If I pointed out that involvement in every major 20th-century conflict the US was part of occurred on liberals watch it might not be entirely fair. True there was WWI under Wilson WWII under FDR Korea under Truman and Vietnam under Kennedy and Johnson. But the second Great War needed to be fought four conflicts arent exactly a scientific sample and some could contend that these men were to some extent victims of timing and circumstance. It also should be said that with modernitys characteristic flaw of relativism causing ever shifting social visions yesterdays liberals arent like todays. As to this some may mention that its a tad tendentious to limit the conflict timeframe to the 20th century with George W. Bush getting us into Iraq and Afghanistan. But like his father Bush was always a traditional statist an old-line liberal in the mold of JFK. Moreover our Middle East adventures werent quite like Korea or Vietnam: the wars were won fast. The problem was winning the peace.
But fair enough the historical record itself isnt sufficient to indict liberals as warmongers. No matter though because I dont claim liberals are warmongers. They are ignorance and navet mongers.
Avoiding disastrous war is the stuff of foreign policy and foreign policy involves dealing with other humans; as such it can only be as good as your understanding of human nature. Thus just as in the schoolyard or the street your ability to avoid disastrous international fights will be commensurate with your understanding of human nature. Can you read people some of whom are potential threats well? Can you differentiate between a gathering storm that needs to be nipped in the bud and a situation exacerbated by meddling? Do you know whats your business and what isnt? Can you strike the balance between projecting the strength that deters aggression and seeming as a threat yourself? Complicating matters is that foreign policy is about dealing with foreign human beings people sharing your basic nature but not your basic conception of the world.
Given this its clear that a leader can only avoid unnecessary or disastrous war insofar as he grasps mans nature. And how do liberals measure up in this area?
During the 1990s budget battles liberals said that with the alleged Republican budget cuts" the elderly would have to eat dog food to afford medicine. Spoofing this radio host Rush Limbaugh said that he purchased a new can opener for his mother so that she can get the dog food easier when she has to eat it." The next day liberal Congresswoman Pat Schroeder took to the House floor and said flabbergasted This is what its come to! …Rush Limbaugh actually said hes going to buy his mother a can opener so she can have dog food. Wow!"
Yeah wow. Schroeder took seriously the most obvious of jokes. Talk about an inability to read people. Talk about a foreign human being.
Exhibit B: at a 1990s feminist conference in my area I made a rather articulate statement during the question-and-answer session prompting some agitated feminist organizers to subsequently approach me and ask if I represented some group. Finding me unpalatable they ultimately begged out of the conversation by offering to send me literature and asking for my address. I consented but quipped As long as you dont send a hit squad to my house."
You guessed it. Schroederesquely they took me seriously and said sternly We dont do things like that." Bizarre. Just bizarre.
Then I think of Charles Jenkins an American soldier who spent 39 years in North Korean captivity. After finally returning to the US he said about his arch-leftist captors When you lie they think you are telling the truth and when you tell the truth they think you are lying. You learn real quick to say no when you mean yes and yes when you mean no." I guess the North Koreans are just like our leftists only more so.
My last example concerns the nuclear-war scare of 1983. When the CIA reported that the Soviets actually thought NATO command-post exercise Able Archer 83 might be a prelude to a nuclear attack President Ronald Reagan was shocked. Reagans deputy CIA director Robert Gates would later write Was the Soviet leadership so out of touch that they really believed a preemptive attack was a real possibility?"
Yes they were.
They were leftists.
Of course its no put-down to mention that just as the Soviets misread Washington Reagan and it appears all his advisors misread the Soviets. We all fail in this regard at times mistaking a joke for a serious comment taking offense when none was intended or something else. Discernment is a continuum. But while some people occupy the Amazing Kreskin end of the scale others populate the Schroeder end. And having such a person in power can mean the bitter end.
And what of Obama? Is he at all a mind-reader or just a Teleprompter reader? He misread ISIS calling it the JV team." He misread the tribalistic Muslim humans in Iraq saying they had a sovereign stable and self-reliant" representative government." He misread the Middle East in general stating the tide of war is receding." As the usually sympathetic New York Times wrote about the president Time and again he has expressed assessments of the world that in the harsh glare of hindsight look out of kilter with the changed reality he now confronts."
Moreover just last week Obama said in Estonia that an attack on that nation (alluding to Russian aggression) would be considered an attack on all of NATO and be met with the armed forces of the United States of America." Huh? As Pat Buchanan pointed out such a statement about Russias sphere of influence is unprecedented and is something Obamas Cold War predecessors would have regarded as certifiable madness." Would the president really risk nuclear war over tiny Estonia? Was it prudent to enter Vladimir Putins backyard and saber rattle? Was Obama wise to send the message that hes either the worlds worst bluffer or its most insane leader?
