“You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text, It is serious in terms of sort of the modern manner with which nations are going to resolve problems. There are all kinds of other options still available to Russia. There still are. President Obama wants to emphasize to the Russians that there are a right set of choices that can still be made to address any concerns they have about Crimea, about their citizens, but you don’t choose to invade a country in order to do that.” — John Kerry, Secretary of State under Barack Obama
The Absurd in Fiction:
There a scene from the movie “The Adventures of Baron Von Munchausen” in which the city (maybe it was French) was under siege by Turks. In this scene a young soldier (played by Sting) is brought before the city magistrate (played by Jonathan Price) where it is reported that he stormed the lines, killed many enemy soldiers and saved his comrades in arms from certain death… to which the magistrate orders… that the soldier be shot immediately.
His crime… he did not know, understand, or appreciate the process by which enlightened men engaged in war. Supposedly, as the little people fought and died, the leaders, the elite, worked behind the scenes to decide who would win this time and how the spoils would be divided. This little escapade by an individual soldier acting on his own volition might upset that delicate balance of diplomacy practiced by the civilized elite.
It’s obvious in the movie that the Turks are humoring the magistrate with his little civilized negotiations as they slowly erode the city’s defenses. The magistrate is a fool who will hand over not only himself, but the population he is sworn to protect (but doesn’t give a dam about) by playing games of civility with barbarians; all the while assuming they are playing the same game.
The Absurd in Governance:
Barack Obama and John Kerry are such fools. Kerry so much as admitted it in the statement about 19th century behavior. They are aristocratic, bureaucratic, leftist waiting for tyrants to start playing by the new and improved civilized rules. And they give them every opportunity to do so. Starting with a quaint reset button with a wink and a nod. Now that the Russians don’t have to deal with a buffoon (Bush) all will be well (in the mindset of the left). They follow up with photo ops, kind and encouraging words, and now (as Kerry implores) another chance to turn to a right set of choices. Obama and Kerry think foreign policy is just an issue of getting Putin, and Iran, and North Korea to see the error of their ways and succumb to their superior logic and charm.
It’s not completely their fault. This naivete is really ingrained in the liberal mindset through their faith in man, or more precisely their faith in the evolution of man and his society. It’s what makes the concept of man-made utopias (like socialism) seem logical and achievable.
Rules is Rules:
Putin (and many like him) are under no such delusions or constraints. They don’t behave by the lefts 21st century rules of behavior; no more so than evil men abide by 19th century rules. Acting on such rules would be as absurd and stupid as believe they exist in the first place. There is no difference between the 21st or the 19th or the 15th or even the 1st century when it comes to the nature of man and how he conducts himself.
Years ago, Putin saw something he wanted in small state of Georgia. And he knew no one could/would stop him, so he took it. Does that sound familiar? It should; it’s been going on for thousands of years and guess what. It will continue to go on for thousands of more years (if God allows it to continue that long). We are not evolving. Our society is not evolving into a utopia. Even the self-proclaimed civilized among us would become petty tyrants if given half a chance.
Putin paid a dear price for his excursion into Georgia… I’m sure all the biting words hurled by the likes of the civilized severely impacted his appetite and/or sleep. But at least he got the message loud and clear… nothing will be done. If you see something else you want, take it. Thus Ukraine today. And do you think the fact that the west is currently led by the biggest pussy to ever hold the office warranted anything more than a chuckle from the likes of Putin?
The Price to be Paid for Years to Come:
There is NOTHING new under the sun; especially when it comes to the nature of men. The left does not know that simple fact and we in the west, and particularly the United States, will continue to pay a huge price for that ignorance inherent in leftism.
>This naivete is really ingrained in the liberal mindset through their faith in man, or more precisely their faith in the evolution of man and his society.
Faith is only needed for unseen things.
Man *has* evolved his society. It’s much better now than it was even a century ago. The proof? Women can vote. Minorities are treated fairly. Children are better protected. Medicine has improved exponentially. The workplace is safer and more productive.
