A Response to "Help Vets, Not Refugees" Memes
Does anyone else think that it's a bit suspicious that a political party that 1.) cuts social programs that already exist and 2.) hinders the process of new (and vital) social programs from coming to fruition would suddenly suggest that we ramp up support for vets at this particular moment?
If conservative politicians really felt that we should be giving vets more support (which I agree with, by the way), why is NOW the moment they decide to bring it up? Why not years ago? What is really the motivating factor here?
And why are they making it seem like taking care of vets and helping refugees are mutually exclusive? Why are they pitting these issues against each other when, logically, they are not connected? (This is an example of a logical fallacy, a flaw in reasoning, called a "false dilemma." In reality, we have a third option to work with: we can help both vets AND refugees. And we have a fourth opition: we can deny both vets and refugees our resources. I suspect that conservatives, given their track record, would choose the latter option.)
The fact that they didn't bring it up sooner/under different circumstances and that they are illogically setting these two separate issues against each other indicates that something is off--something else is going on.
In other words, conservative politicians are using rhetorical manipulation to make "I don't want foreigners in my country" sound less bad than it is. (Another way of saying it is: "If I say that I'll help vets then it won't hurt my PR as much when I say that I don't want to help starving children who are fleeing from murderers.")
If you want to help vets, then help vets. If you don't want to help refugees, then say that you don't want to help refugees. But don't use rhetorical manipulation and doublespeak to trick the masses into believing that it's one or the other. It's not ethical. Say what you really mean. And if what you really mean makes your conscience hurt, then maybe you need to re-evaluate your stance.