Why America Disappoints Liberals

One of the most baffling and frustrating features of American politics is the consistent dissatisfaction of the left with life in America.

Consider racial relations - long a cause celebre with American liberals. Slavery formally ended one hundred and fifty years ago.  Of course, racial equality hardly existed in a de facto sense back then.  Jim Crow legislation in the South was initiated to “keep blacks down”.  Prejudice in the North, though not formal, was just as prevalent. 

But look where matters are now.  The President is black, prominent political leaders across the land share African heritage, and voter turnout in 2012 in the South was higher for blacks than it was for whites.

Such progress, one would have thought, would be cause for jubilation on the American Left.  In fact, one might have hoped that they would, like most other Americans, stop automatically viewing events involving other races through a racial prism.  Wishful thinking.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court told Congress to revisit the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Conditions in the South which prompted its passage 50 years ago are no longer present.  It was, therefore, a violation of Constitutional Federalism to keep South-specific restrictions in place.

Oh my!  Did you see prominent liberals donning their Chicken Little outfits to pronounce that the sky was falling?  The Ku Klux Klan, they might as well have announced, was now able to rise again. 

And how about initial reactions to the Zimmerman case in Florida?  Professional race baiters like Rev. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, of course, didn’t miss the opportunity to fling “racism” around.

 

But more telling was the reaction of a mainstream organ of the left – the New York Times.  Its initial editorial on the killing suggested that racial overtones were present and labeled George Zimmerman as a “white Hispanic”.

[The term Hispanic is commonly applied to people of Latin origin.  Using the Times approach, perhaps Barack Obama, who has a mixed racial background, should be termed a “black white man”.]

To the left, it often appears that America can’t do anything right.

 

One would get a similar reaction if the topic pertained to any liberal objective such as eradicating poverty or improved healthcare.

To them, American hasn’t done enough.  But the truth is there will never be “enough” to satisfy the left.

 

Certainly, some of those expressing such views have ulterior motives.   Racial hustlers, such as the aforementioned Al Sharpton, would no longer have a podium if race relations were deemed to be healthy.

But I suspect that the bulk of the left is dissatisfied because of strongly- held philosophical reasons.  Whether they recognize this or not, they are Utopians.

Perfection is not for this world – or America -- conservatives say.  Liberals may superficially acknowledge that truism about human nature.  But deep down they don’t want to accept it.

Liberals are inclined to believe that to acknowledge progress is a mistake.  An appreciation of progress generates satisfaction which, in turn, saps the drive to continue the quest for perfection.

[Do you remember Michelle Obama’s statement after her husband won the Iowa caucus?  “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country.”  By the way, Iowa has a miniscule black population.  Had Iowa’s whites been racists the year before?]

Non-liberals, looking around the world, see how fortunate we Americans truly are.  Those on the Left see something different.

They see that the world’s troubles are often our fault (remember President Obama’s early 2009 apology tour of the Middle East?).  Anyway, America, they tell themselves – including those reading the New York Times or watching MSNBC – is so deficient in its possession of virtue that it does not fail to disappoint.  If only America weren’t so flawed, all would be fine. 

Will Syria Really Give Up Its Chemical Weapons -- And If It Doesn’t, Will President Obama Fulfill His Threat To Attack?

No and No!

Syrian Bashar al-Assad will not agree, no matter what he, his government or Russia may promise.  Syria is embroiled in a civil war “to the death”.  Assad’s chemical warehouses are resources he believes he may need as a hole card to secure his survival.  Why else have them?  Can there be any doubt that Assad is not – will not be – restrained by so called international norms?

Undoubtedly, he and Russia wish to discourage an attack by the U.S. military.  They will say anything to give the U.S. a plausible excuse for postponing “punishment” for Assad’s crossing of Obama’s red line. But the promised surrender of control will not – cannot – be genuine.  Roadblocks will be raised, interminable objections raised, negotiations broken off, and resumed, as time passes.

America’s fruitless efforts to rein in Iran’s nuclear weapons program have been noted and lessons absorbed.

Of course, Obama will set deadlines for action (November is the first one) which will surely pass without compliance.  And Russia, on behalf of Syria, will ask for more time and offer more promises.  The White House will credit itself for its resolve… and agree to more time and more talk… and nothing will happen.

Face it.  There will never be a forceful military response against Syria or, I fear, against any U.S. enemy so long as Barack Obama is Commander in Chief.

