Wednesday, November 18, 2015


     The world has had some time to ponder Barack Hussein Obama’s claim that his “strategy” to “degrade and destroy ISIS” is working and that ISIS is “contained. Among those who’ve openly differed with him is Senator Dianne Feinstein (D, CA):

     “I have never been more concerned,” Feinstein said during an appearance on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports,” calling for additional U.S. troops on the ground to combat the militants.

     “I read the intelligence faithfully. ISIL is not contained, ISIL is expanding,” said Feinstein, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, using an alternate acronym for ISIS. “They just put out a video saying it is their intent to attack this country,” she added, referring to ISIS’s warning it would target the U.S. and other countries carrying out airstrikes in Syria.

     When a senior Democrat Senator from the largest, “bluest” state in the nation, who is also the senior Democrat member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, differs openly with the Democrat in the White House, it’s time for the latter to sit up and take notice. Yet Obama has not done so. Why?

     I’ve been thinking it over, and all the possible explanations reduce to these two:

  • Either Obama is too stupid to grasp the failure of his “strategy;”
  • Or Obama is fully aware of the disaster his “strategy” has allowed and is satisfied with it.

     Yes, Obama is massively arrogant. Yes, he reacts to criticism as a vampire would react to the sight of a crucifix, and has surrounded himself with persons unwilling to offer it. Yes, he feels a greater sympathy for Islam than he does for America or his supposed Christianity. Yes, yes, yes. But he cannot be unaware of the facts of the situation. Therefore, when reduced to fundamentals, the above two explanations are the only possibilities.

     Inasmuch as most Democrats don’t actually hate the U.S. or yearn for further terrorist attacks on American lives and property, this dichotomy is having remarkable effects on them. It’s unusual for a sitting president to be opposed by major figures within his party, especially when that party is in a beleaguered minority position. In such circumstances, the president’s party will tend to “laager up” around him. Yet practical incompetence has defeated more than one such president. Jimmy Carter, previous holder of the “Worst President in American History” trophy, had solid, supportive majorities in both houses of Congress and a favorably disposed Supreme Court, yet Ronald Reagan sent him back to Georgia by a historically significant margin of victory and took the Senate in the same an election that emphasized foreign policy quite as strongly as domestic issues.

     If you needed an explanation for why former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is straining to distance herself from the foreign policy she helped to create and implement, you have it now.

     Obama’s supporters in the press have consistently talked up his intellect. Some have baldly said that he’s the brightest man ever to occupy the Oval Office. With the American economy in tatters, American influence abroad at a century-long low, and Islam-powered violence accelerating around the globe, such dithyrambs to the brainpower of the man who masterminded the policies that created that situation are difficult to rationalize.

     Obama’s supporters in federal office have largely been silent about it all. The sense that their fates depend to some extent on remaining silent must be very strong. Qui tecit consentire and all that.

     Practically speaking, it probably doesn’t matter whether other high-ranking Democrats regard Obama as a colossal failure or an enemy of the country he purports to lead. The Democrat caucus in the U.S. Senate remains firmly opposed to significant changes to any of Obama’s policies. Senate Democrats have been willing to use the cloture / filibuster rule to prevent a vote on nearly any bill that might force Obama to issue a veto. The exceptions have been very few. Perhaps they, too, are either too stupid to gauge the extent of the disasters upon us, or are satisfied with Obamunism’s consequences for reasons they do not wish to tell.

     The evidence has massed continuously for a view of America’s major political parties as conspiracies against the general public – indeed, conspiracies that often choose to collaborate rather than compete. I submit that given the plain evidence of the past seven years, we are forced conclude either that the Democrat Party is captained and staffed by idiots, or that it really is a conspiracy resolved upon the ruination of the United States.

     Some time ago, I penned a piece for the old Palace of Reason about the Left’s habit of deeming us in the Right either stupid or evil. I’ve reproduced that piece here at Liberty’s Torch and added to it. If you’ve never read it, or have forgotten its thesis, I urge you to review it today. The thoughts expressed there are most pertinent to our situation of today, if the vector of the accusation is swung 180 degrees around. Jennifer Rubin, the token kinda-sorta conservative of the Washington Post, has composed a grace note to it:

     Are Democrats going to circle the wagons once again for the White House, just as they did on the deeply flawed Iran deal? If so, they are gambling with the lives of Americans and with their own political future. Essentially, they are betting that the Islamic State won’t follow up on Paris, even though the president projects passivity and weakness — even defiance to suggestions that his approach has not made us safer.

     While the president may be so cut off from reality that he does not appreciate the enormity of his national security failure or the impression of weakness and unseriousness he is projecting, Democratic elected officials and candidates have no excuse. Presumably they can read open-source intelligence and comprehend that the president’s means (bombing raids, backing elections in Syria — eventually) are not calibrated to end the threat from jihadists who have just attacked a major European capital.

     My hope, a slim one though it be, is that in November 2016, private citizens more inclined to vote for Democrats will rush in a body to the other side of the aisle...and that the Republicans, for once in their miserable lives, will rise above their establishmentarian inclinations and historical pusillanimity, and act like statesmen possessed of patriotism and courage, rather than a gaggle of sideline carpers terrified of actually holding the reins or admitting to the mistakes of the past.

     Yes, it’s a slim hope. But either that hope will be realized, both electorally and in the policy reversals to follow, or America will suffer consequences that will make our current travails look like a Golden Age.

     Yet another either-or. They seem to be everywhere, these days.

1 comment:

Ron Olson said...

GK reminded us that is sin to be too pessimistic. When our institutions have failed to condemn clearly damnable policies. To not call for groups of countrymen to come together in grand juries and call for trials and justice is the old groups have condemned themselves. Lack of imagination will cause us to sin. I am sorely tempted by that pessimism. Is too late to call on our friends and establish new institutions? Is it too late to raise our arm and finger to heaven and curse those responsible for such abominations, like de Molay? Do we simply lack the courage? Or is it a failure of imagination? All of the above I think and no one wishes to face the stake.