Replies

This tendency has never been more pronounced than with the exertions of the Bush-haters that Lowry details so well here. But what exactly is this tendency of changing the goalposts so that you can remain on the same side of an argument which you are determined not to let go. Take for example, the reactions of partisans to the failures of the "War on Poverty." It went from we will lift the poor out of poverty by giving them a hand up. Who would argue with the propriety of that idea if it worked? It didn't. Charles Murray documented this in his great book Losing Ground. There was no way they were going to roll back these programs. They just kept finding more and more obscure reasons why there were still poor people who were not succeeding.

I think this habit became internalized and has grown to an absurd degree. It manifests mainly but not exclusively on the left.

"I think this habit became internalized and has grown to an absurd degree. It manifests mainly but not exclusively on the left."

Excellent insight. Obviously, I agree with it.

Great article.

I heard Krauthammer on FoxNews Panel a few weeks ago say that the Dems were constantly moving the goal posts, just as you noted.

Yes, there are nutburgers on the right as well as the left, for whom nothing is good enough to satisfy, because their reason for being is to be dissatisfied. It's the struggle that counts. If they actually got what they wanted, they would gape and sputter and not know what to do with themselves. They would have to come up with a new complaint.

This article really hits the nail on the head, BTW.