I sure get some interesting mail. Now there is a liberal worried about poll numbers. Something is amiss with this from the start, but lets investigate:
Getting worried about "government by poll". If "92%" of the American people believed that lynching were right, that still wouldn't make it "legal", would it? And, if "92%" of the American people believed that the earth were flat, that wouldn't make the earth flat, would it? In the same way, if "92%" of the American people believed that Muslims should be rounded up and jailed, that doesn't make it moral/ethical, would it? So… Polls don't seem to be the best way to answer questions of fact, of law, or even of morality. So… What ARE polls good for?
That is, does an elected or appointed official have an obligation to "do what the majority wants done", or is the obligation for that official to apply their best judgment, or the law, or, well, what? What constituted the 'will of the people' anyhow? Suppose you are convinced that 'the people' are wrong? Than what do you do?
I am assuming most of this is rhetorical. I mean, what was the Clinton method of Campaigning and Governing other than a constant adjustment to popular sentiment? And the Clintons represent the glorious left, don't they? Furthermore, Hillary has swallowed, at least now, her antipathy for the military and has become a veritable hawk, in public. Does anyone wonder why? To ice the cake, it seems the Bush legacy will include staying the course when popular sentiment waned, to the betterment of mankind.
So, let us address this apparent wandering of a liberal. Augustine is quoted, "A thing is not necessarily true because badly uttered, nor false because spoken magnificently." Well, in this case, the authors statement intends to project his own personal version of morality, also the assumption that the author is aware of the 'absolute' moral/ethical philosophy. Gee, nice to see that libs have such a high regard for their own ethics. But this implies there is no room for anyone else's. And, I thought it was a grand liberal precept that democracy resulted in the superior form of government, yet it appears that if a 'poll' (democratic sample presumably) does not concur with the liberal philosophy, the whole system must be questioned. I would not call this utterance positive, but it does bely the liberal world perspective.
A majority of the people spoke in the last election, condoning the actions of the government. That was not a 'poll', it was a declaration of how badly the liberal philosophy has strayed from American values. And in that case, the government has an obligation to execute the will and intention of the people. But if we are not considering an election, but simply a assessment of the sentiment of the people, I do not believe our representatives in government should bend and sway under the pressure of such. However, if we ponder the egregious statement of the author, concerning the incarceration of Muslims, we can easily see biased liberal inflammation of the brain. National security does not select for creed, color, or religion. It selects based on apparent threat. And if it does happen, that a whole religion becomes a threat, then lock them all up. But that is arguably absurd, and so is the authors contention.
My conjecture, though not magnificently scripted, is valid nonetheless. And it is pleasant to continually notice how vapid the arguments of the left have become. Or could it be conservatives are in a jovial mood due to the possible recovering of the Supreme Court? Time will tell if we have, but I anticipate seeing this issue of 'questionable' incarceration appear before the court, and have renewed confidence that the verdict will not be favorable to socialist liberal Moonbats.