March 27, 2009
A note from a friend:
I found this to be an interesting take on the administration’s China position. I look forward to seeing you next week. Best, Jeff
Is it really possible that in a Democratic administration the championship of human rights and the promotion of democracy will no longer figure conspicuously in the foreign policy of the United States? It is really possible. Oh, the stirring words will be spoken;the stirring words are always spoken. But in the absence of policies
one may be forgiven for not being stirred by words.
And so far even the language has been wanting in ardor. Idealism in foreign policy is so 2003. After all, the opposite of everything that George W. Bush believed must be true. He overreached abroad and underreached at home, so we will underreach abroad and overreach at home. Myself, I am for overreaching and overreaching. And so I remain chilled by Hillary Clinton’s froideur in Beijing, by her artful impersonation of Brent Scowcroft. “We pretty much know what they are going to say,” she offered in defense of her ritualistic syllables about China’s persecution of its dissidents. She is right, of course. The regime in Beijing is singularly immune to moral appeals.
They do not do ethical critique. It is also true that they are our creditors, though I do not see their hoard of T-bills invoked to thwart the discussion of our other demands of them. And I hear stranger excuses for the new hard-heartedness: a friend of mine, a smart and fervent liberal, chastised me for my disappointment in Clinton by reminding me sardonically that the Chinese “have only raised a hundred million people out of poverty.” Not a word about health and literacy in Cuba, though. I thought that the question of the relation between political progress and economic progress–the priority, philosophical and political, of freedom to development–was long ago settled, and not in favor of early profits.
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) My somewhat crazy thoughts:
It’s amazing to me that no one ties this to the strange fondness for Chinese nationals to try to funnel money to Clinton campaign coffers. Why? My unwritten theory (until now) is that the Clintons believe it wasteful for America to play the role it does in the world stage. We spend money on things like ships they would rather spend on things like healthcare.
Thus, their unstated goal is to reduce the international influence of the United States. One way of doing this is to expand the influence of China. The Chinese wish to help them.
I’ve held this view for a while and it’s the sole reason I didn’t feel too badly about the impeach Clinton effort during his administration, even though I thought it was bad (no, stupid) politics.
March 20, 2009
A friend sends a link to a review of Obama’s appearance with Leno:
The TV Watch Seeking Everyman, Obama Does Leno
By ALESSANDRA STANLEY
On “The Tonight Show,” President Obama delivered a familiarly smooth performance — a fireside chat for the flat screen age.
Familiarly smooth? after having to apologize for a quip he made during the show?
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) I reply:
It’s amazing they can’t see the blinders they are wearing.
March 8, 2009
. . . even in these dark times, I found this humorous.
It apparently didn’t occur to the author that when a protege of Ayres in running the country, reading “The Conscience of a Conservative” would be countercultural.
I don’t think Liberals get irony.
March 6, 2009
March 6, 2009
March 2, 2009
Good to the last word. It’s bothered me how clarity is not valued in public discourse any more. In fact, it’s discouraged. This piece is refreshing. It gives one hope that the ability to speak plainly will again be possible in America.
March 1, 2009
Any look at history will tell you that neither Conservatives or Liberals have a monopoly on corruption. But there is a certain style of corruption that to my admittedly biased eye is practiced on the Left much more often than it is on the right. That is lying about what you believe or what you’re out to achieve.
Right or wrong conservatives and libertarians tend to be fairly straightforward. They may change positions, like Romney on abortion, but to change positions demonstrates you had a well-known position to begin with.
Rahm Emanual has said that one shouldn’t let a good crisis go to waste, meaning that’s the time to slip stuff by when everyone’s too worried to notice. He’s actually proud of this, and I suppose from his perspective, it’s just politics.
My most recent example of this is the Obama’s nominee to head the Office of Legal Counsel who is shocked to find out she compared pregnancy to involuntary servitude, and therefore, in some ways subject to the thirteenth amendment. Her argumentation is novel in the sense it can pervert the Constitution to mean whatever she wants it to mean, which is in itself a hallmark of Liberal methodology.
I’ve copied the reference below, but forgetting about this one case, am on to something here or is it just that I’m more likely to take a conservative argument at face value than I am a liberal one?
As I write this, I simultaneously lean toward concluding its the latter while firmly believing it’s the former.
DOJ Nominee Shocked by Her Own Words
Surprised at her own argument, Johnsen now says she did not mean what
she plainly wrote.
By Andrew C. McCarthy