” in the Acela corridor cities illustrate something I have long believed.
Beyond being hypocrites, which is obvious, the Blue state and city leaders have problem solving skills that approach zero.
So many mistakes in just framing an issue that they can’t even begin to define a problem, much less solve them.
I must admit, while I agreed with it, I thought Greg Abbott busing illegals to DC and points north would do little or nothing to change policy since the Feds were already flying illegals to cities all over the US under the cover of darkness – those lefty states had nothing to say about that. But Abbott’s gambit got traction after enough limousine liberals got worried about shelters being overwhelmed and noticed that their lives were being affected by people peeing on their manicured yards.
But wait…I thought diversity was our strength, no human is illegal and open borders are a human right, when did that change?
Abbott’s actions forced the Blue staters to notice and served to nationalize a problem that was already national in nature but suffered only in a regional sense.
I thought it was hilarious the DC mayor was complaining about 4000 illegals – total - who were overtaxing city resources when many border towns in Texas are seeing that many illegals in a day.
Six years ago, I wrote that while we do have complex, multivariate problems to solve, the most likely reason that we aren’t solving them is that we are not working on the right problem.
When politicians practice the black art of politics, the goal is often to apply a band-aid to a sucking chest wound, creating the appearance of a solution when the only therapy available to save the body politic may be more extreme measures – but they will never tell you that. Their political success depends upon creating the illusion of success.
Unfortunately, that “success” is often defined as avoidance of a problem by simply kicking the can down the road.
There is also another aspect of false reasoning that is created using a certain logic tool at an inappropriate stage of the problem-solving process. I submit that is the use of the Hegelian Dialectic in the problem definition stage. This dialectic is defined as an interpretive method in which the contradiction between a proposition (thesis) and its antithesis is resolved at a higher level of truth (synthesis).
The assumption that damns this approach to failure is that there can be a “higher level of truth” (one subject to interpretation by the individual) where the problem is a desirable situation when objective truth proves the opposite.
It is always interesting to me that the “higher truth” almost always includes the redefinition of a problem as “not a problem”.
Any thought process that allows the denial of objective truth and allows the protagonist or antagonist to confuse fact with opinion leads to a denial that objective truth exists, in essence, to substitute a “user-defined”, malleable “higher truth” in its place. We get in trouble with this dialectic when one side or the other refuses to set the boundaries on the argument – a relevant example would be the discussions about “fair” taxation. I’ve yet to have any liberal tell me what limit they place on “fair”. Right now, that seems only to mean “more”, and the current Administration has done nothing to change my mind about that, rather they have spent two years just proving my position has transitioned from theory to fact.
Even though I accept the proposition that our problems may simply have too many inputs to define, the individual inputs are definable – and as a result, they are solvable. On a macro level, our problems are definable – for example, we either have too much debt - or we don’t, either revenue exceeds expenditures - or they don’t, or we either have too high a tax rate - or we don’t.
If we can’t even agree on those propositions, it should surprise no one that we can’t solve anything.
I guess that is why I found it humorous when Kamala Harris, someone with clearly limited analytical skills, was assigned to find the “root cause” of illegal immigration and she immediately set about pretending to solve the wrong problems.
There are causes for our issues and to ignore that fact is folly. I am not advocating a cold, heartless and purely unemotional approach to issues like welfare and other entitlement spending but to simply ignore them as a contributor to our problems because they are emotionally disturbing is wrong.
Without objective understanding, we will continue to attack the wrong issues and work on problems that will have no effect on improvement while burning valuable assets and calories in haste and waste.
We may choose not to deal with certain issues or admit a solution is beyond the grasp of government, but in those cases, let’s make that an active decision and not just passive acceptance.
Real solutions are never emotive. Emotions cloud the mind and obscure the facts. As an electorate, we often want the emotion and not the real answer because the real answers are often difficult.
Fixing problems is hard work and is seldom flashy or popular.
Aye, therein lies the rub.
Politicians are all about being flashy and popular.
LBJ was great at starting wars but some took longer to lose than Vietnam. The War on Poverty resulted in the destruction of the Black family over several decades and the killing fields of Baltimore, Chicago, take thousands of more lives every year. The "solution" of free food for those who do not work has delivered nothing but death and destruction to those it was supposed to help.