That wasn’t God’s fiat, or purely man’s work in response to a Biblical edict. That was us, improving our own lives, because we wanted to. We can say we’re using God’s gifts (intelligence, compassion), but that progress wasn’t manna from heaven. It was earned through effort.
Faith in man and society — by which I mean American people and the society we continue to evolve — is indeed something I believe in. It doesn’t require a leap of faith, just an unjaundiced eye.
Of course, that doesn’t mean Obama isn’t bungling foreign affairs in this instance, or that liberals (or conservatives) won’t make other mistakes. But it’s unfair to project this particular failure in the Ukraine onto all of humanist philosophy — the core of which is, man creates most of his own problems and can solve most of them, with effort and smarts. I still believe that, and I believe you do too — otherwise you’d just “let go and let God,” as they say.
In short, across this blog, you’re (mostly) not asking for God to interfere — you’re asking for better (smarter, more effective) human leadership. Maybe you’ll get it, in a couple of years.
But, yeah, I know. You’re not holding your breath. 🙂
>> Faith is only needed for unseen things.
Very biblical… 🙂 (Romans 8:24) (Hebrews 11:1)
>> Man *has* evolved his society. It’s much better now than it was even a century ago.
I simply disagree. There have been pockets of liberty and “humanity” (for lack of a better word) but overall I stick by my statement. When it comes to man, there is nothing new under the sun. Sure society is different (mostly due to technology), but “evolved”? “Better”? No.
>> The proof? Women can vote. Minorities are treated fairly. Children are better protected. The workplace is safer and more productive.
And you paint me as myopic in viewing the U.S. and/or west as the sum of the world. All these things you mentioned are NOT enjoyed by a vast majority of the human population. The U.S. and a few other nations (the minority) are blessed with some of these things… but even we take them for granted not realizing that human nature could take them very, very quickly.
Case in point… our Constitution was designed to prevent that very thing (the loss of our liberty); yet today it’s defined as a “living document” and at best ignored by the chief executive that swore an oath to defend it. Translation: It doesn’t mean anything.
>> Medicine has improved exponentially.
Simply “progress” in technology… which I do not define as evolution of men or his society. In the same vein, technology has vastly improved in our ability to kill each other. Even in terms of “medicine” in the form of biological and chemical weapons we are vicious killers. Evolution seems to only means we’re more efficient at it.
>> Faith in man and society — by which I mean American people and the society we continue to evolve — is indeed something I believe in.
And I don’t. I do believe in the principles our Republic was founded on… I even believe that returning to those principles could save us. But I don’t believe we have the national character to actually do it.
As we continue to evolve away from that foundation, we cease to be great; we cease to be free; and cease to be “American”.
>> It doesn’t require a leap of faith, just an unjaundiced eye.
Agreed. The only question is which one of us is blind?
>> Of course, that doesn’t mean Obama isn’t bungling foreign affairs in this instance, or that liberals (or conservatives) won’t make other mistakes.
At least we agree on something.
>> But it’s unfair to project this particular failure in the Ukraine onto all of humanist philosophy — the core of which is, man creates most of his own problems and can solve most of them, with effort and smarts.
Then I’m unfair. To be even more unfair… I think the Ukraine is just the tip of the ice-berg when it comes to failure caused by humanist philosophy.
>> I still believe that, and I believe you do too
I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. I do not believe that man (as a whole) by effort and smarts can solve his problems; his baser, selfish, violent nature will always trump and eventually corrupt those efforts.
Individuals, groups, and even nations can overcome this nature… for a while. And once acquired the freedoms won can only be held onto by being ever vigilant and watchful for the men and inclinations that would destroy them. That’s what we did (the United States) by acknowledging that nature and setting up a system to guard against it. Those things are gone now and we reap the results internally (domestic) and externally (foreign affairs).
