I’m thinking of Santayana again and his “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Why? Take a look.
America’s arrogance, and Obama’s
Commenter “expat”—who is in a position to know a thing or two about Europe’s reaction to Obama—has written in regard to German opinions about Obama’s statements on Turkish EU membership:
They resented specifically Obama’s public lecturing tone, which was obnoxious, especially since he seems to know nothing of the situation.
During his recent European jaunt, Obama called America’s past attitude towards Europe arrogant. He failed to offer any particulars, and with his concomitant criticisms of predecessor George Bush, my guess is that he’s referring at least in part to that cowboy swagger Europeans so loved to hate.
But expat’s description (and my own observations) of Obama is as least as much (if not more) in line with the definition of the word “arrogant,” which has always seemed to me a perfect description of the man: “overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward inferiors.”
George Bush may have been cocky. But I don’t recall him having an air of looking down on others. This is precisely the attitude Obama conveys, and it’s all the more strange since he—as expat points out—is relatively devoid of real world experience other than the academic. But arrogance is a trait I’ve often noticed in academics, as well.
Note, however, that arrogance is a trait that Obama ascribed to America, not to George Bush specifically. And, although I assume that Obama was relying on people to get the obvious subtext about the cowboy Bush and fill in the blanks themselves, we should take Obama at his word and ask what it is he thinks is so arrogant about America?
It’s an odd adjective to a apply to a nation, come to think of it. Most nations feel a bit superior to others, if only in the cultural sense; it’s part of national pride, which used to be universally thought as a good thing. It’s only when this pride gets out of hand in terms of oppression and/or aggression that it turns bad. Think Germany during WWII, although part of the motivation there was actually the reverse—a sense of shame at having been humiliated at the end of WWI, turned into arrogance and aggressive efforts to restore lost dominance.
If America has done anything even remotely comparable, it has been done in the defense of liberty and the cause of freedom. Is it arrogant for America to be proud of its liberties, and the fact that so many people around the world are desperate to emigrate here? Was it arrogant of America to enter WWI and manage to break the stalemate so that an armistice could finally be signed? Was it arrogant of America to respond to Pearl Harbor by defending itself and all of Europe into the bargain during WWII? And how very arrogant was the US’s postwar Marshall Plan, its assumption that it would be able to rescue and rebuild Europe after the devastation? Was it arrogant to fight against the USSR’s attempt to spread Communism throughout Europe and the world during the Cold War? Is it arrogant of the US to be the major contributor financially to the US-bashing UN, or to host it on its shores? Maybe we should return the organization to some country abroad, where it rightly belongs these days.
Ah, but the Iraq War was arrogant, right? Was the long buildup to the war in which the UN was asked to vote, and Saddam was given plenty of time to prepare for the invasion as best he could, arrogant? I suppose it was arrogant if you believe the “Bush lied about WMDs” meme, but does Obama actually believe that to be the case?
I don’t know; he’s not saying. Not that he’s offering any specifics at all. That makes it easy for the listener to fill in the blanks. What Obama is doing, however, is playing to Europeans’ arrogance about their superiority, while also asserting his own personal arrogance.
[NOTE: I was thinking of writing at more length about nationalism itself, but it turns out that I’ve already done that. So why re-invent the wheel, as it were? Here are some excerpts that seem relevant, especially in regard to the present-day European attitude towards nationalism and its inherent arrogance:
Patriotism has gotten a very bad name during the last few decades. I think part of this feeling began (at least in this country), like so many things, with the Vietnam era. But patriotism and nationalism seem to have been rejected by a large segment of Europeans even earlier, as a result of the devastation both sentiments were seen to have wrought during WWI and WWII. Of course, WWII in Europe was a result mainly of German nationalism run amok, but it seemed to have given nationalism as a whole a very bad name.