But again liberals are the Braille bunch of human understanding. Just consider their prescriptions for deterring criminals disciplining children interpreting sexual inclinations or perceived statuses encouraging productivity avoiding nuclear war (unilateral disarmament) dealing with bullies in schools thwarting school shootings (gun-free zones) or just about anything else that involves understanding mans nature. Like old Patsy who mistook a most comedic comment for the most serious callousness they dont just get others wrong they get things completely backwards.
Why is this? Because liberals live lives of rationalization something debating them reveals. You can make an airtight point and a leftist not only wont cede it hell disgorge a completely absurd denial of reality. Of course thats what a rationalization is: when you lie to yourself bend reality for yourself. And when you deny reality habitually year after year refusing to see one pixel here another there and a thousand others in different places you never assemble enough elements of reality to see the big picture; this is called being out of touch with reality. Yet living in a Matrix of his own design the person doesnt know hes thus detached. But the consequence is that he has difficulty discerning truth; he misreads people events life the Universe and everything.
What explains liberals propensity for rationalization? Note here that by liberals" I mean people who are relativists who dont believe in Absolute Truth because this defines liberals (generally speaking) at the deepest level: the philosophical. And while we all may rationalize there is a difference. If a person believes in Truth hell likely care about it and be less likely to deny one of its inconvenient or uncomfortable aspects. Hell be wont to say Okay I dont like reality here but heck the Truths the Truth; Ill just have to man up and accept it." He also may understand or at least sense intuitively that denial of Truth is a moral defect.
But the person fancying that morality is just values and values are man-made that everything is relative approaches things differently. You cant be denying Truth if Truth doesnt exist; youre just denying a different perspective. Moreover even in matters of outright deception such as peddling forged documents damaging to George W. Bush what of it? A lie cant be any worse than the truth" in a relativistic universe. For everything there boils down to occultist Aleister Crowleys maxim Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."
So what can we expect from our detached-from-reality ignorance mongers? Well pondering this Im reminded of a woman whose somewhat liberal husband would be namby-pamby with their son let him take too many liberties and allow the tension to build until he would explode and react to the boy inappropriately. Thats the danger with leftists. If anyone would get us into a really big war it would be someone who misreads situations and other people fails to take necessary preventive action and then reacts rashly. It would be a liberal.
Of course the bigger problem is the detached ignorance mongers who would elect an Obama twice. But hey perhaps they can persevere if they maintain their ability to rationalize. After all with the onset of a nuclear winter there would be no reason to worry about global warming.
If I pointed out that involvement in every major 20th-century conflict the US was part of occurred on liberals watch it might not be entirely fair. True there was WWI under Wilson WWII under FDR Korea under Truman and Vietnam under Kennedy and Johnson. But the second Great War needed to be fought four conflicts arent exactly a scientific sample and some could contend that these men were to some extent victims of timing and circumstance. It also should be said that with modernitys characteristic flaw of relativism causing ever shifting social visions yesterdays liberals arent like todays. As to this some may mention that its a tad tendentious to limit the conflict timeframe to the 20th century with George W. Bush getting us into Iraq and Afghanistan. But like his father Bush was always a traditional statist an old-line liberal in the mold of JFK. Moreover our Middle East adventures werent quite like Korea or Vietnam: the wars were won fast. The problem was winning the peace.
But fair enough the historical record itself isnt sufficient to indict liberals as warmongers. No matter though because I dont claim liberals are warmongers. They are ignorance and navet mongers.
Avoiding disastrous war is the stuff of foreign policy and foreign policy involves dealing with other humans; as such it can only be as good as your understanding of human nature. Thus just as in the schoolyard or the street your ability to avoid disastrous international fights will be commensurate with your understanding of human nature. Can you read people some of whom are potential threats well? Can you differentiate between a gathering storm that needs to be nipped in the bud and a situation exacerbated by meddling? Do you know whats your business and what isnt? Can you strike the balance between projecting the strength that deters aggression and seeming as a threat yourself? Complicating matters is that foreign policy is about dealing with foreign human beings people sharing your basic nature but not your basic conception of the world.
Given this its clear that a leader can only avoid unnecessary or disastrous war insofar as he grasps mans nature. And how do liberals measure up in this area?
During the 1990s budget battles liberals said that with the alleged Republican budget cuts" the elderly would have to eat dog food to afford medicine. Spoofing this radio host Rush Limbaugh said that he purchased a new can opener for his mother so that she can get the dog food easier when she has to eat it." The next day liberal Congresswoman Pat Schroeder took to the House floor and said flabbergasted This is what its come to! …Rush Limbaugh actually said hes going to buy his mother a can opener so she can have dog food. Wow!"
Yeah wow. Schroeder took seriously the most obvious of jokes. Talk about an inability to read people. Talk about a foreign human being.
