Let’s review the results of our adventure in Libya, for which President Obama and the presumptive Democratic heir, Hillary Clinton, can fairly be assigned complete responsibility.
‣ After a successful, decades-long effort to bring Muammar Qaddafi to heel, and after feting our new North African ally at the highest levels of government, we betrayed our side of the deal, and gave our military support to a ragtag assortment of revolutionaries — most of whom were violent Islamists, and our sworn enemies. Qaddafi’s regime was toppled, and his corpse was dragged through the streets.
‣ Cyrenaica fell, and then Tripolitania, as the country — formerly one of Africa’s most prosperous — slipped into blood-spattered chaos. The black flag of al-Qaeda flew from government buildings, and Westerners fled. Libya is now a ‘failed state’, and has effectively ceased to exist as a nation.
‣ Our ambassador and three others were gruesomely murdered in a coordinated attack on a carelessly defended U.S. diplomatic compound, while we did nothing. Our only response was a mendacious political whitewash for domestic consumption.
‣ Qaddafi’s arsenals and other assets fell into the hands of jihadis, and flowed from there throughout the Middle East.
‣ This week, we have learned that eleven jetliners have been taken from Tripoli’s airport, for purposes unknown. (This last item, despite its obviously worrisome implications, appears to have received no coverage whatsoever in our “newspaper of record”.)
What theme, what ideological fixation, could have started Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton (and to be fair, George W. Bush as well) on such a course? The central delusion of ‘progressivism’ itself: a belief in a benevolent historical teleology, a self-actuating ‘arc of justice’ that professional uplifters and visionary magnificoes may, when the fancy takes them, assist with coercive, and often destructive, intervention. Add to this the other great folly of our time — the fantasy of essential human uniformity — and there is no stupidity, no great unwisdom, of which our nation is incapable.
10 Comments
I believe that all of the Left’s failed policies derive from what Thomas Sowell called their “unconstrained vision“, the worldview that Steven Pinker refers to as the “utopian vision“.
This is certainly correct, and is in line with their view of traditions as mere artifacts.
But it omits two other related factors: universalism, and the pursuit of ‘equality’ as the greatest good.
If man were already perfected, then both universalism and equality would be unproblematic. But even the Left knows that man is not perfected, and likely never will be, despite eternal effort. Nevertheless they proceed as if pretending it is already so will make it so. The effect is catastrophic.
I agree, Malcolm. Your additional related factors are certainly contributors to the Left’s wrongheadedness, as are, no doubt, others that haven’t been enumerated, yet.
I would hazard an even more succinct generalization of the Left’s folly:
Anecdotally, there is more support for a belief that human nature is essentially bad.
It appears that Charles C. W. Cooke may have stopped by as he was polishing up his latest essay…
Yup:
Yeah, bitch; it does not!
Reckon the Emiratis and the Egyptians had “something of a clue” about the jetliners before they decided to bomb the Tripoli airport?
Or, was it something else?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/05/us-egypt-islamicstate-idUSKBN0H018F20140905
Actually, mainly “something of a test”
But I see where some guy name of Shaun King blames … well as it happens, the white guy, and some others – race not given.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/after-domestic-violence-video-is-released–ravens-cut-running-back-ray-rice-183053516.html
JK?
What is the relevance of your comment to this thread?
Well Henry,
About the same as this;
http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=2774
Just the date is all.
OK. On the other hand, Solche Schemel und frage und sagt: “Wenn nur dicht er TÁ¼rhÁ¼ter, “jetzt der TÁ¼rhÁ¼ter, einen Eintrittet; das Gesem TÁ¼rhÁ¼ter. Von der werde es der ansieht er werde einzugÁ¤nglich den TÁ¼rhÁ¼ter nichtiger ande und ich bin Mann, um Eintritt bekommt. Dort sich jetzt das Tor zum Gesetz. Aber in der gibt ihn seitwÁ¤rts vom Lande nich lieber Tage und fragt den Eintritt in sehen.” Da das meinmal zugÁ¤nglich bin seinmal stehn aber Mann, bÁ¼ckt, versuchen lacht wie immer ansieht wierigkeiten Saal zugehen. Merkt, bÁ¼ck, etc.