"Here is the question. There is a very bad man who has done bad things, let's say murder, but he has escaped, escaped to a distant wilderness from which he will never return to do his bad deeds again. We could raise up a small army and pursue him, but it would cost a lot of money and doubtless some of the soldiers will lose their lives. Do we pursue him or do we not pursue him?" - Uncle Ken
I am not a great fan of those hypothetical scenarios, but I'll do what I can with this one. Are we to suppose that this distant wilderness is entirely devoid of people? If so, the bad guy is not likely to survive there for very long, so chasing after him would be a waste of time and resources. If not, allowing the bad guy to live there with impunity is just foisting our problem onto someone else. That's all I've got, at least for now.
I don't see how this scenario relates to Trump. He has not escaped to some wilderness, he is still here among us. Maybe that's what the impeachment effort is all about, to render Trump harmless by banishing him to the outer darkness. If that's the case, it may not work. They might end up making him a martyr to his followers, inspiring them to even greater efforts.
No comments:
Post a Comment