Not long ago I was involved in a serious dialogue with a man of the Left. Some would actually call it a debate. So be it.
In the interest of full disclosure, the man, (let’s call him, . . Ferdinand Yocum,) would vehemently deny my characterization of him in this column. He would protest that he is not a man of the Left by any stretch. Initially, his self-description was that he is a centrist – dead center on the political spectrum. Later on, he moved those goalposts and claimed he was actually a Conservative, like me. But the reason I describe him as a man of the Left is because on every single issue we debated, he seemed, at least to my ears, to favor the Left-wing position. Consistently.
Of the many issues we discussed, one of them concerned whether President Donald Trump was justified in sending troops (the National Guard Reserves) into Chicago in an effort to restore order. For the four or five of you who find this of interest, I share with you how our dialogue went. To make things simple, I will identify his statements with the initials FY in front of them, and my statements with an AN in front of them.
FY: Sending the military into cities has been alarming, unusual, and for the most part, unwelcome. It’s definitely troubling, perhaps unconstitutional.
AN: Frankly, I reject entirely the point you brought up. Which do you prefer: do you prefer cities like Portland and Chicago to continue to see mass chaos and anarchy and murder? Or do you prefer to see all of that stopped by sending in the National Guard? The governor of Illinois and the mayor of Chicago both insist they don’t want Trump‘s help, but meanwhile, neither of them does a single thing to put a stop to the daily mayhem in Chicago. So you get to choose: continued mayhem or send in the National Guard to quell the mayhem? People on the Left choose the former. Conservatives choose the latter. Which do you choose?
FY: I’m not entirely sure what you mean that you reject entirely my point. These are observations I’ve made; are you saying you haven’t observed these things? You haven’t seen the US military called into cities without the state’s request?
AN: I reject your point on ideological grounds. Concerning sending the military into cities: it isn’t, as you suggested, that I have not observed this. Therefore, I am not rejecting your point from the basis of objective, factual occurrences. Instead, I am rejecting your understanding or your ideological response to such objective occurrences.
You and I see the same thing: military being summoned into Chicago. You respond one way to it (i.e., calling it alarming) while I respond differently to it (i.e., seeing it as necessary).
We both agree it is unusual. We both agree it is unwelcome (by, say, the Governor of Illinois and the Mayor of Chicago). But you seem to think that the since the Governor of Illinois and the Mayor of Chicago do not welcome it, that means President Trump should stand down and allow things to be business as usual – which means, essentially, continued chaos, anarchy, mayhem, and murder. If that is, in fact, your position, that is a position I reject.
It is certainly the position of both the Governor of Illinois and the Mayor of Chicago. I’m guessing you agree with them, and I’m guessing you feel that if those state and city leaders do not want the National Guardsmen deployed to their city, then we (or Trump) should defer to the Governor and Mayor. That is a position to which I do not concur.
If Pritzker and Johnson demand we allow them to handle things when they have demonstrated, unequivocally, that they are NOT handling things, it tells me that the only reason why they demand Trump stand down is because they hate Trump, as so many of the Left do. I reject that as a valid rationale.
President Trump’s motive is to make Chicago safer. He has already proved he has done so in Washington DC. And besides, such military personnel are protecting FEDERAL property which they have a right to do. You suggested that it is probably unconstitutional. I disagree, but you might end up being correct. We must allow the Supreme Court to weigh in on that specific question and defer to their judgment.
You also call it troubling. This is where you and I part company. I see it as hopeful. Thus, I hope I have clarified why I reject the point you made: as to the facts, I see what you see. As to the implications of those facts, you see it from a Liberal-Left perspective; I see it from a Conservative perspective. Does that make sense?
And that, my friends, is the latest elephant in the room.
(This will be continued in the next issue of Uncommon Sense).
