Common Sense: Emerson on “Foolish Consistency”

What Emerson Actually Said—and Why It Matters

American poet Ralph Waldo Emerson is given credit for capturing the thought that consistency is sort of a silly idea. Let’s start by correcting the record as to what he actually said. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” “Foolish” is emphasized because it is a very important qualifier that often is given scant attention.

Another caveat would be his distinction between values and opinions/methods. Emerson staunchly supported consistency for values.

When Consistency Is Expected—and When It Magically Isn’t

Consistency is generally considered a favorable attribute. When a person changes their mind on a subject, or even does a complete reversal, many people believe an explanation is in order. Fortunately, if you are among the bi-coastal elites, that is not required. No, if you are a progressive, you just pretend the past is unimportant. You can totally change what you believe on important topics without consequence. Not only that, you get to be smug, arrogant, and condescending every step of the way. Your fellow travelers in the Unholy Trinity (academia, legacy corporate media, and the world of entertainment) just ignore your earlier held position.

Don’t believe me? Let’s take a look at just three examples.

Immigration: Yesterday’s Talking Points, Today’s Moral Outrage

Especially now, there is a focus on illegal immigration. The then and now can be striking. Bill Clinton repeatedly pronounced his view that our southern border must be secured, and viewed those who entered illegally as threats to both our safety and sovereignty. During his term, he deported about one million.

What about President Obama? He became known as the Deporter in Chief, sending back three million illegals. He said: “Even as we are a nation of immigrants, we’re also a nation of laws. Undocumented workers broke our immigration laws, and I believe that they must be held accountable — especially those who may be dangerous.”

During President Trump’s first term, tears were literally shed over children being held in cages. One small problem. The footage showing this came from Obama’s Presidency. 68 illegals died while in ICE custody. Hillary Clinton’s trajectory on the topic resembles that of her husband and President Obama.

The Biden record of what can only be called open borders speaks for itself. After being told that nothing important could happen without a “comprehensive plan,” President Trump was able to secure the border in a matter of months after his return to office.

In other words, this moral outrage concerning the removal of illegal immigrants has not always been the case among Democrats, including Presidents. No, it has more to do with President Trump being in office.

Principles or Politics?

While it is true that Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is central to some of these flip-flops, there are other cases where it appears to be little more than a change in what is the most progressive position that is politically acceptable.

Marriage, Memory, and Manufactured Moral Superiority

Way back in 2008, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama expressed the belief that a marriage was the union between one woman and one man. For the record, this conservative, married to the same woman for 45 years, with four children and eight grandchildren (with another on the way) has supported gay marriage since the 1980’s. This is not so much about the topic as it is the sincerity and durability of what progressives have to say about things. When gay marriage got the green light from the Supreme Court, suddenly these same folks behaved as though anyone who did not support gay marriage was a homophobic hater. Once more, the same folks (the Unholy Trinity) just pretended the past did not occur.

A Pattern Too Long to Ignore

There are so many instances of this behavior—President Biden’s cognitive ability to serve, freedom of speech, dealing with crime (who can remember the anti-crime bill passed during the Clinton years?), equal opportunity versus equal outcomes, etc.—the topic probably deserves a longer examination. We might take this in bits, so my editor can live with the length of the pieces.

Energy Policy and the Art of the 360-Degree Turn

For now, let’s close with something near and dear to the hearts and souls of Progressives—energy and the environment. I am so old that I remember being told that if I did not support large subsidies for ethanol, I was in the hip pocket of Big Oil. Within a decade, the same people who had said this, without missing a beat, now (with the same arrogance and smugness as always) told me that if I supported subsidies for ethanol, I was putting our food supply in competition with our energy needs. That is a complete 360. Raise your hand if you remember hearing the chattering class evidencing anything resembling remorse for their earlier absolutism.

Closing Thought

Common Sense: Some level of consistency should be the norm in conversations and debates among serious people. It would be nice to see some.