The whole purpose of life is to realize that simple truth; that man cannot by his nature solve these problems. Realizing this we can choose to turn aside, to walk a different path and become something new.
>> otherwise you’d just “let go and let God,” as they say.
That philosophy works just fine as long as you understand the nature of each.
I trust in God (through Jesus) and His plan for me. I can let go and have peace knowing that victory was won on my behalf two thousand years ago.
In “letting go” I can also “let God” but only with the understanding that I am His instrument. God does not command me to trust in him and sit on my hands so as to not interfere with his work. I am to do his work; and as Paul said fight the good fight, finish the race, and keep the faith. The only victory I am promised is the one Jesus secured for me… nothing more (or more correctly… nothing less) 🙂
>> In short, across this blog, you’re (mostly) not asking for God to interfere — you’re asking for better (smarter, more effective) human leadership.
Correct. And I believe that cannot happen so long as our leaders cling to a naive secular humanist philosophy causing many of our current national debacles.
No… I don’t expect Obama or Kerry to actually change or become remotely competent. That’s not the purpose of anything I write so much as to point out their failings (and why) in hopes that someone who reads my ravings might 1) see and abandon the same failed philosophy and/or 2) not give power to those who adhere to it.
>> Maybe you’ll get it (competent leadership), in a couple of years. But, yeah, I know. You’re not holding your breath.
Like I said, our chance to save the Republic passed us by many, many years ago. The only thing competent leadership is likely to accomplish today is to delay the inevitable.
Luckily, my joy is not dependent upon the accomplishments or social evolution of man.
>The U.S. and a few other nations (the minority) are blessed with some of these things…
Not correct, though it does play to the conservative myth of American exceptionalism, as if this were the 1950s and the rest of the industrialized world was still in ashes.
Today, the majority of people on Earth live in countries where women can vote, minorities are treated fairly, children are better protected, medicine has improved exponentially, and the workplace is safer and more productive than a century ago. There are exceptions, but they are a minority. Everything I’ve just described is as true in Manila as in Minneapolis, Tokyo as in… some T-named city. Let’s say Tallahassee.
>but even we take them for granted not realizing that human nature could take them very, very quickly.
You make it sound as if God gave us the Constitution, like Gabriel giving Muhammad the Koran, and that eventually human nature will ruin its blessings.
We Americans wrote the Constitution, after much debate, human effort, and compromise. And we’ll sustain it, the same way. Depending on deities for our freedoms is a form of mental slavery that places the whip in the hands of priests (and people who claim to know God’s wishes better than others). No thank you.
>if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great!” – French writer Alexis de Tocqueville,
Cherry picking, even if accurately attributed. De Tocqueville ultimately concluded that America was run by the mediocre, who were mistakenly given equal power to their intellectual superiors, and that men of exceptional talent had best go elsewhere. He’s a better cheerleader for elitists than populists.
>> Not correct (minority of nations blessed), though it does play to the conservative myth of American exceptionalism, as if this were the 1950s and the rest of the industrialized world was still in ashes.
America was exceptional for almost two centuries.
>> Today, the majority of people on Earth live in countries where women can vote, minorities are treated fairly, children are better protected, medicine has improved exponentially, and the workplace is safer and more productive than a century ago. There are exceptions, but they are a minority. Everything I’ve just described is as true in Manila as in Minneapolis, Tokyo as in… some T-named city. Let’s say Tallahassee.
Manila to Minneapolis and Tokyo to Tallahassee do not a majority make.
China, Russia, India, the Middle East, the vast majority of Africa, the vast majority of South America, Mexico…
There… that’s a majority of the Earth’s population where voting is practically meaningless (much less the votes of women), few within the population are treated fairly/humanely (minority, majority or otherwise), children suffer (work, food, abuse), and the people and resources are controlled and exploited by dictators, juntas, oligarchies, and the massively corrupt.
Again, I will separate out improved technology such as medicine and production. I concede the point that technology has advanced. But for every positive it has brought to society, I can point out two negatives.
