ex post facto pre judging

One of the more interesting intellectual conundrums is the pre-judging of the future even after it has occurred.

Brown of FEMA is a good example of this. Because of what has turned out to be a false media hysteria, he was selected as a scapegoat. This then meant he had to be established as incompetent. This then lead to building a case that he was an example of a crony appointment.

But all of this was after the fact. Brown had demonstrated competence in Florida Hurricane relief. Even the supposed failures in the Katrina response, which have been established as axiomatic in broadening circles, have been subject to significant question. But the judgment is that he is an incompetent failure.

In the desire to make this judgment have basis, evidence of competence or success is set aside and resume issues are paraded along with relationships to the President in order to rationalize the judgment.

The same phenomena appears to be the case with Miers. Because the nominee is not in line with what was expected, she is pre-judged to be incompetent and a failure to the Bush Promise. The hunt is then on to find and highlight anything that will support the pre-judgment.

Other examples can be found in many of the mantras of the Left. Bush Lied so let’s find some. Stop the war so we can have more terrorism and support extreme Islamic repression. Raise taxes to kill the economy and increase government revenue.

This business of anticipating doom and gloom even if it contrasts with past patterns of growth and development is a matter of pre-judging after the fact is established. It is ex post facto pre judging.

Comments are closed.