Some some day I’ll have to flesh this one out into a story.
Most if not all Democrats in the legislature are lawyers or teachers, or similarly over-educated in some other field that typically depends on government subsidies to exist.
Most of the Republicans in the legislature are businessmen of various sorts, and professionals in other, typically non-academic fields, most likely retired.
So, of course, the debate goes like this, to my great surprise. I say surprise because I would have expected that a debate between professionals would proceed otherwise, other than the sound bites you see on TV or see quoted in print. But no… Apparently we have not only not attended the same schools, took the same courses, or lived in the same country, but we have not even been living on the same planet.
Republicans stand up and argue on the basis of the US Constitution, limited government, enumerated powers, and facts and statistics relevant to the issue at hand. Not always as clearly and consistently as I’d like to see them do it, but that’s all they know so that’s all they try. What else would you expect, between professionals familiar with the history, the law, the facts and the issues, professing so profusely their immense respect for each other as colleagues, as they do especially when they offer long-winded testimonials to retiring and termed-out members.
Democrats stand up and within one sentence or less, spew forth ridicule and derision at all that. They couldn’t care less about the history, the law, the facts and the issues, or a need to show any respect for the professionalism of their colleagues. Democrats speak as if on the campaign trail, at a rally filled with ignorant low-information automatons who can’t wait to go stuff the ballot for “D.” They argue on the basis of victimhood, their good intentions, and other naked appeal to naked emotions. Never mind if whatever they propose might never ever come close to solving the problem. Never mind if there is indeed any problem; all that counts is that they perceive it, they intend to solve it, and the Republicans are evil for even asking if there is any reasonable connection between their intentions and the solutions they propose, or whatever unintended bad consequences will be triggered. And most and foremost, never mind that in their zeal to champion the rights — no; more accurately just the insatiable selfish interests — of various minorities, they do not at all mind trampling on the rights of the majority.
There are countless examples in the transcripts (minutes) throughout the committee meetings and floor sessions, and I will have to quote from them if and when I flesh this thing out into a story.
But after all that, it is clear that we have a really serious problem. We don’t know how to argue on the basis of emotions. When we try, we get ridiculed and laughed off the stage. We argue on the basis of facts, logic and reason. We lose. They argue on the basis of emotions. They win. Apparently the appeal to the noblest emotion of all, the aspiration for freedom, is not sufficient. It is trumped by the “fairness” of trying to fulfill infinite needs in the face of finite resources.
If anybody knows how to solve this problem, please share your wisdom.