In my stack examining the failures of our covid response the common theme from our leadership has been to blame their followers for the failures of our leaders. Their is no Obama/Biden playbook other than “do something stupid and when it doesn’t work blame someone else for not being smart enough to appropriately follow.”
In my stack examining the failures of our covid response the common theme from our leadership has been to blame their followers for the failures of our leaders. Their is no Obama/Biden playbook other than “do something stupid and when it doesn’t work blame someone else for not being smart enough to appropriately follow.”
That said, I think the issue is much larger than identified in this piece. The issue is that Obama/Biden and the progressive “left,” don’t believe in the American idea. How can we use hard power when we don’t believe in what we’re supposed to be fighting for. The progressive left is really the modern alt-right - they don’t believe in freedom or liberty they believe in capitulation and state power. So how, then, could they go tell Iran or China that they are guilty for not believing the same? There is no new world order under this regime because they believe in an old world order - that power is all that matters but with a populace unwilling to follow that power will concentrate elsewhere. As we have multiple times our history (the civil war being the clearest but not the only) we will be asked again if we believe in freedom and democracy (the last 50 or so years have seen us sacrifice huge amounts of both) or if we will allow man, in the form of State, to take dominion over man once again and see the complete unraveling of the American Dream
Yes I agree. I hate to bring up the name, but the philosophy of the de facto owner of the Democrat Party, George Soros, appears the be the guiding light for the Democrat Party. A fantasy world where the USA and Israel are taken down a few notches, While Iran, Palestine, Syria and the like are ‘raised up’ and we all live happily-ever-after in peace. A world which denies the very very core ( and success morally and economically) of Western Civilization.
I agree that was the traditional standard. But it needs to change. Badly. Theso-called "elites" have bit the hand that feeds them. The hands they are helpless without. I say good riddance to bad news.
I'm never comfortable with trying to determine intent... intent is important when teaching your children morals or dealing with interpersonal conflict, but attempting to discern the intent of strangers never works.
There's a very simple dichotomy we make significantly more complex than it needs to be. Institutions either exist to protect the rights of the individual or the individual exists to protect the rights of the institution. It's that simple. Intent is irrelevant. There are plenty of people who genuinely, with the best of intent, believe the institution can protect people (and should) more than people can (and should) be responsible for themselves. They're wrong, but the belief it based on good intent. What it fails to recognize (and why they're wrong) is that if the institution exists below the individual then one bad individual is only as powerful as they themselves are. When the institution sits on top of the individuals then one bad individual is exactly as powerful as the entirety of the institution. There is nothing more naïve than believing institutions can correct for immoral people but also believing that institutions then will always be run by moral people. This is the quagmire that is modern progressivism (the antithesis of "liberalism") - it requires cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy to exist. But intent remains irrelevant...
I totally agree with all of the above, including the mens rae piece - my issue with analyzing intentions is it always makes us late. Establishing intent in a murder trial is important because the defendant, is, and must be, innocent until proven guilty and serious time should be invested in determining extent of guilt.
In politics I don't care if you're well intentioned and dumb or poorly intentioned and smart - I care if your outcomes make things better or worse. Waiting to determine if you're evil or dumb is irrelevant. Now, on small things, sure, give someone a second chance if you REALLY believe they're well intentioned, but on big things, like the nursing home fiasco above, just get rid of the people immediately. If later you want to try to determine intent, and what they knew, and when, and whether that makes them legally liable, go crazy, but that is then a justice issue, not a political issue. We too often conflate these things and treat politicians like citizens in a justice system. I could care less about mean tweets or whether you're a good wife/husband/parent - I'm not asking you to raise my kids or be my pastor or take care of my sick wife - I'm asking you to make macro improvements to the life of your constituents, and I'm primarily asking you to do it by staying the hell out of the way and helping to get everyone else out of the way at all so liberty can reign. And in those regards, intentions just don't matter all that much...
Obama attended Harvard Law but was not a professor there. He was a lecturer. But point taken and I agree. He knew exactly what he was (and is) doing. Bring the US and the notion of Western Civilization down a few notches with the help of funded groups like ANTIFA, BLM etc.
