"Diagnosis Murder," a 1993-to-2001 CBS dramatic series starring the lead actor in what is my vote for the best sit-com of all time, "The Dick Van Dyke Show," portrayed the crime-fighting actions of Dr. Mark Slone, an off-beat but brilliant physician. Though featuring the occasional obligatory Hollyweird liberalism, it was generally a fine program, which I recommend.
In a four-episode story arc carrying over seasons 3 and 4, the show--bias notwithstanding--depicts an all-too-common problem found among many grassroots activist movements: unsophisticated thinking and dumbness in the name of "principle" or such (further characterization omitted). In the story, a very intelligent criminal character, a near-equal to Slone, is using a violent group of such a nature for his own non-ideological enrichment. He engineers the kidnapping of Dr. Slone, with the intent of using his high intellect (yes, played by the same Dick Van Dyke from "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang") to plan the robbery of a shipment of some one hundred million dollars to be burned.
With no choice, Slone plans the robbery--and true to his character, in a way with no one killed or injured. It seems that the group has two million in cash from a previous robbery, in which one of their numbers was killed. Quite understandably, that member is now upheld as a martyr. Slone's plan, which he doesn't explain to the people because they quite frankly could never have understood it, involves cutting up money-colored paper (this was back when cash was all green-gray) into bill-sized pieces, then bundling it with the real money from the robbery as camouflage. Those bundles were subsequently switcheroo'ed for the bundles of real money to be burned. So, the to-be-burned money is stolen, and with no one the wiser (and no one hurt).
The net result is a major multiplication of the group's cash level. The criminal mastermind is pleased, but the group's ideological leader is furious. He comes up to Slone, mad that Slone has caused all that money of theirs to be burned. (The fact that it was gained at the cost of one of their own was also a factor.) The criminal mastermind actually defends Slone, trying to explain how their money has multiplied by a factor beyond their ability to do arithmetic on their fingers. The group leader, in some great acting, gets a monkey-doing-a-math-problem look on his face. It's left indefinite as to whether he actually understands everything. (It should be noted that at one point, the criminal mastermind characterizes the group as so dumb "they think George Washington was named after the State.")
This group, and especially their leader, has the problem of being stuck at a single level and single dimension of thinking: Slone has caused to be burned their two million dollars. That they have a NET GAIN didn't register. That would require "arith-a-metic" and thinking. This situation to them is one of "principle" as much as profit. HE BURNED THEIR MONEY! Then there is the attachment to the cash due to their martyr dying. Of course, they would have eventually spent it, but for them to see this use as equivalent to that would again have involved going a level or two beyond in their thinking.
All of us do this sometimes. We let sentiment, emotion, and laziness lead us into dumb decisions. It's part of being human. However, when groups and movements allow that to happen--and to be come seemingly the norm--and even to codify into dogma, then it goes beyond that. It crosses from human nature into depicting the people as categorically... dumb, frankly.
The conservative/Right frankly has a harder time with this, due to their genuine concern about "principles." Liberals, on the other hand, lie intentionally. Their only principle is, "The issue is never the issue. The issue is the Revolution." So they aren't tied by points of ideology. They can be completely pragmatic in pursuing their aims. Conservatives, and often libertarians (save for issues of marijuana), let their principles--or audience-gaining rhetoric, but we'll give them the benefit of the doubt, and the results are the same--become self-defeating blocks to the betterment of the situation.
RKBA is one such area, as I have pointed out repeated in this TDF series. Suggestions of political mitigation against disarmament efforts (TDF 25) lead to reactions much akin to that of the dumb group leader. They will look at an idea from a rational thinker like yours truly, and denounce it because it doesn't go as far as they want, or they see it as a compromise, or they simply can't take a one-step-back/TWO-steps-forward approach to their activism.
An example is my suggestion for saving higher-than-ten-round pistol-caliber magazines (TDF 49). When I suggest an approach such as a pro-gun member of Congress proposing an amendment to a magazine-ban bill that would change the number for such magazines--and only such magazines--from the usual 10 to 20, I often get slammed: "Well, why not just go all the way with it???" meaning, have the bill remove all limits, period. They can't support the measure on principle, because in their shallow thinking it constitutes supporting/enabling magazine bans ("You burned our money!"), and the net results of saving ten rounds to use against threats simply doesn't register. The fact that the amendment they would want proposed--which would do what, in fact, I and most "RKBA-focused Patriots" want--would be DOA, and thus accomplish nothing is irrelevant to them. That we'd still face being down to ten-round magazines across the board, rather than retain most of the pistol-caliber firepower we have now (TDF 90--"Pragmatism over principle"), is less important than the "principle" of yelling, "Shall Not Be Infringed!"
The concept of political mitigation has completely departed from their otherwise-activist minds (TDF 25).
Their self-defeating approach only contributes to the failure of their policy positions and their whole movement (which intersects heavily with that of Patriot heritage-preservers). Even as that leader couldn't quite process that net result, too many on the conservative/Right can--or will--only look at the surface. (I discuss in TDF 67 about the hows, whys, and results of such foolishness.) The truth is, lawyers lie in court to succeed in jurisprudence (consider the "Substantive Due Process" dance on 14A). And politicians must lie to succeed in legislation. Accept it.
Critics of this approach will still ask about whether I--it's always personal with them--actually "care" about "freedom" or "the Constitution" or whatever. I tell them, "I care about our country, our people, and our heritage more, and RKBA is key in that (TDF 50)." "Freedom" when it enables or leads to the loss of freedom by chaos--be it the chaos itself or the resultant "order" which some will impose--cancels itself out. The Constitution is not supposed to be a suicide pact, and we ought not make it one (though some recently have done exactly that in refusing to stand against the 2020 Election Steal).
Both of these have their function and purpose. Let us put that purpose first. And for that purpose, TWENTY rounds is better than ten, even as a hundred million dollars is better than two.
It's time to grow up (TDF 85).
ADDENDUM: For more generic discussion of this sort of dumbness, which yours truly dubs, "Teabrainery": THE DAILY FUDD: E132: "SPECIAL REPORT: Here's what I mean by 'Teabrainery.'"
TDF INDEX: Cats, Guns, and National Security: THE DAILY FUDD index. https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-daily-fudd-index.html