“But then he goes on to ask me his most pressing question: ‘Would you still vote for [the president] if he promises to build fewer concentration camps than [his challenger]?'”
Shocking question! What’s the answer?
“The answer is an unequivocal, absolute ‘Yes’.”
Not exactly a shocking answer coming from a default-minded lesser-supporter of the president. In his defence, he’s trying to jibe his hefty criticism of drone policy with his Bo Rama contingent fraternity status. Going further:
“It is morally repugnant of you – if you believe that Candidate A will create more concentration camps, in this hypothetical, than Candidate B – to in any way aid or abet the election of that Candidate A.”
Again, in his defence, he says he is speaking in those terms because the person who posed him the question is “obviously writing” to him “with some type of moral righteousness”. Best I can figure is he’s trying to say that he’ll drop the “morally” from his response if the other guy agrees to revise his question similarly.
How unequivocal do you think his electoral support is for the less camp-building candidate? Check out the analogy he creates to help understand the hypothetical:
“Think about what you’re arguing here: Would you tell a partisan in 1944 that ‘if you can’t get rid of all the concentration camps, there’s no point in eliminating one of them’?”
See what he did there? Suddenly we’re talking about the getting rid of concentration camps. Again, in his defence (& ’cause third time’s a charm), it’s probably because we would never build concentration camps. That’s absurd, right?
Shifting the hypothetical “lesser building” to the analogical “greater elimination” might seem like an oversight or, at worst, leger de langue. But I think it’s an indication of something equivocal about that “yes” of his. Though I’m sure it remains absolute.