Here’s author Thomas Mann on the subject, writing in 1947 in the introduction to the American edition of Herman Hesse’s Demian:
If today, when national individualism lies dying, when no single problem can any longer be solved from a purely national point of view, when everything connected with the “fatherland” has become stifling provincialism and no spirit that does not represent the European tradition as a whole any longer merits consideration”¦”
A strong statement of the post-WWII idea of nationalism as a dangerous force, mercifully dead or dying, to be replaced (hopefully) by a pan-national (or, rather, anational) Europeanism. Mann was a German exile from his own country, who had learned to his bitter regret the excesses to which unbridled and amoral nationalism can lead. His was an understandable and common response, one that helped lead to the formation of the EU. The nationalism of the US is seen by those who agree with him as a relic of those dangerous days of nationalism gone mad without any curb of morality or consideration for others.
I would add that many liberals and Leftists in this country would concur with that last sentiment. Is Obama one of them? I believe so.]
It all depends on what the meaning of “bow” means
The White House says that Obama did not bow to the Saudi king:
“It wasn’t a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he’s taller than King Abdullah,” said an Obama aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
You be the judge:
[NOTE: The Anchoress has the backstory.]
Obama’s world popularity: what difference does it make?
There was some discussion yesterday in the comments section about this recent quote from Joe Biden (remember him?):
[T]he last administration left us in a weaker posture than we’ve been any time since World War II: less regarded in the world, stretched more thinly than we ever have been in the past, two wars under way, virtually no respect in entire parts of the world. And so we’ve been about the business of repairing and strengthening those.
Biden’s remarks caught my attention because they reflect a number of discussions I’ve had recently with friends who are Obama supporters. The basic idea is this: they feel a sense of blessed relief that Obama is President.
This not only contrasts sharply with my own feelings on the subject, but it is puzzling because in some cases they simultaneously confess to being disturbed by some of his actual policies, particularly on the economy. In general, they admit they’re not paying attention to the details (understandable; most people are very busy). But although some of the details of which they are aware make them quite uneasy, they paradoxically retain a tremendous faith and trust in the man. Lest you think my friends unusual, this coincides with the results of many recent polls that place Obama’s favorability very high at the same time respondents disagree with many specifics of his proposals.
What’s going on here? When I question my friends more closely, or just listen to them speak amongst themselves, two things seem especially important in shaping their positive feelings about Obama: they are drawn to his personal style (especially in contrast to predecessor Bush, whom they uniformly detest), and they are happy that the world now likes us better.
It’s that latter idea that ties into the Biden remark. There is no question that polls in many countries indicate a renewed optimism about the US now that Obama is President. If our goal is to say, like Sally Field, “they like us, they really like us!” then I suppose that’s a good thing. But except for the warm glow, what difference does it really make?
It’s interesting to observe, as I did when I looked up that Sally Field quote, that what she really said was [emphasis mine], “You like me; right now, you like me!” The temporal and transitory nature of popularity that even Ms. Field managed to place in her sentence in the midst of her euphoria at winning an Oscar is a realistic and sobering note. This is at least as true in the world of geopolitics as in Oscar competitions.
How much does such a thing as popularity actually matter in the course of world affairs? And what does it really mean to be liked in such a way? What does it mean to be liked in countries that have their own interests in mind, when those interests conflict with ours? Could “optimism about the US” sometimes mean “optimism that we will now be able to control/exploit people instead of them?” And does the opinion of the average person have anything whatsoever to do with what the leaders of his/her country are likely to do, or with the power struggles of those leaders and countries on the world stage?
Several analysts have pointed out that, for all of Obama’s European rhetoric, bowing, and ‘umbleness about the role of America in the world, he gained nothing from his visit except personal adulation [emphasis mine]:
Warmly greeted by European leaders and the public alike as a welcome relief from his predecessor, Obama’s appeal hasn’t enabled to him to bridge differences on key economic and military issues with American allies.
