… I can make room for some potpourri. (See what I did there?)
April Fool’s Day passed relatively calmly, although I did manage to get the Spawn. Yesterday morning, I burst into her room and said, “We overslept! No time for breakfast — you’ve got to get ready for school!” She was in full conniption when I told her it was a gag, and that her breakfast would be ready in ten minutes. This dropped her down to about 75% conniption, but she was definitely more awake than usual.
For the last day or so on my Facebook feed, I’ve seen some of my leftier friends jumping up and down about the discovery that some of Hobby Lobby’s retirement plans include investments in companies that sell contraceptives. This is apparently sufficient grounds for those lefty friends to scream “Hypocrisy!”, one of their clubs of choice in their drive for ideological gleichschaltung. Leaving aside the fact that very few people are likely to know every stock in which their retirement funds have an investment (For all I know, my 401(k) is long on baby-punching factories and dogfighting rings), this returns us to a point that I hear occasionally, but not often enough. Is it worse to have moral standards that are not always met, or to have no standards at all? As Jonah Goldberg has noted, “The upshot seem[s] to be that it is better to do wrong consistently than do right inconsistently.”
But Jim Geraghty has been particularly strong on this topic lately. Last week, he considered the Alinskian dictum that one should force opponents to play by the rules they would set. He suggested that doesn’t work so well against the Left, simply because for them, as long as they get the result they want, everything else is negotiable. Some would call this pragmatism, but another term might be amorality. Likewise, a month earlier he looked at the Progressive gift for
lying rendering prior statements inoperative:
The lesson of the Obama years is that most progressives — certainly large swaths of the lefty grassroots, and most of the well-connected elites — don’t really give a hoot about most of the things they scream about. What they want is to win, and almost all the policy details are negotiable. If winning requires Wendy Davis topretend that she could support certain legal restrictions on abortion after 20 weeks, then she’ll do it. If winning requires Barack Obama to tell prominent evangelical Rick Warren that “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman,” then he’ll do it.
And that brings us to today’s column from Geraghty, and I’ll go straight to the punchline, but you should really read the whole thing: “Progressive leaders want us to obey them, but not emulate them.” As ever, some animals are more equal than others.
Finally, over at Grantland, Steven Hyden does some prognosticating about the future of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. My interpretation of his conclusion? We should shove the place into Lake Erie. Soon.
Enjoy your day (unless you’ve made other plans.)