The Benghazi Hearing - A Critique

The much anticipated House Benghazi Committee hearing featuring Hilary Clinton was largely a dud.

From a Republican perspective, that outcome was in part due to hearing eve statements by several GOP lawmakers suggesting that Mrs. Clinton, not the truth about the slaying of four Americans in Libya, was the committee’s target.  Thus, the expectation of a productive, informative session was reduced and favorable treatment from the liberal Clinton-leaning media less likely.  

But the nature of Congressional hearings, in general, was also responsible.  Given a setting in which each Congressman has an opportunity to speak, repeatedly, insures a lengthy - and usually dull - proceeding.  The eleven hours session with Hilary Clinton was an embarrassing example.  

It was embarrassing that the GOP’s strenuous efforts to secure the testimony of the former Secretary of State produced so little.  That result is largely due to generally unfocused and ineffectual questioning by Republican committee members.

One would have thought, knowing that the nation’s attention would be on them, that all Republican members would have honed, rehearsed and tightened their previously written questions to effectively grill Mrs. Clinton on the reasons for the Benghazi humiliation.  Alas, since the expected fruits of such preparation were rarely seen, one can only conclude that most GOP committee members didn’t do their homework.  

That’s not just embarrassing; it’s appalling.

By contrast, committee Democrats had a plainly coordinated plan.  Of course, making statements supporting the witness and posing patty-cake questions (to paraphrase the usual query: “Don’t you agree, Madame Secretary, that the Republicans are being unfair and that you are wonderful?”) is an easier task.  But, unlike their GOP brethren, they consistently pursued a sensible plan.

With painful memories of 2012 still fresh, one fears that Republican ineptitude may yet snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.

Democrats are Embarrassed by Former Heroes Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson

It’s truly amazing.  Democrats across the land have just discovered that party pillars and early 19^thcentury presidents Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson owned black slaves.  As a result, they want to disassociate their party from these former heroes.

Imagine, when recent historical research conclusively established that Thomas Jefferson fathered several children with slave Sally Hemmings, Democrats evidently didn’t realize that she was also the “property” of the author of the Declaration of Independence. 

 

Well, slow learners, (and often willfully obtuse) as liberals can be, have finally absorbed the fact that America’s founders and icons were typically racists. 

 

So what is to be done?  The first task is to re-label the annual Democratic event, traditionally known as Jefferson-Jackson dinners.  According to news reports, party leaders in various states have the re-naming project underway.

How silly all of this is – and illustrative of the lack of seriousness on the Left and, alas, on the Right as well (Donald Trump’s poll numbers come to mind.).

Where will the Democratic Party’s new awareness of its roots lead? 

 

Perhaps the Jefferson Memorial should be demolished, also the name Washington removed from the namesake’s memorial (our first president was a slave owner, too!), and the Lincoln Memorial moved from its place of honor on the mall.  (Although Abraham Lincoln is properly credited with ending slavery, he, repeatedly, made it clear that he considered blacks to be members of an inferior race.)

There is real meaning to the wise sentiment that all of us have feet of clay.  And always have.  But that fact does not disqualify a person from honor or respect.  

Thomas Jefferson wrote for the ages, with words that would always inspire lovers of freedom.  Apparent hypocrisy does not weaken the strength of his language.

Andrew Jackson won the 1814 battle of New Orleans and, as president, trumpeted the cause of the American yeoman against America’s well-to-do.  Those facts formerly won him favor among Democrats.

Consider the reality that, in the 19^th century, American blacks were disfavored, slave or free, by most whites.  That was the prevailing view.  Prior to the Civil War, it was only the radical abolitionists who thought otherwise. 

I suggest that the efforts to disassociate the Democratic Party from its founders is part of the Left’s disavowal of America’s past.  Are members of the Left truly proud to be Americans?  It’s fair to wonder.  

[Barack Obama seems to embody this attitude.  Think back to his 2009 Middle East apology tour and numerous actions since then that indicate a reluctance to assert American authority in the world.  Does his sense of his country’s historical guilt prevent him from doing so?]

Can Liberty and Equality Co-Exist?

The easy answer is, of course!  After all, the Declaration of Independence’s second paragraph recognizes the “self-evident” truth that “all men are created equal” and that they have certain “inalienable” rights including “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

Yet, consider that the preamble to the U.S. Constitution recites that one of its purposes is to “secure the blessings of liberty”.  Equality is not mentioned.  Was the omission merely inadvertent?  Perhaps.  The Constitution and, later, the Bill of Rights was focused on the limitation of government power.  Liberty, in the classic sense, means an absence of restraint.  Equality, in the same regard, certainly meant the absence of mandated class privileges.  Formal aristocracy was barred by the Constitution:  “no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States”.

