Assumptions, premises, postulates, stipulations…call them what you will. There’s no getting away from them. We all have them, because we must have them. There is no system of rationality that obviates the need for a set of assumptions beneath its reasoning.
Sometimes, in attempting to understand some strange aspect of reality, we leap to conclusions that are absurd, specifically because the assumptions from which we started were wrong. That’s so often the case in analyzing the statements and behavior of political personalities that it’s a national tragedy. Yet we seldom realize our errors in that regard in time to correct course.
An old saying – actually, I don’t know how old; it could be quite recent – runs thus:
That which can be adequately explained
This is sometimes called “Hanlon’s Razor.” Many people who affect an air of wisdom will cite it in support of their convictions, especially when they need to exculpate some politician or regime they favor. But in fact, the notion expresses an assumption: i.e., that stupidity is far more often “at work” than malice. Moreover, it omits to consider the special properties of the political context.
Have a recent emission from Dinesh D’Souza:
I have a high regard for D’Souza, though we don’t always agree. But his statement above deserves close scrutiny. From what assumptions does it proceed? They would appear to omit the possibility of malice from consideration as the motive force behind the Usurper Regime’s “energy policy.”
How likely is it that a national policy that explicitly strangles America’s domestic suppliers of fossil fuels in the name of “climate change,” while seeking to pay tyrants and despots for imported oil to replace what we would have produced for ourselves, is not founded on malice? There’s no need to trouble ourselves over the Regime’s “justifications,” as there’s no sense whatsoever to them. Imported oil and gas are just as “polluting” as the domestic product, if not more so.
The unwillingness to entertain the possibility of malice leaves only stupidity and / or insanity as explanations. The “Hanlon’s-Razor assumption” short-circuits the analysis.
As politics is the pursuit of power over others – at some times for personal profit; at others, for power or the love of it itself – malice, broadly understood, is an explanation far more consistent with the evidence than stupidity. This is especially so as regards the Usurper Regime, whose figurehead is plainly a victim of advanced ingressive senility. No one who’s been watching developments these past three years can plausibly attribute any aspect of Regime policy to the “mind” of Joe Biden. His consciousness teeters at the edge of extinction. He’s barely capable of walking across the White House lawn.
On the other hand, the redirection of America’s energy supply to overseas suppliers has immense political advantages. The foremost of them is this: The Regime can decide upon the suppliers and set the terms of acquisition. You and I aren’t able to call up Vladimir Putin or Nicholas Maduro to dicker delivery schedules and prices. Neither could we contrive a “gratuity” or an “expediter’s fee” for the service. That we must pay elevated prices for these alternative supplies is of no moment to the Regime. It’s not their money they’re spending, after all.
So why not malice? Why not the rapacity of a Regime composed of persons devoid of consciences, who seek an inescapable grip over every aspect of American life, commerce, and society? That Regime has already half-crippled our children with its insane masks-in-school policy. It’s compelled millions of American adults to accept an experimental, highly dubious drug for the privilege of continuing to earn a living. It’s practically closed down our seaports with its demands that dockworkers and truckers be injected with the aforementioned drug. Its armed agents have arrested dozens of Americans for the heinous crime of standing outside the Capitol Building, and continues to hold them without trial, and in some cases incommunicado.
Why not malice? Must we assume stupidity? Is it a moral imperative?
Yes, Our Lord said that we should “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” [Matthew 7:1] But that was about assessing the state of others’ souls. It doesn’t preclude judging behavior or the motives that propel it. Especially when the persons involved have extensive records for deceit and demonstrated malice. Ask Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh about their confirmation proceedings.
I could be wrong. But then, all the air could collect in one corner of the room, asphyxiating me. “You pays your money,” et cetera.