Emotion-Driven Rhetoric Makes Bad Public Policy [VIDEO]
Emotion-Driven Rhetoric Makes Bad Public Policy [VIDEO]
A buddy of mine made an interesting observation today. “That Emma Gonzalez must drink a crapload of water,” he quipped, “because she cries crocodile tears on command, and the waterworks are significant.” He’s right. Gonzalez uses her tears to her marketing advantage. The most significant thing she seems to have learned from her insta-fame is that it’s driven by tears, by emotion, and by heartwrenching pleas from children to do SOMETHING about “gun violence.”
While her buddy Hogg appears in public with a constantly sour look on his face, arms crossed, lips pursed as if he’s trying to keep down something utterly distasteful, and jaw set in a mockery of determination and courage, Gonzalez has learned to let her vulnerability flag fly. After all, most can’t resist a weeping little girl (no matter how many Cuba patches she wears on her jacket, and no matter how much statist rhetoric she spews).
Gonzalez doesn’t need facts. She have a roughly six minute speech at the March for our
Lives Lies Saturday, filled with verbal gems such as:
Everyone who was there understands, everyone who has been touched by the cold grip of gun violence understands.
No one could comprehend the devastating aftermath or how far this reach or where this could go. For those who still can’t comprehend because they refuse to, I’ll tell you where it went. Right into the ground, six feet deep.
And while it was a powerful, emotional speech, it did nothing to promote helpful dialogue. It did nothing to advance intelligent policies. It only fomented anger, which blinds even some of the most intelligent people to facts, logic, and justice.
A woman on Twitter, who claimed that after her 9-year-old child climbed in her lap and tearfully begged her to not have guns in the house anymore in the aftermath of Parkland, which ostensibly garnered 146,000 “likes.”
While I have my doubts about any kid that age acting and talking like a thumb-sucking toddler still learning to speak, the larger point here is that more than 146,000 people thought that was just adorable and sweet, and more likely than not, it supported their biases against self defense in the home.
The person replying to this tweet may seem callous to some, but they have a point.
Without a firearm, this home invader may not have gotten a nasty surprise after kicking the door down in Utah.
Without those evil AR-15s that evoke such terror in the nation’s kids, a man who attacked another with a knife may have committed an act of murder.
Without a gun, this homeowner would not have been able to stanch this nighttime home invasion.
But that doesn’t matter. A little child begged “Please let’s don’t anymore,” and the crowd went wild!
Emotionalist rhetoric does not good policy make.
This is how we wound up with ObamaCare, which deprived hundreds of thousands of people of the health insurance coverage they relied on, made insurance cost-prohibitive, and “helpfully” offered geriatric men pregnancy care. But the left whined and cried about millions of people unable to get health care (patently untrue). Children would DIE! Old people would be left without care!
If you guys haven’t seen this incredible video by the very talented Remy, you should watch it! It explains very clearly – and with a huge dollop of humor – how emotion-driven rhetoric works.
Before anything was known about the Austin bomber, the Congressional Black Caucus, which includes such astute minds as Hank “Guam will tip over” Johnson and Sheila “I am a queen” Jackson Lee sprang into action by demanding SOMETHING be done, and frothing their constituents into a frenzy. CLASSIFY HIM A TERRORIST! RACISM!
But hey, racism and terrorism always sells, and the CBC certainly knows how to market its crazy to its constituents.
(Note: if we base Conditt’s actions in Austin on the FBI’s definition of terrorism: the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons, he checks every box. However, at that point, we knew nothing about the actor or his motivations.)
Emotion-driven terminology has given us legislative crap sandwiches such as the “Fairness Doctrine,” that gave a government bureaucracy the authority to judge what broadcasts were “honest, equitable, and balanced,” and grant the license to operate to media outlets based on bureaucrats’ political views.
Fearmongering has brought us GMO labeling.
Hysteria brought us the 1994 “assault weapons” ban that did nothing to prevent violence, but deprived Americans of their choice of constitutionally protected purchases and their ability to use the tools of self-defense of their choice.
We had “the Great Society,” the oh-so-patriotic “USA PATRIOT Act,” and the aforementioned “Affordable Care Act,” which was neither affordable, nor provided care.
And while Emma Gonzalez knows how to work up a crowd, her tears will not offer solutions.
I would submit that a dispassionate and rational examination of all available evidence without emotion or histrionics will be much more effective at creating policies that improve our nation. Good policy is never made from the heart. It’s never made out of anger or passion. It’s is made from a genuine desire to improve and an ability to objectively examine the issues from all angles.
Sound policies should not be about MUH FEELZ; it should be about OUR COUNTRY!