A foolish consistency...

sayeth Emerson,

It is the source of one of Emerson's most famous quotations: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.".

Which reminds me of this Khan business.  You don't remember Khan?  A reminder in these posts:

1. Trump v. Stephanopolous
2. Double checking the Muslim Brotherhood thing
3. Khan!
4. Perhaps an alternate take of the situation
5. More wrath of Khan
6. Clinton says violence should always be off the table
7. Klavan on the Culture:  The politics of shut up
8. PJ Media and Clint Eastwood v. PC
9. Dick Morris: Why Florida Terrorist’s Dad Endorses Hillary

Okay, the things that make for foolish consistency  :

Number one, "you cannot criticize a Gold Star Dad".   If this was Joe Sixpack's son, then yeah.  But this isn't Joe Sixpack Jr., here.  This guy is a prominent type of guy that Joe Sixpack Jr. was fighting.  To criticize him "just because" he's a Gold Star Dad is bad because of who this Khan character is.

Number two, it is pure Alinsky.  By way of explanation, Alinsky said to attack a political opponent, make him live up to his own standards.  That's true especially if you don't live up to those standards yourself.  Certainly, the Dems don't care about Gold Star Dads and Moms as a matter of principle.  If they did that, they would no longer be who they are.  At no time during Iraq War did the left care about the men dying over there.  They were only using their deaths as a way to power once again.  So, shedding crocodile tears over the Gold Star Dads rings hollow as far as their own feelings are concerned.  But it fits perfectly in their modus operandi of using deaths as a means to power.  They used it in order to make Trump shut up about vets.  They used it knowing that the so-called conservatives couldn't criticize Khan without violating a "principle".  They used it in the belief that Trump would respond, and that they could use it to drive a wedge between the factions in the GOP.  If you can't call them out on the Alinsky, then what is the point of any principle?  Alinskite type tactics are pure cynicism.  Not calling them out on this really takes foolish consistency to a new level.

Thirdly, it is purely foolish consistency to criticize Trump for saying what he did.  This could come from even Libertarians.  Let's take Klavan's talk about the politics of shut uppery.  If Klavan cannot support Trump because Trump takes on PC, then what was the point of the video?  Indeed, what is the point of Libertarianism?  Does the election of Hillary benefit Libertarians?  Did the election of Obama benefit Libertarians?  Seems to me that it doesn't.  So, why the foolish consistency about criticism of Trump?

This could go on and on.  Why are these people there if they won't defend what they say that they believe in?  To take a dive over a foolish consistency isn't going to advance your cause.  But that presumes that you actually believe in what you say you believe.  A consistency that is NOT foolish is one that truly defends what you say that you believe.   In that way, you cannot go wrong.