Logic versus feelings, this is a standard political argument that has raged from time immemorial. You see examples of this on the news all the time, reporters rushing up to victims and asking them how they feel, not what happened or why it happened, but their feelings. You also see it nowadays in press conferences or speeches by politicians. They always have to have a group of “victims” standing behind them to “illustrate” how awful some condition is and how these poor people are being mistreated. Unfortunately, the typical solution of the liberals, who are the ones who tend to play to the emotions, is to throw money at the problem or use some sort of government control to “alleviate” the perceived wrong.
Obviously feelings have their place in our daily lives, but they have been completely overblown in the political arena. Hillary Clinton is famous for her phrase “it’s for the children”. That is her way of hiding any flaws and intimidating opponents of legislation or programs she proposes by making an emotional appeal. Who could be against the children? If you’re against the children, you must be a monster. This type of argument stifles debate and is an Alinsky tactic that casts the opposition as uncaring, evil people, not just people with an opposing viewpoint who might have a better alternative to solving the problem.