The other day it occurred to me that it would be interesting to see if there’s any correlation between people who think spanking their children is okay and people who support our offensive prosecution of the Fourth World War against terrorism.
I’d like to see some sort of poll that could identify relationships between them Not “62% of Americans think it’s okay to use spanking to discipline your children and 59% of Americans approve of pre-emptive attacks against potential terrorism-related threats,” but “X% of people who think it’s okay to use spanking to discipline your children approve of pre-emptive attacks against potential terrorism-related threats.”
So many of the arguments I’ve heard about not invading Iraq or proceeding without UN approval sound similar to the arguments by sophisticates who preach that it’s morally wrong or counter-productive to spank your children.
I’m thinking that the percentage of spankers that support the war, or at least the reasoning behind it, would be very, very high. Like, 90% or more.
I’d also wonder about the relationship between people who want stricter gun control laws and people who oppose the invasion of Iraq.
I’m not suggesting that we invaded Iraq to “spank” our “child” Saddam. Not at all. Even though that argument counters those that claim we created Saddam, I don’t think we did so I’m not going there.
But I suspect that the mental reasoning of those who believe that spanking is a proper form of discipline also believe that pre-emptive action against potential enemies is proper. And I also suspect that most of them, the overwhelming majority that spank very rarely and only when other means of discipline have failed, would use that same restraint when launching attacks.
Is there anything like this out there? Am I way off base here?