BUT I will elaborate my reasons first.
The second was bringing Dr. Brantly and his co-worker back to the United States. The number of angry calls into my radio program from well meaning conservatives, comments across social media, opinion columns, agreement thereto, etc. really boggled my mind. Here are two Americans risking their lives to help others and we are supposed to turn our back on them, leave them there, or criticize their decision to go in the first place? That’s not the America I know or love. The level of outright anger, fear, and bitterness over the decision to take care of American citizens and the lack of knowledge and understanding that formed the foundation for the anger, fear, and bitterness really left me wondering what is going on.
Thats right folks some one who has been on the Internet for more then 6 months does not understand a fundemental rule of the Internet: Anyone can say anything they want to say on the internet, and will no matter how stupid that thing might be. The fact he runs a website that has moderated comments and he takes stupidity on the internet seriously makes me strongly doubt this entire article is a geniue hand rubbing by Erickson. Furthermore Erickson has a talk radio program. Talk Radio callers are picked for the most interesting nature (interesting being making people want to listen to the radio) nature of their comments. If Erick was truly concerned about those angry calls he would just not take them and not give their idiocy an actual soap box...which is what he is doing with his blog post here.
And at the end of this statement we see yet another reason not to take Erick Serious.
That’s not the America I know or love. The level of outright anger, fear, and bitterness.....
So as a so called Christian and Conservative thinker you encounter people who are lost from the idea of the America you all love instead of showing LEADERSHIP and being a LIGHT to others, you mearly rub your hands in woe. Ignorance about a disease is easy to fight. If you fight the ignorance you can deal with the fear and anger. And then you can discuss the debate about people walking into certain death being saved, to what end do we do that? There is value in that debate and their is substance in that debate. Do we encourage people to take more and more risks until we cannot help them. Is that a better alternative then not helping them. This is a perfectly valid and reasonable debate of ethics. It goes and takes a deeper look at morality and it leads to a deeper insight and thought.
To start, Christian conservatives were roundly assailed by other conservatives for daring to provide aid and comfort to children whose parents had shipped them across the border. Some could not distinguish between giving a child a teddy bear and supporting Mexican drug cartels. It was all one or all the other. In fact, many Christians, myself included, want expedited deportations and a secure border. But we also want to make sure the children, some victims of human trafficking, were taken care of, fed, and comforted.
But to some on the right, that is aiding law breakers. The anger and hysteria directed at conservatives engaged in private charity had all the makings of a leftist police state making us care about how we choose to spend our own money.
Latin American Countries have serious economic problems. And I want to take this deep case and use a famous analogy.
If your neighbor has a fire, you would take your firehouse and help him. But what if your neighbor always had fires and always relied on you to help them? Is that charity or subservience? Is that charity or is that dependency? In this case there are a variety of social and economic factors pushing illegal aliens into our country from Latin America. When faced with these challenges countries like Mexico (and others) provide aid to these immigrants going north. They do so because it prevents them from having to make a hard choice and hard reforms. Pass on the cost of their economic failures to their neighbor in the north.
Providing charity to suffering children in this situation is a valid response and I think a necessary response. But bad actions by state actors (on both sides of the border) have encouraged illegal aliens to migrate north. This charity will serve as a further encouragement for people to flee their countries rather than make them better. This will serve as a further encouragement to their "leaders" to encourage and help then go rather than to fix their country. Are we being penny wise and pound foolish with our generosity? That's a valid debate to have. Is the debate being engaged in a productive manner: Absolutely not.
The last is the present situation in Ferguson, MO. The rush to win a fight and lay blame instead of mourning a loss and praying for a situation just leaves me perplexed. The rush to “change the narrative” with bad facts to replace bad facts by some folks who keep the ichthys on their car unsettles me.
The Conservative movement is far from united here. But as in the above comments there is a valid debate to be had, just a debate that is served by people who would rather hand wring then engage it constructively.
In the 60s-80s Conservatism embraced Law and Order as a response to the social permissiveness that seemed to encourage crime. (And it may encourage crime but there are far more sociological factors involved in crime for a blog to do them justice). Many bad people who were doing bad things were put into jail even into the 90s. A dear friend of mine reminds me that Superman I with Christopher Reeves spoke of the power of crime that infested New York City. Even an upscale reporter like Lois Lane had 5 or 6 chains on her door. In the 1990s the efforts of Law and Order Conservatism bore their fruit. Violence and crime were in a massive decline and the police were heroes. Crime is still lower then it was when we embraced as Conservatives Law and Order. The problem with Wars of Social Policy is they are wars that can never end and their soldiers continue to fight them. We have seen the "Warrior Cop" and the rise of "Total Information Awareness" to try to provide a total and complete security for the American People. Such an absolute never exists and promotes a sense of paranoia about the world in the soldiers set to protect us. And over time that Paranoia leads to serious errors in judgement.
Errors in judgement that lead to events that happened in Ferguson. We can mourn the loss of a human life, but a mourning for a stranger is less important in this then embracing an anger at what has become of those heroes who liberated us from the world of the first Superman movie. The concern of the movement should not be about prayer (but praying for peace should be vital) but it should be about spreading knowledge, and bringing about intellectual clarity in the conservative movement so we can apply that clarity to the problems we face.
What do we get from Erick Erickson and Ed Morrisey? Hand Wringing and concern trolling of the first order. The problem is not one of conservatives wanting to be uncharitable, its a problem of is being charitable a constructive response or a response that will make problems worse? Lets have that discussion.