Do you ever wonder why we’re always seeing the liberals try to reinvent themselves? Do you remember the “3 faces of Gore” in the 2000 election debates? Do you question why liberals are completely outspoken before the war, warning of mass doom and gloom, only to fade into obscurity and silence when the victory is at hand?
Imagine if you will a football game. On one side of the ball you have the offense. The offense controls the flow of the game by deciding whether to run or pass, line up in a strong right formation or strong left, knowing in advance who will advance the ball down the field, preparing the proper blocking assignments and executing a plan thought out in advance. The offense defines its strategy, sticks to its plan and moves forward. The key is to stick to the proven gameplan that works without fail.
On the other side, you have the defense. The defense’s sole objective is to thwart the offense’s gameplan. The defense has no flow control of the game, other than to stop the offense. The defense plans its attack by guessing what the offense will do. Sometimes it works, sometimes it fails. When it fails, the defense must reevaluate what it did wrong and change for the next play. Throughout the game, the defense is always repositioning its players, reassessing its position on the field, reexamining the strategy of the offense and basing its next move on a reaction to the offense’s movements.
In today’s political climate, the liberals seem to be this ever-shifting defense. They’re always reinventing themselves to adjust for the flow of the game. They have no real strategy other than to oppose the conservatives. If you doubt that, simply look at the war in Iraq - liberals have not come up with a plan to rid the world of Iraq’s dangers, they’ve only opposed Bush’s plan and at each step have had to redefine their position “Iraqis won’t cheer, we’re eeeevil”, then they cheered…. “where’s the link to al Qaeda” and it was found….now it’s “but where are the WMDs?”….and when they’re uncovered, what will be the next opposition argument?
It’s easier to defend a single position chocked full of passion, supported by a strong belief and backed by facts…. then it is to hold on to intellectually dishonest ideals which change with time.
