Come for the Politics, Stay for the Pathologies

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time

The New York Times, the newspaper of Barry’s record, ran a piece on Mr. Obama’s deep thoughts with respect to a nuclear free world. They referenced an article he wrote for the student newspaper when he was a senior at Columbia. Having read our future president’s painfully incoherent source piece in Sundial, I can see why he chose community organizing over journalism. And regarding the allegations that Bill Ayers actually authored Obama’s two memoirs: let’s just say that speculation has merit.

If you want to see the product of the the most intelligent man ever elected to the office of the US presidency, do read the Sundial article. I don’t think Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln or even –and it pains me to say this – Clinton have much to worry about.

Most of Obama’s article consists of quotes from campus activists, but there is this gem of original thought by the author:

“Indeed the most pervasive malady of the collegial system specifically and the American experience generally, is that elaborate patterns of knowledge and theory have been disembodied from individual choices and government policy.”

I have no idea what this means, but I do agree that knowledge has been disembodied from government policy.

And then there’s this insight:

“Generally, the narrow focus of the Freeze movement as well as academic discussion of the first versus second strike capabilities, suit the military-industrial interests, as they continue adding to their billion dollar erector sets.”

Again, I don’t know what it means but you can see the foundation of BO’s future rhetorical brilliance.

The NYT author tries hard to make it sound like Barry’s article was a cogent profile of two campus anti-nuclear groups. And he would have us believe that the Prez has been actively thinking about the problem of the nuclear arms race since he was a pup. If that were the case, I would have hoped for a more nuanced position than this:

“It’s naïve for us to think,”… “that we can grow our nuclear stockpiles, the Russians continue to grow their nuclear stockpiles, and our allies grow their nuclear stockpiles, and that in that environment we’re going to be able to pressure countries like Iran and North Korea not to pursue nuclear weapons themselves.”

No, that’s not naive. That’s knowing what our military is there for: keeping rogue nations that mean us harm in check.

But here’s what is naive: clinging to the same idealistic goal of a nuclear free world that he espoused in 1983. Where is the wisdom that generally accrues with age and experience? As Frank J. Gaffney Jr., a former Pentagon official from the Reagan era, points out: “There is only one country on earth that Team Obama can absolutely, positively denuclearize: Ours.” Believing others will follow our good example is the textbook definition of naive.

I liked the thought of a nuclear free world when I was in college too. Like drugs, sex and rock and roll, it seemed a good idea at the time. We could all afford to be naive and even stupid when we were college seniors. We can’t afford for the leader of the free world to be stuck on stupid.