I'll defend anybody who uses their power and influence to try and help children.
Even when the alleged efforts to
“help” end up harming, instead? Even when any sane, reasonable person, on giving some serious thought and understanding to what was proposed, could have easily predicted what the result would be?
That's one of the problems with
LIb
Eralism—one of the defining clichés about it—that you will judge a policy, not by its actual outcome, not by what any rational analysis would predict it would do, but by what it is claimed to be intended to do. You judge Mrs.Obama's
Great Leap Forward by what she claimed its intent was, rather than by the disastrous results that it produced; and on that basis, you'd advocate and defend further exercises of the same futile idiocy.