That calculus works for me.
I was thinking about it today on my way into work listening the Andrew Klavan show from yesterday, and he was talking about the lack of introspection on the Left.
The way Andrew Klavan described the thought processes of the Left, I am certain, they would apply to me without a second thought. How could I refute that?
The analogy I came up with was...toilet water.
Let’s say I was cooking dinner and decided to use toilet water to boil the pasta, make the lemonade, and steam the asparagus.
Water is a fundamental ingredient in each of these things. Can’t boil pasta, make lemonade, or steam asparagus without using water.
If I use water (a fundamental ingredient) to prepare these, and I have taken the water from the toilet, none of these dishes are edible and the lemonade will not be safe to drink.
The pasta may be high end or homemade, the asparagus may be right out of my own garden, and the lemonade may be icy cold and made with the ripest lemons and cane sugar in the correct proportions, but...they are ruined and invalidated as meal items due the the fundamental flaw of using toilet water to prepare them.
With leftist views, there is so much they believe that is predicated on faulty premises, that the flaws from those insinuate into nearly every single stance they take or argument they make.
In economics, they believe in equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity, and that wealth cannot be created from scratch, but must be obtained at the expense of someone less well off.
In warfare, they believe in “fighting fair” (we have overpowering superiority with aircraft, we shouldn’t use our B-52’s against our opponents...it isn’t “fair”) and making the military a jobs program for affirmative action purposes.
In racial relations, they believe in Critical Race Theory and affirmative action, not judging people on their capability.
In sexual matters, they believe that people can be whatever sex, gender, unicorn, or other thing they want to be, not what nature has endowed them with.
I could go on and on, but you get the idea. Every single one of these things is the bedrock of what they believe, and that bedrock percolates up and contaminates every single thing that derives from that bedrock.
I utterly reject it.
On the positive side, I can read a few sentences into nearly any article (with occasional mistakes due to intentional misdirection on the part of the author) and immediately take the measure of the intellectual content of the article and the political stripe of the author. And I can do it pretty accurately. And that saves me a lot of time.