prev next

Jerry Shenk


Troublesome Political Riddles

by Jerry Shenk
 

Riddle me these:

Is it merely coincidence that, for most progressives, “doing good things” always seems to require more government?

Who or what has greater means to undermine personal freedoms, including speech, than powerful organizations like the Internal Revenue Service or other government agencies?

If liberals are convinced they can somehow create utopia by expanding the size and role of the state, what are liberalism’s limiting principles?
Are modern Americans who respect and adhere to America’s enlightened founding principles really “unenlightened”?

If they are, as they say, just pragmatic and reality-based, why are liberals so insistent on preserving the status quo on failing programs dating from the 1930s or 1960s?

Is it fair to make needy Americans comfortable while offering no alternatives to poverty programs �" and no means of escape? Why shouldn’t work requirements and drug testing be part of any public assistance program?
Shouldn't we judge the success of America’s War on Poverty by how few need charity rather than by how much we spend on it? If we cannot or will not judge results that way, what are we doing wrong?

Are “good” or “noble” intentions all that matter? Shouldn’t politicians be judged on the quality of their outcomes?

What legislature formally passed the Law of Unintended Consequences, what chief executive signed it -- and why aren’t politicians held accountable for theirs?

If it’s true women are paid less to do the same jobs, why do employers even bother to hire men?

In the absence of genuine racial offense, what does it suggest about the merits of their case when people casually accuse others of “racism” just to shut down an argument?

Is it a fixed rule that one must be white to be racist? If non-whites exhibit racist behavior, but are excused from assuming the same moral responsibility demanded of whites, isn’t that, in itself, a form of racial prejudice?

How can one simultaneously believe that capital punishment for the guilty is “barbaric,” but aborting the innocent is not?

Is Islam a peaceful religion? In the past three decades, how many unprovoked terrorist attacks on the innocent have been perpetrated by practicing Christians?

Why isn’t it acceptable to have legitimate reservations about the effects of gay marriage on our culture and society?

Can a nation unable to control its borders remain sovereign? Why isn’t border control the essential first step in setting immigration policy?

Is it man’s conceit that he caused global warming? Is it his arrogance that allows him to think he can “fix” it? If one accepts the notion of global warming, why isn’t the better response to adapt to it rather than spending trillions to “fight” it?

Which provides more meaning for most Americans: family, friends, churches, communities and local civic institutions -- or a huge central government?
If the answer is the former, why is America’s political class only aggressively encouraging and growing the latter?

If “...the truth will set you free...,” why aren’t more American political figures actively seeking it?

http://www.ldnews.com/story/opinion/2017/12/06/troublesome-political-riddles/927274001/


Share   Share

Featured Columnists
Featured Audio Links