Obama left the G-20 summit in London without securing any further commitment by individual countries to enact more stimulus spending. And Saturday he departs from NATO’s gathering in this French-German border town without a pledge by allies to send further combat troops to Afghanistan to bolster the American military surge there.
Note the highlighted sentence—exactly and precisely the sentiment of my friends. But the rest of the excerpt indicates how meaningless it all might be, except as window-dressing. Perhaps it might even be dangerous.
To learn why, one could do worse than to turn to Machiavelli, who noticed certain political truths some time ago (the following refers to rulers within a country, but I believe one could well extrapolate to having power in the world):
In answering the question of whether it is better to be loved than feared, Machiavelli writes, “The answer is of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved.”
Machiavelli, of course, is considered—well, Machiavellian. But he was a keen observer of the way things are rather than the way we might wish them to be.
Is Obama? Well, it depends on what you believe about Obama’s intent and motivations. If he is merely naive (or, as Mark Steyn wrote of Obama: “talking like a 14-year old who’s been up in his room listening to ‘Imagine’ for too long”), then his choice to be loved and not feared could be detrimental or even fatal to US security and interests in the world. But if you believe that loss of US power is his actual goal, then he may indeed be a very keen observer of realities.
Alas, poor Santayana…
Please note this trenchant comment from zhombre:
Poor Santayana. Didn’t have a clue. Whether you remember the past or not, you will relive it, because some other SOB doesn’t.
George Santayana—for those of you who know your history—was the philosopher who declared, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” (And by the way, according to Wiki, Santayana had a mother named Josefina Borré¡s, “better known as Jo Bo”—could this be someone having a little fun with history and Wiki at our expense?)
Santayana’s aphorism is famous because it’s not only elegantly expressed, but because it seems true as well as tragic. But, as zhombre points out, it takes more than remembering the past to be able to avoid a repetition of its worst themes.
In public matters, it’s the aggregate of the population—and/or the leaders—who must remember the past in order to prevent a recurrence. For the individual who remembers and even foresees but is relatively powerless, all he or she can do is protest, endure, emigrate, or in extreme cases try to stage a revolt.
Perhaps that’s why George Bernard Shaw was able to offer another pithy observation about history: “We learn from history that we learn nothing from history.”
Obama as Humpty Dumpty (redux)
We all know Humpty Dumpty as the unfortunate protagonist of the ancient nursery rhyme:
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king’s horses,
And all the king’s men,
Couldn’t put Humpty together again.
But Humpty has other claims to fame. For instance, he’s a character in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass, and as such, he featured (much less famously) in this year-old post of mine about Obama.
I was reminded by all of this by a comment by “E” in a recent thread about Obama, to wit:
More worrisome than Obama’s ignorance about geography and culture is his ignorance about history. He seems to recognize no reality and no narrative but the one he creates, with the willing collusion of the mainstream media.
This is where we’ve gotten to – from a lying President who manipulated the meaning of the word “is,” to a self-centered, self-important twit who thinks the meaning of the word “is” is whatever he says it is.
The real problem is, he may be right. In a world where perception is reality, those of us on the side of logic and history are getting shut down by a delusional mob with their fingers in their ears, chanting “la la la la la!”
So once again it seems highly appropriate to quote the great Humpty. With the passage of time, Obama has only grown to sound more like the famous eggman (or is it the Walrus? koo koo kachoo) rather than less. Here’s the relevant dialogue from the Lewis Carroll work, in which Humpty arrogantly tells Alice he can manipulate words and make them do whatever he wants:
“[T]hat shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents ”” ”
“Certainly,” said Alice.
“And only ONE for birthday presents, you know. There’s glory for you!”
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,'” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t””till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!'”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument,'” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean””neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master””that’s all.”
[NOTE: In that post from a year ago, I was discussing Obama’s claim that he wasn’t really a liberal. Sounds pretty funny now, doesn’t it?
