"Spock should become the mascot of the Conservative movement... 'LOGIC', not emotions."
This was somebody's comment on facebook today, on a post featuring a picture of Leonard Nimoy's Star Trek character Spock, with the word 'LOGIC' as a caption. I didn't reply there because I don't know the person and don't know how she would react to my thoughts on the matter and I've learned over the years that I don't need to engage with everybody with whom I disagree, but I do want to say a few things.
First, I guess I have to assume some things regarding what the commenter means by the 'Conservative movement.' Typically we hear calls for 'smaller government,' 'lower taxes,' fewer regulations on business, and sometimes an even broader interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Is favoring those things logical, and is opposing them therefore illogical? I certainly don't see it but I'm willing to hear the case made, I guess. What I tend to hear, though, is appeals to emotion. This is true of 'both sides' in political debates, of course. Humans are emotional beings and if you want to sway them an appeal to their emotions is generally quite effective.
Would it be 'better' if politicians appealed to our logic more and our emotions less? Maybe. I know I would prefer it. I recently referred to myself as 'a Spock, not a Kirk,' when suggesting what would be the best way to appeal to me. Do 'Conservative' politicians appeal more to logic than their counterparts? I certainly don't see it. Does anybody? Listen to the noise coming from CPAC these last couple days. Is that anything BUT appeals to emotion? Logic would indicate that compromise is the only way Congress can govern, in our system. Do 'Conservatives' acknowledge that? Which ones? Jeb Bush? You certainly don't win points at CPAC calling for compromise.
Fascinating ...
