When my son was a little boy we introduced him to that all-American food, the hotdog. He seemed to like it and almost finished it. I say almost finished it because he refused to eat the “end”. Though I patiently explained to him that the end was the same as the beginning, he still refused to eat the “end”. I took out another hotdog and asked him to show me how the “end” was different from the beginning. He couldn’t distinguish the difference, but still refused to eat the “end”. I am pleased to inform you that as he grew up he did eat the “ends” of hotdogs. He matured and began to think rationally. It is a physiological fact that as one develops and matures their behavior becomes more rational. That is unless you are an elected official.
Don’t bother them with rational argument, logic or facts. Please don’t bother to show them that their behavior is often contradictory, it will make no difference. It was a lot easier on these folks when our communications system was more antiquated and slower. It was easier when every phone didn’t have a camera and Twitter, Facebook and You Tube didn’t exist. It was easier when the news cycle was 24 hours rather than 24 seconds. Because in the good old days our elected officials could speak to the audience and their particular leanings without concern that what they say in the next speech will be shown as contradictory. A funny thing happened on the way to the 21st Century. We expect our elected officials to be consistent, rational and honest. We obviously caught them off guard. As the famous Romney 47% remarks prove, they weren’t ready for this. But most troubling is that they stick to their irrational inconsistencies. In fact, they sometimes “double down” as did Romney. I understand this behavior in a little boy, but not in my elected officials.
How can the same people who say, “keep the government out of gun restrictions”, turn around and say “the government has a right to legislate what goes on in my bedroom and define marriage”? By the way, the government has the right to make me wear seat belts, register my car, pass a drivers test and tell me when to talk on my cell phone when driving, but not restrict or control or track gun ownership. How can the same people who use the Constitution to defend their right to uncontrolled gun ownership support the Patriot Act that allows the government unprecedented freedom to abridge our freedoms? How can the “deficit hawks” of Congress be so concerned about our spending, yet have a history of supporting unfunded wars and drug bills in the early part of this century that turned a surplus into a major deficit? How can these same Congressmen seek to cut benefits to the most vulnerable segments of our population, while refusing to hold Wall Street and corporate America accountable for our fiscal disaster? How can the town of Nelson, Georgia pass a law requiring every head of household to have a gun, when study after study shows that a gun in the house is more likely to lead to gun death in that house?
Examples of the irrational contradictions can go on and on. There are too many to list. But the question is, how come my son could grow out of his irrational behavior and our elected officials can’t?