Laughingstock and Paper Tiger

Ed Koch delivers a solid, withering attack on US foreign policy. He starts off clearly naming the enemy and the vital stakes of the battle:

We are at war with radical Islam, and that war will go on for many years.

For me, the question is this: will the secular Western civilization shared by America and Europe, which allows us to enjoy life and its creature comforts, still be standing at the end of that war? Or will radical Islam, with an aggressive culture that treasures martyrdom and death over life, prevail?

He advocates a mostly self-interested foreign policy and decries our administration's inaction, and names the real consequences of the current policies:

I believe these failures to stand up for allies and most importantly to stand up for ourselves is why we are taken less seriously by nations throughout the world than should be the case. When others fully respected us, we were able to keep the world at peace. We are losing that ability with each passing day, as we demonstrate our unwillingness to teach the bullies of the world the lessons they deserve. [bold added]

Koch is right, but I detect a slight altruistic tinge to his arguments. Our goal should not be to "keep the world at peace" but to protect the rights and interests of American citizens, and therefore the country. If broader peace is also achieved (or some such measure is a valid goal in the national interest) then so be it.

Regardless, Koch sees the problem that our incessant backtracking, apologizing, and appeasing is causing. We're becoming a paper tiger; one that is harmless not because it lacks muscle, claws, or fangs to attack with, but instead is self-crippled by a tragic moral inversion which states that the existence of such magnificent weaponry means it must never use it for itself. Our enemies know this, and use this advantage to great effect.

Finally, Koch addresses Obama himself, saying:

Speak softly and carry a big stick, Teddy Roosevelt said. President Obama speaks apologetically and carries no stick at all. No wonder North Korea torpedoed that South Korean warship, something they would not have done in all probability if China had not quietly approved. No wonder Brazil and Turkey thumb their noses at us. We have become a laughingstock. [bold added]

"...speaks apologetically and carries no stick at all." That's a good line, and accurately reflects Obama's foreign policy stance. (I'd say he does carry a stick, but directs its use domestically instead.) I'm not familiar with Koch's politics, but I wonder if he sees the damage that was done by Bush's policies as well. Obama is weak and other nations are gleefully exploiting that, but Bush and other presidents back down the line for decades have been setting us up for just such problems. Altruism has long motivated much of our foreign policy, weakening us and undercutting our willingness to stand up for ourselves. Now that we have an actively anti-American president who despises our founding principles as much as do our enemies, we shouldn't be surprised by the results.

Willing and Eager Subjects in Training

Obama recently cautioned a group of graduating college kids that some of the arguments flowing to them via their "iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations" don't "rank all that high on the truth meter" and are threatening our democracy. One would hope that someone with even a little bit of healthy skepticism about the words spouted by popular figures, elected or not, would at least scratch their head about those statements, and wonder why the first president elected via Facebook "likes" and re-tweets would be calling out their high-tech gadgets and The Internets. Sadly, it looks like the poisonous mix of public, progressive education and a vacuous, charismatic Dear Leader onto which they can project their hopes and dreams has resulted in the perfect generation of young subjects for Obama. From a disturbing story on NPR this morning, "Opposite Of Radical: Today's Youth Trust Uncle Sam,"

A generation ago, young people vowed never to trust anyone over 30. But as it turns out, those under 30 today are actually more trusting of the government of all age groups, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center. "As of now, I trust the government," says Brittany Tucker, a poli-sci major at Northeastern University in Boston. "I feel like they are trying to do what's best for us and their constituents."

The nearly unquestioning optimism and trust practically gushes from the kids the reporter interviewed, no matter the slight qualifiers they give. Think of Obama giving a commencement speech in which he openly attacks free speech, and know that this is the mindset of the kids in the audience:

Like so many of her peers, Tucker was inspired to get into politics by the campaign of President Obama.

"It gives you hope, and that hope turns into trust in the government, because you believe that things can change — or like good things can happen," Tucker says.

Analysts say that "Obama-love" may be what's propping up young people's trust. Most under-30s supported Obama in 2008 and still do today.

It must be noted that the reporter, Tovia Smith, states that only 32% of under-30s answered the survey this way, but that is still a significant percentage. Smith also points out that "[p]olls going back to 1958 show that trust always begins to head south sometime after age 30." As people grow up and see how much is taken out of each paycheck, their attitude toward government changes. And yet, Smith and others speculate that "this generation may be different." They don't give a compelling reason why, but I have a theory. Progressive education, an inability to think in fundamental principles, and a lack of any understanding of individual rights has left these kids defenseless when presented with thinly disguised bullshit from someone with a pretty face and soothing voice. They don't just like the Hope 'n Change pablum, they believe it. They accept it on faith -- secular or religious -- because they neither respect nor know how to employ reason. And Obama and his lackeys know this, and use it to full advantage. In fact, they count on it. They are grooming the next generation of willing and eager subjects, and it's working quite well.

Sunstein is the New Alinsky

Alinsky wrote the playbook for leftists to push their socialist agenda, and it's been put to great use by the current administration. But another thinker is also heavily favored by Obama: Cass Sunstein.

Doug Reich probably had the same deja vu I had when he read the following quote from a recent Obama speech:

"With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation," Obama said.

He bemoaned the fact that "some of the craziest claims can quickly claim traction," in the clamor of certain blogs and talk radio outlets.

"All of this is not only putting new pressures on you, it is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy."

Doug calls it right when he identifies Sunstein as the source of this attack on free speech for being too free. Head on over there and read what else he has to say.

I left the following comment:

Thanks for writing this. As soon as I read Obama's quote, I thought it was perfectly Sunstein-esque. Hell, Sunstein wrote the literal book(s) on it throughout the last ten years of his prodigious output.

In particular, a 2008 work done under the auspices of the American Enterprise Institute encapsulates all of this very well: "Why Groups Go to Extremes." (download a free PDF here)

In this book, Sunstein sums up all the different threads of topics he's been rehashing for a decade, and two of his main points have come out of Obama's mouth in just the past month or so--you name them both. He demonizes the Tea Parties as racist fearmongering--sorry, hatemongering--because they are "extremist." The theory underlying this view is discussed at length in pages 10-15 of Sunstein's short book.

As a "threat to democracy" such polarizing views supposedly isolate the "extremists" and they build up in an echo chamber. They way to "fix" it is to attack "too much speech" as Obama just did, and is described in pp. 15-25 of Sunstein.

Christ, this is like the Alinsky playbook, but specifically for attacking free speech in service of tyranny.