His attitude was on display during a recent series of TV interviews.  He thought there was a case to be made for military action in Syria but would welcome a diplomatic resolution.  In one sense, that sentiment is commendable.  Peace is to be preferred over war.  But what if there is no diplomatic resolution?  What then?

The logic will not be pursued by our President.  The red line in the sand will be blown away by time.

He is a believer – along with most fellow leftists – in the silly bumper sticker slogan “war is not the answer”.  [Tell that to Hitler’s, or Assad’s, victims.]

Should Congress Give the President Authority to Attack Syria?

Absolutely. 

There is a segment on the right that would vote no simply because Obama says he wants it. 

As I suggested last week, Barack Obama was never serious when he warned the Assad regime against crossing the “red line” on the issue of chemical weapons.  He was merely doing what he loves to do best, posture. 

Even if I’m wrong, we should not be focusing on political tit-for-tat when our national interest is involved.

Without question, the President put his credibility on the line by painting lines.  If you’ll forgive the mixed metaphor, Obama may deserve to be hoisted on his own petard.  But that’s not an appropriate or sensible reason for a policy decision. 

[Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton lambasts the President saying that Obama’s credibility on the world stage cannot be resurrected.  I say we  have to try for America’s sake.]

If we accept that credibility is a vital aspect of foreign – and military – affairs, we cannot ignore that the President’s credibility or lack thereof potentially affects us all.  He represents our nation to the world.  Assessments of Barack Obama’s credibility, therefore, bear heavily on how America’s true intentions are judged.  Misjudgments on that score can cause our foes – and friends – to make decisions which are harmful, indeed, to them and to us.

If, for instance, President Obama is unable or seems unwilling to enforce his red line, it’s likely that the potential users of chemical weapons will be emboldened.  And, if so, won’t the possession and use of chemical weapons spread?  Some will use it offensively while others will feel a need to possess them as deterrents. 

It is beside the point to say that there would be no crisis if Obama had not talked about red lines a year ago.  So what?  He did.  And now his credibility problem is the nation’s.

Congress, in my view, has no real choice but to give the President  the authority to act he claims to want.  Our national self-interest requires it.

If such is done, one is left to hope that a sense of obligation compels the President, however reluctantly, to use that authority for his and the nation’s sake.

Barack Obama: Posturer-in-Chief?

President Obama’s recent comments on the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons has solidified his reputation in the world as one who posturers rather than acts. 

He had, for several months, largely ignored the imperative for action seemingly mandated by the Assad regime’s breach of the red line on the use of chemical weapons.  About all he would concede was that its suspected use was cause for “grave concern”. 

Things changed last week with televised images of nerve gas victims in Damascus.  A semblance of action, provoked by political and perceived national security reasons, was seen by the White House as being essential.

Intelligence was released bolstering the argument against Syria and the case was made by administrative spokesmen that a strong response could be expected.  On Friday night, in fact, Secretary of State John Kerry uttered a fierce condemnation of Assad with an insistence that a forceful military reply was necessary for reasons of both morality and world order.  That, and the presence of cruise missile-equipped warships in the Eastern Mediterranean, left little doubt that military strikes were imminent.

 

Nothing happened.

The President announced on Saturday that he was ready to take action but since the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, General Martin Dempsey, had advised that the decision was not “time sensitive”, the military could act “tomorrow, or next week or one month from now”.  But Obama expressed no urgency in giving the necessary orders with the announcement that he would first seek Congressional authority.  And Congress doesn’t return from the Labor Day recess until Sept. 9.

What’s going on?  I suggest the answer is simple.

The President never had any intention of backing up his “red line” threat.  [See last week’s Sensible Conservative post]   He postures and thinks that’s enough.

 

But the graphic images meant he had to sound as if there really would be consequences.  His advisors undoubtedly told him that his credibility was suffering both at home and abroad.  It was.

Certainly he tried.  Leaks of America’s intention were abundant as to the limited nature of the assaults to come.

But the President couldn’t follow through.  So he decided to buy more time.  Referring the matter to Congress had never been deemed necessary before by the Administration.  But this option became attractive given the box Obama occupied.  (He certainly couldn’t acknowledge that his “red line” comments had never been sincere.)

Given his record, it’s fair to assume that the President hopes and expects his bluff will not be called.  That may be probable.  After Iraq and Afghanistan, the American public does not want further involvement in the Middle East. 

So if he wins his gamble, Obama will be off the hook.  Congress will have vindicated his inclinations by “denying” him authority to act against Syria.  The sigh of relief emanating from the President’s quarters in the White House will be audible.