Crisis And Opportunity

     For more than a century, the Democrats have used crises – real or imaginary, organic or contrived – to expand American governments and intrude upon the freedom of American citizens. The outline of that strategy has been clear for many decades, but it wasn’t until Rahm Emanuel stated it clearly and openly that most of us had any idea what they were doing. Our Gentle Readers have all seen the quote several times, so I shan’t bother to post it again. The important things about it are that:

• He meant it sincerely;
• He was expressing a strategy held widely among his co-partisans.

     But there’s more here than meets the eye. For what does it mean to use a crisis to do “things you couldn’t do before” — ?

     When the Democrats exploit a crisis, they usually do so by emphasizing “the need to act.” Usually, the emphasis is on human suffering. They urge immediate government action, ostensibly to alleviate that suffering. On those occasions when state or federal action does ease that suffering – never mind at what cost nor to whom – they get plaudits for it. Perhaps a government agency is expanded and granted additional funding. Perhaps a new agency is born, with all the dynamics attendant thereto. The powers government seized become permanent.

     Note that no attention goes to any prior actions or developments that produced the crisis – especially if it descended from prior decisions or actions of a government.

     We’re seeing some of this now as regards the wildfires decimating Los Angeles. There are several causative factors behind those fires and the weak responses to them. All of them involve a state or municipal government. But attempts by figures in the Right to have those factors discussed and treated are shouted down as “politicizing the issue.”

     Historically, the Left’s control of the media has been the deciding factor. But today there are alternatives to what the late William E. Simon called “the media megaphone.” Unfortunately, those alternatives are treated like illegitimate cousins to the “legacy media,” which continue to shape public discussion of public controversies. This is an important front in the war for America as it was originally conceived.

     Not long ago, Ann Coulter observed that “conservatives read books; liberals don’t.” It was true and remains true. But similarly, conservatives pay far more attention to the alternative media than do liberals. That’s been put down to people’s tendency to gravitate to what they already agree with: “confirmation of our prejudices.” It’s an aspect of political polarization.

     Yet a crisis such as the Los Angeles wildfires offers us an opportunity to pierce the polarizing veil that causes the Left to ignore or dismiss the Right’s arguments. The destruction and loss are widespread and are easily traced to state and municipal policies. Note how furious CNN’s other talking heads are with Scott Jennings for zeroing in on those policies, especially the emphasis on “DEI” as supreme above all other considerations. The opening is real and vital.

     Arguments over the geneses of the blazes should, if possible, be channeled away from the old media, where left-wing orthodoxy prevents serious discussion of left-wing policy perversities, and toward the alternative media, where discussion of the relevant factors has been serious for some time. To whatever extent we can do so, we can use the opportunity arising from this crisis to open minds and redirect emotions that would previously have fueled the expansion of government.

     Is it possible? Or has our public discourse ideologically rigidified too far to permit it, even for a shot at saving lives and treasure?