From the perspective of the Founders, co-existence of liberty and equality, as then defined, was plainly a given.  

But equality is subject to a different interpretation.  Not the Constitutional sense of opportunity but, rather, in the sense of results.  And that is certainly the prevailing definition on the left. 

 

If equality is viewed as an end, the existence of inequality suggests something’s wrong that society must fix (and by so doing, restrain liberty).  The tension between the two values becomes obvious.

  

Consider these instances of inequality.  Some racial group scores better on IQ and achievement tests than others, while better educated people usually have higher incomes.

Liberals are inclined to think these disparities are the result of factors for which the less successful groups should not be accountable.  (Denying or ignoring that genes and culture, for instance, might be relevant.)

So there must be illicit discrimination (think affirmative action) present in education.  Educational shortfalls are caused by the absence of opportunities so everyone should have the right to receive, at taxpayers expense, a college education.

Not surprising to those skeptical of such social engineering efforts, programs to provide equal results have not been successful despite the expenditures of billions of dollars (War on Poverty, etc.).

Still, realism aside, activities to lift up those down the income and educational ladder are commendable from a social perspective.

  

Yet, logically, if equality becomes theYet, logically, if equality becomes the primary social objective, the level at which it is achieved is not important.  Equality can be reached if everyone is poor and uneducated.  In political terms, if a group cannot be “raised up”, consider forcing down the group above.  

So much for liberty.

Obama and Foreign Affairs – Unintended Consequences?

The latest news for Syria is treated by most American media as yet another rebuff to the Obama Administration.  Russian bombers are attacking Syrian rebel areas controlled not by ISIS, but by non-terrorist foes of Syria’s pro-Russian tyrant.  The U.S. was given a warning not to send its aircraft over the country a mere hour before the initial Russian attack. 

This came several days after Obama and Putin had a ninety minute meeting at the U.N. in New York City, supposedly, to coordinate their joint efforts against ISIS.  Accordingly, wasn’t Putin’s conduct humiliating for the president?  One would have thought so but the White House acted as if Russia’s conduct was no big deal.  Was Barack Obama simply trying to save face or were Putin’s actions actually quite tolerable?  What is certain is that President Obama shies away from asserting U.S. authority.  “Leading from behind” is how an administration official put it when referring to U.S. policy in Libya in 2011.  Even that description is overly positive when viewing Ukraine and Iraq where American influence is negligible. 

But it’s fair to surmise that Obama welcomes these developments.  He, after all, has made clear his preferences for a lessened U.S. presence on the world scene.  He doesn’t believe that Americans should continue to play a dominant role – he doesn’t think it’s right.  After all, what entitles us to act as if we were exceptional? 

Of course, the retreat has left a vacuum which others, all foes of ours, have sought to fill.

 

Did the Administration anticipate these results?  Or are the, unfortunately, unintended consequences? 

It’s certainly possible that Obama’s level of self-imposed naivete robs him of the ability to recognize the consequences of inaction and disengagement which are so obvious to others.  But it’s at least as possible that Obama sees very clearly the results which flow from his policies.  And that is to his liking.  America deserves to be taken down a notch or two, doesn’t it?

For those who love this country (Americans and foreigners), such an attitude denies the reality that America has so often – and for so long – been a strong force for good in the world. 

For many on the left, however, the idea of positive American exceptionalism is a myth.  Alas, our president has given ample support for the view that he agrees. 

NOTE:  I have speculated – with considerable confidence – on the reasons why President Obama is so passive in the face of hostility to American interests.  However, I do not need to guess as to the objectives of Russian President Vladimir Putin in the Middle East.  If one were in his shoes, it is obvious that the interests of greater Russia would be served by aligning himself with Iran and destroying all Western influence, including the elimination of Sunni foes and secular opponents of Syria’s Assad.  Without effective U.S. opposition, he will be able to obtain, with the cooperation of Shia Iran, dominance over Middle Eastern oil.  Because of joint Iranian-Russian power, and the absence of America’s, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States will have no choice but to acquiesce to Putin’s aims.  Expect Russia to use its new found energy powers to force the subjugation of Europe to its interests.  America, due to its new energy resources (fracking, etc.), will escape dependency but will be economically isolated with untold consequences.

None of these worries will befall Barack Obama, of course.  Will they trouble him?  Or simply be considered as just desserts?