Consider this statement by Andrew Klavan:
Or consider, finally, that we were born into the freest, strongest, and wealthiest nation that mankind has ever known—and elected as our president a man who promised to “fundamentally transform” it.
Not preserve it. Not enhance it. Not reform it. But transform it. Why did he say that? Did anyone ask him? Did we take him seriously? Did he take himself seriously? Isn't that statement a profound insult to the United States? Would you tell your bride-to-be that you are marrying her to 'fundamentally transform' her?
Why do we tolerate statements from our leaders no less that are so hostile to our society and culture? I know that I use this type of rhetoric from time to time (all the frickin' time - the couch; piss off couch - me). But I'm not running for President or Congressman or dogcatcher for that matter. And what would it take to fundamentally transform dog catching in this country? Letting dogs run wild? Or rounding up any dog found on the street, including those being led on a leash? Either way would be a major change that we would notice. But it would be far from a fundamental transformation - you'd just about have to kill all dogs to make a fundamental transformation. That's why anyone who ran for dogcatcher (do people really do that?) would never promise something as irresponsible as fundamental transformation. Yet we elect, indeed the press celebrates as 'saviors' those who say such things and international committees give Nobel Prizes to Presidents who've done nothing but say such things.
Why? Damned if I know. It's just about as stupid as saying we will 'promote democracy'.
No comments:
Post a Comment