Restating the Problem

As I mentioned this previous post, there is more in this post I wanted to remember. He’s discussing Hillary’s non-answer answers – a technique used by others well.

On national security and ISIS, she offered the novel thought that we must work more closely with our allies.

Really. You don’t say? I’m glad someone had the guts to finally say it.

Now, those whose brains are colonized by leftist viral memes will call that a “good answer.” It’s the accepted Conventional Wisdom answer of the Davoisie and the Davoisie wannabes.


Clinton said a lot of crap like this last night — she said that to improve race relations, we needed to build more trust in the community in police, and more trust in police in the community.

Um, that is not an answer. That is simply a way of re-stating the problem. Her husband used to do this a lot. How do we improve education? Why I have a five-point plan. (Ticking off points on each finger.) One, improve the curriculum. Two, improve the administration. Three, improve teacher-school relations. Four, encourage children to learn. Five (now put up the thumb in a big thumb’s up like Fonzie) improve education.

Um, you didn’t say how we were going to improve education. You simply broke the problem into several sub-problems and said we have to solve each of the sub-problems.

We know that. And we also knew all of the sub-problems associated with the main problem of improving education.

You said exactly nothing, but took three minutes to say it.

As proof that others do it as well, see Decius’ comments below, linked to in that same previous post:

Is Gerson worried about any of this? He doesn’t say either way, but we can assume he is because he offers a cure, something one typically doesn’t do for a body one does not consider sick. What’s his cure? Why, “civic renewal” — which Gerson falsely claims I reject — and “incremental policy changes.” To repeat for the record: to the extent that “civic renewal” is more than a slogan, I’m all for it. Let’s do it! But how? What I said — which Gerson ignores — is that conservatives have no credible plan for achieving civic renewal and, besides, have been in charge of selling and implementing their non-credible plan for a generation to little effect. The “civic” has not only not been “renewed” under conservative leadership; it has deteriorated. Conservatism has failed at the task it set for itself.

As for “incremental policy changes,” one must wonder if Gerson means that seriously. Conservatives haven’t been able to enact any of their incremental policy changes in years, certainly won’t be able to in a second Clinton Administration, and — if the scenario I laid out above comes to pass — never will again. But Gerson is nonetheless vehemently anti-Trump. On some subconscious level, does he believe that “incremental policy changes” just aren’t going to cut it? Is he thinking: what difference, at this point, does it make?

Heh. Nice dig.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.