"Even if one counts our dead in Iraq and Afghanistan as casualties of the war against terrorism, which brings us to about 6,500, we should remember that roughly the same number of Americans die every two months in automobile accidents."This comparison of terrorism deaths with automobile accidents is an interesting one which the left seems to find very applicable. The WSJ Best of the Web included a link to the number of lynchings from 1882-1964, which turns out to be 4,742 people, and asks if the left would then come to the conclusion that lynching was not a serious problem?
I think the answer is pretty clear; situational ethics. The left was in fact "OK with lynchings" from 1882-1964, and only when they determined that it was politically possible to turn support for civil rights into a net win did they change their stripes. To the left there are no moral issues, only issues of popularity and the push for complete rule by the masses--bereft of meaning beyond popularity.
The materialist finds no meaning beyond measurement. Lives are calculated like any other number, with no distinction as to person, nor any as to cause of death. While the calculation to consider "lynching bad" turned out to be a good political calculation for the left post '64, it is a mistake to think that it makes any real difference to Bob Byrd or Teddy Kennedy to be a racist or a champion of civil rights. The only difference is what calculation has been made to gain the most power ... in that calculation, they DO display consistency.
I disagree with the WSJ. They mistake the left as actually thinking that lynching would be identified as a problem "universally". I think the evidence shows that to not be the case, and to realize that the left will always seek a solution to gain power. Any claim of "morality" for the left is always situational.
Unfortunately, such is usually the case more most politicians.