Exhibit B: at a 1990s feminist conference in my area I made a rather articulate statement during the question-and-answer session prompting some agitated feminist organizers to subsequently approach me and ask if I represented some group. Finding me unpalatable they ultimately begged out of the conversation by offering to send me literature and asking for my address. I consented but quipped As long as you dont send a hit squad to my house."
You guessed it. Schroederesquely they took me seriously and said sternly We dont do things like that." Bizarre. Just bizarre.
Then I think of Charles Jenkins an American soldier who spent 39 years in North Korean captivity. After finally returning to the US he said about his arch-leftist captors When you lie they think you are telling the truth and when you tell the truth they think you are lying. You learn real quick to say no when you mean yes and yes when you mean no." I guess the North Koreans are just like our leftists only more so.
My last example concerns the nuclear-war scare of 1983. When the CIA reported that the Soviets actually thought NATO command-post exercise Able Archer 83 might be a prelude to a nuclear attack President Ronald Reagan was shocked. Reagans deputy CIA director Robert Gates would later write Was the Soviet leadership so out of touch that they really believed a preemptive attack was a real possibility?"
Yes they were.
They were leftists.
Of course its no put-down to mention that just as the Soviets misread Washington Reagan and it appears all his advisors misread the Soviets. We all fail in this regard at times mistaking a joke for a serious comment taking offense when none was intended or something else. Discernment is a continuum. But while some people occupy the Amazing Kreskin end of the scale others populate the Schroeder end. And having such a person in power can mean the bitter end.
And what of Obama? Is he at all a mind-reader or just a Teleprompter reader? He misread ISIS calling it the JV team." He misread the tribalistic Muslim humans in Iraq saying they had a sovereign stable and self-reliant" representative government." He misread the Middle East in general stating the tide of war is receding." As the usually sympathetic New York Times wrote about the president Time and again he has expressed assessments of the world that in the harsh glare of hindsight look out of kilter with the changed reality he now confronts."
Moreover just last week Obama said in Estonia that an attack on that nation (alluding to Russian aggression) would be considered an attack on all of NATO and be met with the armed forces of the United States of America." Huh? As Pat Buchanan pointed out such a statement about Russias sphere of influence is unprecedented and is something Obamas Cold War predecessors would have regarded as certifiable madness." Would the president really risk nuclear war over tiny Estonia? Was it prudent to enter Vladimir Putins backyard and saber rattle? Was Obama wise to send the message that hes either the worlds worst bluffer or its most insane leader?
But again liberals are the Braille bunch of human understanding. Just consider their prescriptions for deterring criminals disciplining children interpreting sexual inclinations or perceived statuses encouraging productivity avoiding nuclear war (unilateral disarmament) dealing with bullies in schools thwarting school shootings (gun-free zones) or just about anything else that involves understanding mans nature. Like old Patsy who mistook a most comedic comment for the most serious callousness they dont just get others wrong they get things completely backwards.
Why is this? Because liberals live lives of rationalization something debating them reveals. You can make an airtight point and a leftist not only wont cede it hell disgorge a completely absurd denial of reality. Of course thats what a rationalization is: when you lie to yourself bend reality for yourself. And when you deny reality habitually year after year refusing to see one pixel here another there and a thousand others in different places you never assemble enough elements of reality to see the big picture; this is called being out of touch with reality. Yet living in a Matrix of his own design the person doesnt know hes thus detached. But the consequence is that he has difficulty discerning truth; he misreads people events life the Universe and everything.
What explains liberals propensity for rationalization? Note here that by liberals" I mean people who are relativists who dont believe in Absolute Truth because this defines liberals (generally speaking) at the deepest level: the philosophical. And while we all may rationalize there is a difference. If a person believes in Truth hell likely care about it and be less likely to deny one of its inconvenient or uncomfortable aspects. Hell be wont to say Okay I dont like reality here but heck the Truths the Truth; Ill just have to man up and accept it." He also may understand or at least sense intuitively that denial of Truth is a moral defect.
But the person fancying that morality is just values and values are man-made that everything is relative approaches things differently. You cant be denying Truth if Truth doesnt exist; youre just denying a different perspective. Moreover even in matters of outright deception such as peddling forged documents damaging to George W. Bush what of it? A lie cant be any worse than the truth" in a relativistic universe. For everything there boils down to occultist Aleister Crowleys maxim Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."
So what can we expect from our detached-from-reality ignorance mongers? Well pondering this Im reminded of a woman whose somewhat liberal husband would be namby-pamby with their son let him take too many liberties and allow the tension to build until he would explode and react to the boy inappropriately. Thats the danger with leftists. If anyone would get us into a really big war it would be someone who misreads situations and other people fails to take necessary preventive action and then reacts rashly. It would be a liberal.
Of course the bigger problem is the detached ignorance mongers who would elect an Obama twice. But hey perhaps they can persevere if they maintain their ability to rationalize. After all with the onset of a nuclear winter there would be no reason to worry about global warming.