It’s interesting to revisit it now, I think:
When asked if he’s comfortable with the liberal label, [Obama] says, “This is what I would call old politics. This is the stuff we’re trying to get rid of . . . Those old categories don’t work, and they’re preventing us from solving problems.”
Here is another interesting indication of Obama’s belief in the power of mere words. It works on two levels. The first is that he is very eager to distance himself from the label “liberal” while continuing to advocate the policies. The second is that he asserts that it’s these labels themselves that get in the way of “solving problems,” not the ideological differences behind the labels.
Are disagreements actually real to Obama? Or does he think that just changing the “dialogue”””and the terminology””would be enough to solve them (including, of course, our disagreements with the likes of Iran)?…
At the time, Obama was quoted as having said, in answer to accusations that he’s a liberal, “Let me tell you something. There’s nothing liberal about wanting to reduce money in politics. It’s common sense. . . . There’s nothing liberal about wanting to make sure that everybody has health care.”
This seems even more ironic with the passage of a year. It was only two months later, in June of 2008, that Obama threw out his public financing pledge in favor of running the most expensive campaign in history. And there’s something very liberal about making sure everybody has health care—especially if you’re willing to break the bank to do so, and have the government be in charge rather than the private sector.
The underpinnings of Obama’s reasoning were illogical, anyway. Even if those particular two things were not liberal, and even had he actually stuck to both instead of tossing out the first, it would not prove whether or not he was a liberal. It’s the aggregate of a candidate’s policies that indicate such things, particularly once elected.
Although, come to think of it, maybe Obama was right. He’s no liberal—he’s a Leftist.]
Compatibility: women are sniffing men out—literally
Researchers have found that women can smell men—especially their underarm odor—better than men can smell women.
It’s not that men’s odor is necessarily worse. It’s that women are more sensitive to this particular smell. When researchers tried to mask each type of odor with other scents, men were less able to detect the lingering female sweat odor whereas women were more likely to continue to perceive the male sweat odor despite the attempt at coverup.
And lest you think this is because women are just plain difficult, think again. It seems that Mother Nature has arranged it so that women get important genetic information from male body odor. If we can believe this research, for example, the Pill blocks this all-important function:
…[A] woman’s flowery fragrance or a guy’s musk the body sends out aromatic molecules that indicate genetic compatibility.
Major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes are involved in immune response and other functions, and the best mates are those that have different MHC smells than you. The new study reveals, however, that when women are on the pill they prefer guys with matching MHC odors.
MHC genes churn out substances that tell the body whether a cell is a native or an invader. When individuals with different MHC genes mate, their offspring’s immune systems can recognize a broader range of foreign cells, making them more fit.
Past studies have suggested couples with dissimilar MHC genes are more satisfied and more likely to be faithful to a mate. And the opposite is also true with matchng-MHC couples showing less satisfaction and more wandering eyes.
So, can we blame the Pill for the higher divorce rate? At least we can’t point the finger at deodorant, since women seem to be able to ferret out the telltale smells despite the masking scents.
The imprecise science of earthquake prediction
It seems impressive that the terrible earthquake in Italy was forecast by scientist Gioacchino Giuliani.
Or was it? He predicted one in the general area but not the exact place, and he thought it would come a few days earlier. He based his calculations on emissions of radon gas, a factor which has been studied for many decades and has not been found all that helpful.
The problem with earthquake prediction is this: it’s only over time that it could be proven that someone such as Giuliani was onto something rather than merely lucky. He would have to reliably predict more than one earthquake for his method to gain credibility. And even if a scientist was correct in general, he/she would have to be correct in particular: exact date and time and place. Otherwise, there would be constant evacuations and panic.
“I didn’t know I was pregnant”
No, not me. This TV show on TLC.
I watched it last night. And lest you think this was some sort of joke, let me say the show was in deadly earnest—and quite fascinating.
