You Don’t Know Whether to Laugh Or To Cry

The editors of the Washington Post just can’t let go of the idea that the Democratic leadership has some inner moral core:

Rather than talk about the immorality of a wall, Democrats could use their leverage to achieve a truly moral purpose. In return for a few billion dollars for a segment of the president’s wall — which would immediately be challenged in court by property owners along the border — Democrats might permanently shield from deportation well over 1 million “dreamers,” young migrants primarily brought to this country as children by their parents. They might also protect tens of thousands of Haitians, Salvadorans and Hondurans whom the administration is preparing to expel after having lived legally in this country for years under a program known as Temporary Protected Status.

They don’t have such a core. Their interests are solely about power and influence and the wealth that comes with them.

Is there anything that could disabuse them of their absurd view? Or has partisan politics become their religion?

4 comments… add one
  • steve

    Claiming that building the wall was immoral was among the dumber things I have heard a politician(s) claim. To the broader claims, I have never bought into the claim that one side or the other has a better claim to moral superiority. I will concede that it is a bit fun to poke at the right since they have the evangelicals as their base and while claiming that they value religion and moral behavior they give us one scandal after another then gave us Trump, arguably the most amoral person to hold the POTUS office. Heck, they aren’t even embarrassed about talking family values in one sentence, then extolling Trump in the next. It’s bad enough now to make you actually miss Tammy Faye and Jim.

    Steve

  • Claiming that building the wall was immoral was among the dumber things I have heard a politician(s) claim.

    That’s a pretty crowded field. From time to time I’ve thought of writing a post on whether breaking the immigration laws were malum in se or malum prohibitum. IMO that colors one’s reaction to illegal immigration.

    But casting the enforcement of immigration law as being immoral is a step too far. I don’t think that’s what Speaker Pelosi was doing but stepped too close to it. On the contrary I think she’s just not particularly bright.

  • Gray Shambler

    What IS immoral is to give the impression that illegal entry is almost assured. People give up a lot when they sell what they own to give to coyotes and risk their families future on the trip north.

  • steve

    “What IS immoral is to give the impression that illegal entry is almost assured. ”

    When did that happen? Acceptance rates of asylum seekers have run in the 10% or less range IIRC.

    Steve

Leave a Comment