Can’t win for loosing

Ever been in one of those situations where you can’t do anything right? Michael Rosen describes one in Damned if They Do… over on TCS.

Here, perhaps, is the crux of the issue: nothing Wal-Mart does—no matter how praiseworthy—will ever find favor in the eyes of “progressives” since its motivations will always be assumed to be profit-driven.

But in fact, the very opposite conclusion should be drawn: the company deserves high marks for finding creative ways to make socially-beneficial changes profitable. Far better that the private sector devise efficient ways of improving our environment, ensuring health coverage, and providing affordable prescription drugs—all while furnishing goods at very low prices—than that unions, green activists, or government officials dictate the way they run their businesses.

The prompt was a column by the New Yorker’s Jeffrey Goldberg who is cited as “a fair-minded left-of-center writer”

But in this piece, he spouts all the old anti-Wal-Mart talking points: the retailer’s wages and employee benefits are meager; it wipes out local businesses while driving jobs overseas; it busts unions; it makes babies cry.

Goldberg just can’t bring himself to evaluate Wal-Mart on its merits.

Sounds just like BDS but with a different target, doesn’t it? Thomas Sowell took note of how this ‘always damned’ view is expressed in his column Anger of the left at the Washington Times.

Particular issues can arouse passions here and there for anyone with any political views. But, for many on the left, indignation is not a sometime thing. It is a way of life.

Those on the other side may have different arguments. However, the question here is not why the left has different arguments, but why there is such anger. Often it is an exercise in futility even to seek to find a principle behind the anger.

If it is hard to find a principle behind what angers the left, it is not as hard to find an attitude.

That attitude is shown by selecting a target that does not convey the proper ideology. That target is then defined as evil incarnate. From there the game is one of always finding a way to maintain this illusion.

The same attitude can be seen in responses to observations such as those of Rosen or Sowell. Exceptions are found. They are elevated to typical examples, and that is used to attempt to turn the argument back on the observers. That is where Dr. Santy comes in.

Comments are closed.