I don't usually post on politics unless ethical lapses need to be lit up. But Obama's behavior needs a little analysis.
Obama first declared his answer to the war problems, then he went on a "fact-finding" mission (dragging most of the reporters in the universe behind him). After getting some facts from the generals on the ground in Iraq, Obama rejected that information and and created a new premise for support of his previously established conclusion.
This is the process I've been writing about so frequently lately: the irrational process of rationalization, where the conclusion is drawn first and is considered more important than the truth value of the premises. Since the conclusion - however irrational - requires some sort of support even if illusory, premises must be created in order to provide a perception of plausibility.
The use of rationalization is not just irrational, it is agenda driven. The conclusion is part of a larger agenda and is therefore more important than any tactic required to achieve it. It is outside the boundaries of reason, logic and it is dangerously deceptive, because the larger agenda is not delineated. The intellectual dishonesty alone is cause enough to reject the entire program. Since Obama's voting record places him furthest to the left in the Senate, further left than Hillary, Reid, or Kennedy, one can legitimately assume what direction his agenda takes.
Watch carefully for lapses of intellectual integrity on both sides as November draws close.
No comments:
Post a Comment