Just Because We Question a Policy

It doesn't mean we're dead-set against it, but quite often, that's how the policy's supporters interpret our skepticism, which typically leads to silly non sequiturs that no one's actually proposing. A good example centers around our current debate over national-security policy, where many people---present company included---are questioning its efficacy, its monetary costs, and its constitutionality. It doesn't mean we're opposed to surveillance regimes altogether, but the regime's proponents all too often respond to our criticisms with an argument along the lines of, "Well, let's just not have any surveillance at all and wait for the next terror attack," when, of course, no one is suggesting any such thing. I guess what this means is, when you're supporting a policy that's pretty much unsupportable, you resort to constructing straw-man arguments instead of engaging the debate. It's the kind of rhetorical bait-and-switch we have come to expect from the crazy people, but as the torrent of liberal invective that has been heaped on Snowden and Greenwald has proven, many people on Team Democrat are capable of the same dishonest forensics. Tribalism, apparently, is not exclusive to any one party.

---Baron V