Politically Correct Non-sense

Several in the Democratic Party are shooting themselves in the foot.What's with these folks anyway?  Their  (former)  idols Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, are idols no more. They have discovered that both Tom and Andrew owned slaves once. It was over two centuries ago but they must be punished for those past sins. It makes no difference, for example,  that Tom established many of the human rights now so important in American life. Don't these current liberal folks know that today's moral standards are different than they were years ago. Perhaps ethics and common sense improve with time - but not always.

• Victor Davis Hansen offers this question which really ends the debate for me:

"Would American society of 1915 have allowed a federally supported agency 

such as PLANNED PARENTHOOD to cut apart aborted 

fetuses to sell infant body parts?"

Victor offers several other interesting comments  that I will paraphrase: 

• No society before the Nazi Third Reich had institutionally committed mass death by executing tens of thousands of sacrificial human captives. 

• Aztec Indians also practiced slave owning and ritual cannibalism. Isn't it true that the morality of the present is not always the same as that of the past. 

• Liberal-progressive Democrats are damning Woodrow Wilson.He successfully won World War I,  and was instrumental in organizing the League of Nations (forerunner of the United Nations). Wilson was also an unapologetic racist.  He fought integration  (particularly of African-Americans) in the U.S. military. As president of  Princeton University he also fought to deny University admission to African-Americans. Should we now focus only on the disreputable aspect of his legacy?

• Earl Warren, a liberal-progressive icon whose work on the Supreme Court promoted a liberal agenda with lasting impact. He and FD.R. also were largely responsible for incarcerating Japanese Americans in internment camps. Together they  raised the level of racist paranoia and stripped the constitutional rights from tens of thousands of U.S. citizens. This is now thought to have been a terrible decision.At the time, it seemed like the right thing to do.Should they now be condemned?

dw