There Is No Option C

Ace of Spades makes a very good point today, writing that the so-called "reality based community," the left, often tries to pick a choice C, the one with all of the desireable outcomes but without any of the disadvantages of choice A or choice B.  Scroll down, it's in the middle of a lengthy post.  And Ace, I'm sorry to excerpt so extensively, but it is very good.

In fact, where possible, it would be preferable to lead a nearly unanimous world coalition of condemnation and ultimatums in order to rattle tyrants.

But it's not always possible. And when it's not possible, the left needs to stop dodging the question and answer: Is it better to act with fewer partners to achieve a good result, or to act along with the entire world to preserve the status quo and leave tyrants unchecked?

In my earlier days I did some teaching, and some of that teaching concerned the essay portion of the SAT. And the standard SAT essay question was "Do you support Option A which has these advantages and these drawbacks, or Option B which has different advantages and different drawbacks?" And a lot of students, who just weren't keen on that whole "critical thinking" thing, would answer, basically, "I choose Option C, which has all of the advantages of Options A and B, but none of the drawbacks."

Except, you know, the question did not mention an Option C. It mentioned an A and a B. Period.

I don't know if the SAT graders thought much of that sort of answer. I know for a fact that I didn't. Because it doesn't take too much critical thinking at all to conjure up some dream-world Option C which has no drawbacks whatsoever and claim that's what you support.

Who wouldn't? If you suffer a tragic accident, and a doctor asks you, "Would you like us to amputate your leg and nearly guarantee that you will live, or attempt to preserve your leg with the very high likelihood that you will die in the process?," what human being doesn't have the first impulse of saying, "Actually, I'd like to both keep my leg and have the guarantee of survival."

Well, yes; of course. But sadly, sometimes that's not an option on the table.

And people do this in politics all the time; and call me a hack, but it seems to be a tactic especially favored by the left.

As a physician I constantly run into people looking at me to provide them option C, even though it doesn't exist.  An example: a high school hockey player sustains an injury that takes 5-6 weeks to heal, but the playoffs are in 3 weeks and the season will be over in 6 weeks.  The parents desperately want me to find a way to get their son to play in the tournament.  Occasionally the injury will heal a little quicker, or can be braced or protected, but most often it's just not possible.  In this case I usually have to spend an extra 15-20 minutes, on top of the time spent already, to explain in six different ways why this is not possible.  Still the questions keep coming.  "But, what if..."  "Could he just..."  "How about..."  And so on, seemingly ad infinitum.

I keep in my head the stories of professional athletes with similar injuries and the amount of time they missed, just to assist with the convincing.  But it still takes the extra time.  Meanwhile, after that 20 minute discussion we're just where we started, and I'm late seeing my next patient, making them angry.

So, reality-based community, try being a little more...reality based, and accept it even when it doesn't conform to your desired outcome, in foreign affairs, and in your daily life.