In my stack examining the failures of our covid response the common theme from our leadership has been to blame their followers for the failures of our leaders. Their is no Obama/Biden playbook other than “do something stupid and when it doesn’t work blame someone else for not being smart enough to appropriately follow.”
That said, I think the issue is much larger than identified in this piece. The issue is that Obama/Biden and the progressive “left,” don’t believe in the American idea. How can we use hard power when we don’t believe in what we’re supposed to be fighting for. The progressive left is really the modern alt-right - they don’t believe in freedom or liberty they believe in capitulation and state power. So how, then, could they go tell Iran or China that they are guilty for not believing the same? There is no new world order under this regime because they believe in an old world order - that power is all that matters but with a populace unwilling to follow that power will concentrate elsewhere. As we have multiple times our history (the civil war being the clearest but not the only) we will be asked again if we believe in freedom and democracy (the last 50 or so years have seen us sacrifice huge amounts of both) or if we will allow man, in the form of State, to take dominion over man once again and see the complete unraveling of the American Dream
Yes I agree. I hate to bring up the name, but the philosophy of the de facto owner of the Democrat Party, George Soros, appears the be the guiding light for the Democrat Party. A fantasy world where the USA and Israel are taken down a few notches, While Iran, Palestine, Syria and the like are ‘raised up’ and we all live happily-ever-after in peace. A world which denies the very very core ( and success morally and economically) of Western Civilization.
You put wa-a-a-ay too much stock in Ha-a-av-a-a-a-ahd. The American ideal is contrary to the idea of elitism.
I agree that was the traditional standard. But it needs to change. Badly. Theso-called "elites" have bit the hand that feeds them. The hands they are helpless without. I say good riddance to bad news.
I'm never comfortable with trying to determine intent... intent is important when teaching your children morals or dealing with interpersonal conflict, but attempting to discern the intent of strangers never works.
There's a very simple dichotomy we make significantly more complex than it needs to be. Institutions either exist to protect the rights of the individual or the individual exists to protect the rights of the institution. It's that simple. Intent is irrelevant. There are plenty of people who genuinely, with the best of intent, believe the institution can protect people (and should) more than people can (and should) be responsible for themselves. They're wrong, but the belief it based on good intent. What it fails to recognize (and why they're wrong) is that if the institution exists below the individual then one bad individual is only as powerful as they themselves are. When the institution sits on top of the individuals then one bad individual is exactly as powerful as the entirety of the institution. There is nothing more naïve than believing institutions can correct for immoral people but also believing that institutions then will always be run by moral people. This is the quagmire that is modern progressivism (the antithesis of "liberalism") - it requires cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy to exist. But intent remains irrelevant...
You're right that actions (and their consequences) are more important than intentions.
But some of these people have plainly stated their intentions.
I totally agree with all of the above, including the mens rae piece - my issue with analyzing intentions is it always makes us late. Establishing intent in a murder trial is important because the defendant, is, and must be, innocent until proven guilty and serious time should be invested in determining extent of guilt.
In politics I don't care if you're well intentioned and dumb or poorly intentioned and smart - I care if your outcomes make things better or worse. Waiting to determine if you're evil or dumb is irrelevant. Now, on small things, sure, give someone a second chance if you REALLY believe they're well intentioned, but on big things, like the nursing home fiasco above, just get rid of the people immediately. If later you want to try to determine intent, and what they knew, and when, and whether that makes them legally liable, go crazy, but that is then a justice issue, not a political issue. We too often conflate these things and treat politicians like citizens in a justice system. I could care less about mean tweets or whether you're a good wife/husband/parent - I'm not asking you to raise my kids or be my pastor or take care of my sick wife - I'm asking you to make macro improvements to the life of your constituents, and I'm primarily asking you to do it by staying the hell out of the way and helping to get everyone else out of the way at all so liberty can reign. And in those regards, intentions just don't matter all that much...
Obama attended Harvard Law but was not a professor there. He was a lecturer. But point taken and I agree. He knew exactly what he was (and is) doing. Bring the US and the notion of Western Civilization down a few notches with the help of funded groups like ANTIFA, BLM etc.