Keith Ellison: Moral Relativism’s cynical, disingenouos objective correlative
Representative Keith Ellison (D., Minn.) justified his recent vote against additional funding for Israel’s missile-defense system as part of an effort to reach a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas.
“Because a cease-fire is what we should prioritize now,” he said when asked to explain his vote on Meet the Press. “A cease-fire protects civilians on both sides — it doesn’t just say, ‘We’re only concerned about people on one side.’”
He pointed to the devastation he witnessed during his trips to Gaza.
Additionally, Ellison penned an op-ed in the Washington Post earlier this week calling on Israel to “end the Gaza blockade.”
Note how Ellison tries to suggest that his vote against Iron Dome funding is a vote for the promotion of peace — which he effortlessly conflates with a cease fire that would prevent Israel from destroying the tunnel system that Hamas uses to launch incursions.
More, Ellison thinks that funding Iron Dome — which is meant to protect an ally from indiscriminate bomb attacks by Hamas and other terror entities — is somehow unfair, that the asymmetrical nature of defense against avowed enemies looking to kill you off is, well, gauche.
Much like free-market capitalism is crude and unfair. Ellison would like to see the redistribution of weapons systems just as surely as he’d like to see the redistribution of wealth. And in both instances, he promotes a failed, totalitarian, and murderous philosophy — proven so by history time and time and time again.
That he is able to do so while presuming to perch himself atop some moral high ground is absolutely repulsive. But then, citizens get what the representation they want.
Much like those in Gaza who voted Hamas into power and now decry the consequences of having done so.