Jerry Shenk: Riddle me these …

by jerry shenk

Is it merely a coincidence that, for most progressives, “doing good things” always seems to require more government?

What, precisely, does the left find objectionable about protecting the unborn, secure borders and elections, school choice, stopping child genital mutilation and defending the U.S Constitution?

Who or what has greater means to undermine personal freedoms, including speech, than powerful organizations like the DOJ, IRS or other government agencies?

If liberals are convinced they can somehow create utopia by expanding the size and role of the state, what are liberalism’s limiting governing principles?

Are modern Americans who respect and adhere to America’s enlightened founding principles really “unenlightened”?

If they are, as they say, just pragmatic and reality-based, why are liberals so insistent on preserving the status quo on failing programs dating from the 1930s and 1960s?

Is it fair to make needy Americans comfortable while offering no alternatives to poverty programs – and no means of escape? Why shouldn’t work requirements and drug testing be part of any public assistance program?

Should Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits be restricted to nutritious food? To citizens?

Shouldn’t we judge the success of America’s War on Poverty by how few need charity rather than by how much we spend on it? If we cannot or will not judge results that way, what are we doing wrong?

Are “good” or “noble” intentions all that matter? Shouldn’t politicians be judged on the quality of their outcomes?

What legislature formally passed the Law of Unintended Consequences, what chief executive signed it – and why aren’t elected officials held accountable for theirs?

If it’s true that women are paid less to do the same jobs, why do employers even bother hiring men?

What does it suggest about the merits of their case when, absent genuine racial offense, people casually accuse others of “racism” just to shut down an argument?

Is it a fixed rule that one must be white to be racist? If non-whites exhibit racist behavior, but are excused from assuming the same moral responsibility demanded of whites, isn’t that, in itself, a form of racial prejudice?

What is the empirical evidence that all observed inequalities are the product of bigotry, prejudice, racism and oppression? Be specific.

Are “equality” and “equity” the same thing? Explain.

Do people who never owned slaves owe reparations to people who were never enslaved? Explain.

How can one simultaneously believe that capital punishment for the guilty is “barbaric,” but aborting the innocent is not?

What evidence is there that stricter gun control laws help prevent mass shootings?

Is Islam a peaceful religion? In the past three decades, how many unprovoked terrorist attacks on the innocent have been perpetrated by practicing Christians?

Why isn’t it acceptable to have legitimate reservations about the effects of gay marriage on our culture and society?

Can a nation unable to control its borders remain sovereign? Why isn’t border control the essential first step in setting immigration policy?

Where should the line between community health and safety and individual liberty and privacy be drawn?

Is it man’s conceit that he caused global warming? Is it his arrogance that allows him to think he can “fix” it? If one accepts the notion of global warming, why isn’t the better response to adapt to it rather than spending trillions to “fight” it?

How did higher education become central to the growing practice of censoring and punishing free expression?

Is there a need for more ideological diversity and representation in mainstream media?

Is the two-party system in the U.S. still effective, or does it need major reform? What reforms?

Should members of Congress have term limits? Why or why not?

Are some issues too politically charged for the courts to decide, especially those that involve matters assigned to the legislative or executive branches of government? Should courts refuse to hear cases that present these questions, leaving them to be resolved through the political process instead? If yes, and courts do hear them, how would you curtail court involvement?

Which provides more meaning for most Americans: family, friends, churches, communities and local civic institutions – or a huge central government?

If the answer is the former, why is America’s political class only aggressively encouraging and growing the latter?

If “…the truth will set you free…,” why aren’t more American political figures actively seeking it?

Contact columnist Jerry Shenk at jshenk2010@gmail.com

Leave a Reply

Message

Name

Phone*