That’s really interesting, I’ve never thought of it that way. By proposing logically inconsistent policies they are indeed asserting that the exercise of arbitrary authority is more important than fair and equitable governance.
The main unifying belief of the right is that some groups deserve power and some don’t. That’s it. Inconsistency doesn’t matter in the slightest to them. If the “good” people do something then it’s good, if the “bad” people do something then it’s bad. The inconsistency is fundamental to how they view groups and power. They deserve to be inconsistent and arbitrary because they deserve power just by existing. In their minds it’s good because they are the good people, everything they do is good. They are the good people so they think they should have the most unchecked power.
That’s really interesting, I’ve never thought of it that way. By proposing logically inconsistent policies they are indeed asserting that the exercise of arbitrary authority is more important than fair and equitable governance.
The main unifying belief of the right is that some groups deserve power and some don’t. That’s it. Inconsistency doesn’t matter in the slightest to them. If the “good” people do something then it’s good, if the “bad” people do something then it’s bad. The inconsistency is fundamental to how they view groups and power. They deserve to be inconsistent and arbitrary because they deserve power just by existing. In their minds it’s good because they are the good people, everything they do is good. They are the good people so they think they should have the most unchecked power.