Because feelings are inherently subjective, they are a terrible basis for leaders to use when making decisions. And yet, that is exactly how many Western leaders now make their decisions or encourage their citizens to act: based on feelings.
The great Margaret Thatcher, the former British prime minister who died on this day more than a decade ago, once observed, “Do you know, one of the greatest problems of our age is that we are governed by people who care more about feelings than they do about thoughts and ideas? Now, thoughts and ideas, that interests me.” The “Iron Lady” who helped bring down the Soviet Union had little patience for feelings and emotions in government policymaking, and she was right.
In Colorado and Massachusetts, it will soon be legal for creepy groomers to help children “gender transition” or obtain abortions without parental permission, and it will be illegal to inform children that their feelings do not in fact dictate their biological sex. Indeed, most of our major political, educational, and economic institutions now have been taken over by leftists who claim that your feelings define, defy, and reshape your biology. They also claim that the law should protect those who are so deluded while punishing those who want to make decisions based on reason instead of emotion.
Related: Dems Are the Creepy Kidnappers Our Parents Warned Us About
We also see how emotions are used to define the value of life on the topics of abortion, euthanasia, and more. We do not ask, "Is this a human?" We ask, "Does the mother feel as if her baby is a human? ‘Does the family feel as if they want to support an elderly relative?" And naturally, of course, in the end whoever is more ruthless will get to decide whose feelings are to dictate reality, because since feelings are individual and subjective, one cannot make everyone happy all the time.
It used to be that those engaging in argument on an important political, societal, or moral topic would begin by saying “I think…” and then offer facts, data, and reasons for his opinion. Now Americans, particularly young Americans, often begin with “I feel…” and proceed to assert their opinions and detail their emotions, hysterically and furiously responding to any critiques by insulting and attacking the other person. Or they engage in mostly peaceful protests, pro-terror riots, and Tesla torchings.
This is not, of course, to condemn emotions as such, but merely to point out that they cannot be the basis for major decisions, either for an individual or for a society. It is a praiseworthy thing for an individual to feel compassion and practice charity, but a foolish thing for a nation to try and take in every foreigner whose poverty might trigger compassion. A government is not a charity: it should not be responsible for making people feel good or for enforcing “compassion.” That is a key flaw of the arguments in favor of illegal migration.
In the end, as with so many topics, a Golden Mean is called for. It is necessary for those in power not to be heartless or totally lacking in emotion, but rather for them to allow reason to control and regulate their emotions when making decisions. It is useful and often necessary to move people emotionally when arguing that they join a movement or support a certain policy, but there must be a reason behind the emotion.
Margaret Thatcher certainly felt the tragedy of the victims of Soviet Russia, but she did not develop her policies based on those feelings or any feelings, because we all have a dozen different feelings in a day, and cannot expect such a changeable phenomenon to be a solid foundation. As she wisely observed, “one of the greatest problems of our age is that we are governed by people who care more about feelings than they do about thoughts and ideas.”