>> You make it sound as if God gave us the Constitution, like Gabriel giving Muhammad the Koran, and that eventually human nature will ruin its blessings.
Literally? No.
The Constitution and the founding of this nation were upon Judeo-Christian principles (not Eastern, not Muslim, not humanist…) and we reaped the benefits of that. But I will go further and say that God did indeed directly bless this nation. But I also know it is God’s nature to withhold blessings from those who turn away from him and follow their own nature.
>> We Americans wrote the Constitution, after much debate, human effort, and compromise. And we’ll sustain it, the same way.
Yes. We could sustain it by doing what the founding fathers did which was basically recognize the corrupt nature of man and man’s government; then institute a Republic to guard against that nature. This was the purpose of the Bill of Rights. Common ground was in the recognition of the problem (man); debate, effort and compromise were in how to guard against it.
We as a nation have abandoned that key principle and will not return to it. We have decided we have evolved and know better, so we will follow a different path; one more trusting in men. It will be our downfall.
>> Cherry picking, even if accurately attributed. De Tocqueville ultimately concluded that America was run by the mediocre, who were mistakenly given equal power to their intellectual superiors, and that men of exceptional talent had best go elsewhere. He’s a better cheerleader for elitists than populists.
Really… I’d like read an excerpt from that conclusion.
Oh come on, don’t make me read American history again just for a blog debate. You know… tyranny of the majority rule, drowning out intelligent thought… plus all that negative stuff he said about the early settlers (money grabbing merchants without souls, something like that)… sure, there were things he loved about America, just like the modern Frenchman loves blue jeans and Marlboros. But he’s not the best philosophical support for a modern conservative position.
And, just to focus on India and China — way better than a century ago. As good as the US? Of course not. But, still, progress has been made. They’re no longer slaves to Western colonial powers, for one thing. They’ll catch up this century. (They’ll also pollute us into a global haze, but… what can you do?)
>> Oh come on, don’t make me read American history again just for a blog debate.
So… that’s a no on a quote from Tocqueville (which somehow morphed into re-reading American history) supporting your statement.
You said he came to a certain conclusion. Surely there exists somewhere within the confines of Google a quote that supports that.
I was genuinely interested in reading his views on elitists versus the mediocre riff-raff running the nation … but OK.
>> But he’s (Tocqueville) not the best philosophical support for a modern conservative position.
Only Jesus and Reagan fit that bill. 🙂
No man is/was perfect. His argument in that piece made sense… I quoted it. Like you, I can’t reread the entire works of an author before quoting something relevant he said in a blog debate.
>> And, just to focus on India and China…
Maybe you’re right. That Tiananmen Square thing… ancient history. There is no way that would happen today in modern (evolved) China.
>I was genuinely interested in reading his views on elitists versus the mediocre riff-raff running the nation … but OK.
And I was genuinely interested in reading a credible news article on massive voter fraud by illegals… enough to justify new laws to protect our democracy from this terrible menace… but OK. 🙂
Quotes from Democracy in America relevant to our conversation:
In the United States, the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own. (I would agree. This applies to left and right.)
As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in? (We’re money-grubbers, not thinkers.)
I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America. (We’re tribal iconoclasts.)
What is most important for democracy is not that great fortunes should not exist, but that great fortunes should not remain in the same hands. In that way there are rich men, but they do not form a class. (He’s not a fan of free market capitalism.)
The Americans combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other. (Hint: This is not a compliment or a statement of agreement.)
>Maybe you’re right. That Tiananmen Square thing… ancient history. There is no way that would happen today in modern (evolved) China.
I am right, thank you. 🙂
Tiananmen Square was nothing compared to what Mao did 60 years ago. China is actually becoming more modern and humane with each passing decade. It’s not America, and probably never will be. But it’s getting better.
I think the biggest impact in this century is not economic or political pressure, but social media. It’s much, much harder to control the info the people get/share, even behind “the great firewall of China.”