I know I shouldn’t grasp at fruit hung so low, but the offers of the folk over at a place I’ll link to shortly are mighty tempting fare. Just the other day, their Commander in Grief decided that his ethos would be enhanced if he penned a manifesto in the style of an online crank,* e.g.:
WE REFUSE TO BE SHUTTLED OFF TO GOVERNMENT RUN URBAN “PLANTATIONS,” WHERE WE’LL BE ASKED TO WORK AND YET STILL BE FULLY DEPENDENT FOR OUR WELFARE ON THE MAN IN THE BIG WHITE HOUSE.
I’m not even quoting the bits that are in ALL CAPS and italicized, because on a fundamental level I’m not even sure what that sort of emphasized emphasis signifies. That said, the fact that a white man whose Wikipedia page absolutely wasn’t written by him or maintained by his acolytes is claiming slave kinship isn’t the issue here. The issue, as evidenced in this post, is that as Paul noted, the deficit in Wisconsin is an accounting stunt of the sort that “classical liberals” should abhor, and yet the “classical liberals” over there never mention the stunt, only its inevitable effect.
It’s almost as if they’re blind to the fact that politics are being played when they’re on serve, but their eyes and whines come to fore when their opponent plays a strong baseline game.
*The whole screed is worth a read, instructive as it is about the rhetoric-to-rails relation in contemporary American society.