Saturday, August 16, 2014

When Leaders Fail to be Men

The hardest thing about being a dad - unless you are cruel - is to enforce things, taking them as far as they need to be enforced. I hate punishing my kids, even getting angry with them. But I do it because I love them. I think it should be hard to punish kids; but hard doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. Usually hard means you should. I have been around parents, teachers, politicians, priests who have all failed in their leadership because they have failed to take things as far as they needed to go. I have heard a lot of talk, sure. From dads, politicians, teachers, priests, but little will to take things as far as their words suggested they were willing to take them. My general take-away from the adult world is how pathetically cowardly so many are.

Isn't it amazing to realize that this caused: ISIS, the crisis in Ukraine,
in Israel and at the US southern border?
Masculinity is a lost art because it is a lost value. Contemporary culture has managed to equate manliness and bravery with cruelty, insecurity, etc. But I have said all of this before. Who is to blame for this? Women are to blame for this, as I have said before too. The reason we have a child running the world's most powerful nation is women, and the reason we will likely have a child running Canada soon will be women too. Women have this thing called compassion, plus an innate desire to believe that evil can be talked down or reasoned with. Now some women have deserved to run nations, like Margaret Thatcher evidently, and probably Merkel, from what I can tell. But most women should not exercise that kind of leadership. Of course, neither should most men - perhaps no one should? - I don't know.

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.

2 comments:

  1. I'm a woman who is horrified by war/violence ... and terrified that a third world war will come; but I agree with you! It seems impossible that armed conflict can be avoided, considering all that is going on today in the Middle East and in the Ukraine. The atrocities being committed by ISIS in Iraq, are also being committed in West African countries by a similar jihadist group, 'Boko Haram'. While diplomatic measures and sanctions must first be tried, I'm afraid that no response OTHER than all-out war will suffice to quell the INSANE murderous Islamic rampage. And then there's Vladimir Putin taking advantage of the situation in Ukrainian politics to foment a rebellion ... while the rest of the world is trying to deal with Islamic Jihadists ... to regain lands lost in the break-up of the U.S.S.R.! My female 'instinct' would be to disconnect from 'globalization', close all of our borders ... and try to survive the coming holocaust! We need more MEN with a backbone ... to do what is "right" in such a perplexing and complex situation!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Women couldn't convince men to be effeminate if some men, at some level, didn't think it was a good idea, and if it served their purposes. Isn't it fun to be an adolescent until your thirties?

    ReplyDelete