Rather than point to George Will's column from yesterday criticizing Sen. Obama's economic rhetoric and writing "what he wrote", instead, a serious quibble. Will writes:
But back to requiring this or that quota of energy from renewable sources. What will that involve? For conservatives, seeing is believing; for liberals, believing is seeing. Obama seems to believe that if a particular outcome is desirable, one can see how to require it. But how does that work? Details to follow, sometime after noon Jan. 20, 2009.
I think I'm supposed to take a less unfavorable opinion of conservatives from this statement. I don't because it need only be reworked to be an equally devastating dismissal of conservative politicians. Like this:
... Conservative politicians seem to believe that if a particular outcome can be required, one can see how to achieve it. But how does that work? Details to follow, sometime after noon Jan. 20, 2009.
I could slip McCain's name into that for a specific example. Maybe let's put Bush in there. Whoever, about whatever. Let's include Joe Biden, now that he's politician most recently thrust into the national equation after being named the Democratic nominee for VP. Or circle back and discuss Obama. It does not matter.
The proper diagnosis is the flaw in politicians. We should probably reason our way to what is fundamental. That flaw is more pronounced in those who believe politicians and permit themselves to be pandered to by our great anti-statesmen. Having resolve is enough. A topic is just something to be tacked on to, and achieved through, resolve. That mindset thinks society demonstrates its resolve through what it requires. The sickness is the same, regardless of the symptom.
I doubt Sen. Obama believes any of his rhetoric about what is achievable for energy goals in the timeframes George Will critiques. I don't doubt that Obama doesn't care. The power to control and push is more important than the destination. It is the destination of the rhetoric.
Conservatives (and liberals) love declaring war on drugs. They believe that if they require compliance to abstinence, then poof, the problem disappears. Results do not matter. Years of prohibition of drugs and alcohol aren't lessons that the approach is ignorant, only that we haven't tried the correct requirement yet. Results related to the claimed objective never matter to politicians, regardless of the topic. Power is the purpose for all politicians.
When dealing with politicians, liberal and conservative are just adjectives the wise use to identify which brand of stupid is loose.
Post Script: The sentiment in this entry's title is probably obvious to anyone reading. I couldn't think of anything better (i.e. less literal). But since someone like George Will seems to have forgotten the point, maybe that's not so bad.