It seems logical consistency is in short supply these days. I was talking to Mr. Green the other day, my retired liberal friend who hangs around the office at my sawmill, and somehow the conversation turned toward the Ukraine War.
“I’ll tell you this,” said Mr. Green. “If someone doesn’t support the war in Ukraine, I’m going to fall out with them. To not support the war in Ukraine is unpatriotic, and that’s all there is to it.”
Bold, declarative statements coming as seldom as they do in this relativistic world, I found myself wanting him to expound on this doctrine.
“You mean you think its flat-out wrong for an American to be against sending money to fund the war in Ukraine?” I asked.
“That’s it exactly,” said Green. “If that isn’t wrong, nothing’s wrong.”
I asked him to explain why this violated his moral code; Green’s basic response was that Russia was a threat to our country because, if we didn’t defend Ukraine, the Russians would extend the invasion to NATO countries, thereby forcing our own country to send American troops.
“It’s a no-brainer,” he said. “To be against funding Ukraine is to be playing politics with national security. That should never happen.”
Mr. Green’s lack of geo-political experience notwithstanding, I had no real beef with his theory about Vladimir Putin's intentions. For, although I recognized the historical difficulty of anticipating an army’s next move, it seemed as reasonable as anything else I’d heard lately. What I didn’t understand was the lack of logical consistency in the application of my friend’s moral code.
“I understand,” I told him, “except that I don’t see why that line of thinking wasn’t applied to China.”
A funny look came over his face. “What do you mean?”
“Just that, surely if we should defend against Russian aggression in Europe, we ought to defend against Chinese aggression here at home.”
His brow ruffled into an old-timey washboard. “But what has China done?” he said. “I don’t get it.”
“Take the Coronavirus. A leaked investigation from the Department of Energy found that it likely came from the lab in Wuhan, which puts the thing in an entirely different light, and puts China under a cloud of suspicion.”
He pushed his hat back and scratched his bald head. “I haven’t seen that report,” he told me.
When I produced some news stories for him he read them, then set the papers down on the desk.
“I’m going to have to think about that,” he said.
“I wish you would,” I said. “Because it seems to me that if it’s shallow partisan politics to question the U.S. involvement in Ukraine, then it’s got to be at least that bad to refuse to look into China’s role in the Covid outbreak.”
“You would think so,” said Green.
“But if you remember correctly,” I went on, “none of that was allowed in the media when it was happening. People were called conspiracy theorists for even suggesting it. All we could talk about was the role Donald Trump played in it. Isn’t that choosing partisan politics over national security?”
My friend leaned back and shook his head. “I think there’s a difference,” he said. “I just don’t know exactly what it is.”
I was going to show him a report I’d read in the “New York Times” of how 24,000 Chinese immigrants crossed the southern border last year – more than the entire last 10 years combined – but when I looked up again, he had taken up his own reading.
“What’s a five-letter word for reasoning?” he said, looking at the local paper. He had a pen pressed firmly against his chin. “It starts with an L….”
Along with his father, Allen Keller runs a lumber business in Stevenson, Alabama. He has a Ph.D. in Creative Writing from Florida State University and an MBA from University of Virginia. He can be reached for comment at allen@kellerlumber.net.
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of 1819 News.
Don't miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
