The principle holds for the individual as well as the nation-state – you have plenty of real obstacles in life, don’t be one.

Now, this bit is controversial and the snowflakes may need to evacuate to their safety rooms now. Steel yourself. Get ready. Here goes: People aren’t perfect.

Because people aren’t perfect your side/party/group/political position will also not be perfect. Governments won’t be perfect. Nation-states, even ones we dearly love, will not be perfect.

Get over it.

The other guy may be a total moron but that doesn’t mean he isn’t occasionally right. The other side may be full of total lunatics (looking at you, Democrat party) but that doesn’t mean they don’t have a good point once in a while. The other country may be off their rocker zealots but that doesn’t mean they aren’t ever correct about anything.

Each case has to be looked at on its own merits. We can cheat where the case is very similar to another and the issue isn’t important enough that we need a policy change right now but where it’s really important that we get it right we have to actually look at the whole case, not just the interesting bits.

The problem of the left – at least their supporters – is an inability to look at the whole. It’s better when we can be rational about it but never the less we need to see the whole case in order to figure out the good bits from the bad. Lazy analysis leads to bad policy. This little fact is presently destroying the Democrat party from the inside.

Let’s not follow their example.

Talking points are usually just highlights and frequently just strawmen. (A strawman is an easily defeated argument that an opponent puts up as if it were the other side’s argument and then knocks it down even though it’s not actually the argument of the other side. This is a logical fallacy.) They are cheats used by both the left and the right and frankly, they’re dumb. Talking points avoid real discussion by sticking to a script. Fine for a press conference, not so good for hammering out the truth of a matter.

Virtually every conservative argument I’ve seen against supporting Ukraine either boils down to ‘Ukraine bad’, NATO bad, Democrats bad’, ‘too expensive’ or the latest ‘we’re running out of toys!’. There’s some truth to each but even all together they don’t make a strong or even a half decent case against supporting Ukraine. That’s because they aren’t well reasoned, fact supported arguments – they are knee jerk reactions. This is what we criticize the left for, remember?

Senator Rand Paul held up the appropriations to Ukraine. His stated reason is that we need to include oversight. Democrats went mildly nuts. Now, I am all for sending that aid – but there’s absolutely nothing wrong with Senator Paul’s point that we need better oversight. The Democrats are fools to fight that – just add the oversight and get the thing passed.

Should we be suspicious of Democrat motives? Heck yeah – the last two years should have taught us that much at least. But is leaving Ukraine to fend for itself best for American foreign policy and American interests just because the Democrats want to do the opposite? Come on, guys – we can reason better than that.

Whether or not we send aid should depend on what’s in America’s best interest. I’ve argued and will again that it is very much in America’s long and middle term interest to keep the fighting confined to Ukraine and that supporting Ukraine with aid is the best way to do that. If someone comes up with a good argument why that position is wrong, we need to look at it – and that means I have to be willing to face the horrible possibility that I’m wrong about it. Okay – bring it on.

Don’t use crap talking points and one line zingers in place of reasoned arguments. Memes are fun and can be a good way to start a conversation but they are a poor substitute for the real thing. An argument isn’t damaged by who agrees with it – arguments are damaged by being poorly presented.

Fewer talking points, more real points. Come on, conservatives – let’s show ’em how it’s done!