|Isn't it amazing to realize that this caused: ISIS, the crisis in Ukraine, |
in Israel and at the US southern border?
My point is, leadership requires what Plato referred to as the guard-dog personality, friendliness to one's own, and viciousness to the enemy. Every father needs to be that way, and husband too. We ought to elect, consequently, leaders who will protect us from harm. No, not those who will needlessly pick fights and thus expose us to more harm needlessly. Obama lacks this to an hilarious extent. We may say that this was best exhibited by his "line in the sand" with Syria. Since then beach bullies have been kicking sand in America's (and the rest of the world's) face with impunity. Regardless of the objective morality of letting people into the US along the southern border - a president is not there to think about objective morality, he is there to protect his own - he should have shored up the border and then have permitted the law to work its course. As President, he doesn't have a duty to the world's poor; he has a duty to Americans. Everything else is secondary to that. If the Americans decided to do the wrong thing and let Central Americans starve to death, that is what he must do as President.
But of course, he is not interested in the objectively moral thing. We couldn't really complain much if he were. He is interested in doing what his supporters want him to do: the extremist on the left - the feminists, homosexualists, environmentalists, socialist-globalists. He is an unclear thinker. He supports all sorts of contradictory policies of the leftist ideologues - as does Trudeau. Most of all he wants America to not be America, but a strange pro-Muslim, pro-woman (talk about a contradiction), European monster. Again, same with Trudeau.
He fails to shore-up America's one dependable ally in the Middle-East, Israel, who likely wouldn't exist without the U.S. He fails to present a resolute front to Russia - Harper has done more to give Putin pause for thought than Obama has! He has said to the neighbourhood kids, hey, no trespassing on Iraq's lawn, but took down the fence, turned off the security lights and cameras, sent the neighborhood watch home and then went on vacation.
Why? Why does he do this? Or rather, I should say, why does he have no stomach for fighting? It's easy to dismiss him as a 120 lbs weakling. But I bet he could argue better than me. I hate to argue; I find it unsettling. That is the reason why I wouldn't get into politics. But when I must, I do it. But that's not the point. I do what the duties I have taken on demand of me.
He does not. Not that he couldn't, he just won't. Why? Women. Women don't want to fight. They want to believe that the world just needs understanding. You might say it is a good thing that women got the vote, or a bad thing. Personally, I think it is both, and therefore neutral. Women bring some good things into politics, but some bad ones too. It seems they were fairly supportive of Hitler - so you can't say that women are always on the side of right. But the 1930s is not the 2010s. A woman from the 1930s would be as different from one from the 2010s and a 1930s man from a 2010s man.
But a great deal has changed in 80 years. I don't know what has changed or why. I can guess: I think peace has done it, American nuclear deterrent peace has done it. It has permitted the quixotic idea that people can and will live in peace together. Imagine being a pacifist in 10th Century Europe, i.e. during the time of the Norse Invasions?! Imagine being one in 1940 anywhere. During the sack of Rome in 410. During the Peloponesian Wars. During the Punic Wars, etc.
The story of Coriolanus is an interesting one. I think Obama and his kind are the anti-Coriolani. The tale is best told by Livy. In a nutshell, it is the story of an old-school warrior who wouldn't change to accommodate the new ways of Rome. The same thing happened to the great Scipio Africanus, and, in our own time, to Patton and to Churchill, to name a few. But this is not a time for peace; it is time for making-war.
But how can I, a Christian man, say such a thing? Very easily do I say it, as has Pope Francis, in so many words.
Obama's failure to act like a man, a president, a leader, has put so many people in jeopardy. Sometimes the best defense is often a good offence. A good bark often saves a dog from having to bite. The problem is Obama's supporters find barking so very uncivilized, old-fashioned, and non-globally minded. That is the kind of thing Bush did. They raised an emasculated man to the presidency, who will neither bark nor bite, and they are now suffering the consequences. Yes, a Patton is not always the solution, but that does not mean that a Chamberlain is either.