How could these women have been so stupid, you ask? Easy. Almost all of them were somewhat heavy to begin with (although only one was what you might call obese, and she was not so very obese at that). They gained very little weight during their pregnancies, and several actually lost weight.
All of the women had a history of very irregular cycles, and so the absence of a normal period was normal for them. Quite a few of them also had spotting during their pregnancies, which they interpreted as their own typically irregular cycles. Some had been previously told they were infertile. One had had two negative pregnancy tests. And most of them had very few other symptoms of pregancy, such as nausea.
In fact, their very first symptom was usually labor, which they interpreted as some deathly illness—and which in several cases sent them screaming to the ER. One woman, on hearing there for the first time that she was pregnant and about to deliver, thought (as they were frantically wheeling her to the delivery room), “What kind of hospital is this? How can they be so stupid?”
A few moments later—a full-term baby was in her arms.
Obama’s peace/love
I was expecting some naivete and pandering to the Left from President Obama’s foreign policy. But so far it is trending worse, much worse, than I thought it would.
Cue the violins (literally!) and butterflies here, for Obama’s most recent effort in Prague [emphases and bracketed comments mine]:
A misty spring sun on his back, US President Barack Obama stood before a crowd of more than 20,000 in a square beneath the walls of Prague Castle yesterday to lay out his goal of forging a world free of nuclear weapons, while acknowledging that he may not see it in his lifetime…
“I am not naive [if you say so. Perhaps a better description would be “delusional”].This goal will not be reached quickly, perhaps not in my lifetime [your naivete is not just a timing problem, it a conceptual one],” the 47-year-old leader said…
“Some argue that the spread of these weapons cannot be checked, that we are destined to live in a world where more nations and more people possess the ultimate tools of destruction,” Mr Obama told his audience. “This fatalism is a deadly adversary, for if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable [nice ring to it, but that doesn’t mean the logic works. Sometimes it is good to acknowledge the truth and try to deal from there in a realistic manner. If it is impossible to halt the spread of nuclear weapons, you have to craft a policy that deals with that fact, not dream that you can put the cat back into the bag].”
The speech began with almost Disneyesque staging as the President and Mrs Obama climbed hand-in-hand on to the outdoor stage to string music, the skyline of Prague’s domes and spires behind them and a thick bank of carnations and roses at their feet [wow. Just wow]. But the message the President offered was grave and weighted with unexpected new urgency by the firing overnight of another ballistic missile by North Korea [oh, and I’m sure they’re listening, and trembling in their shoes. Fortunately, they don’t seem to be very good at the science of the thing—at least, not yet].
Among Mr Obama’s specific proposals was the creation of an international nuclear energy bank, from which nations would be able to draw nuclear fuel for the generation of energy and steps to support Iran in seeking nuclear energy if it proves it is not, in fact, pursuing nuclear weapons. He will also seek a new treaty to end all production of fissile material suitable for nuclear warheads.
Not naive, Obama says? Profoundly naive to the point of delusional, I say—unless Obama is just throwing some fish to Leftist and pacifist desires here and abroad, and fooling them as he fooled so many during the campaign by saying one thing and meaning another. Maybe he’s playing the deception (or, as Frank Barnes calls it, “misdirection”) game he plays so well. There’s some evidence for that, although it’s a bit meager:
The President meanwhile admitted to a significant let-out clause for the United States. Until all the world is rid of nuclear weapons, the US will be obliged to maintain a safe and secure nuclear capability “to deter our adversaries and reassure our allies”.
The article points out that “sceptics may regard such a ‘you-first’ approach as a guarantee that his stated goal of a world without such weapons will never happen.” Of course, if a feint and then protection is his goal, gutting defense in this country is a strange way to go about deterrence.
I refer you also to some excellent comments on Obama’s naivete at Richard Fernandez’s blog—
On Obama’s proposal to end the production of fissionable material suitable for warheads:
The key to nuclear weapons is plutonium, and the technology to turn it into bombs. (and yes”“you can make nukes from enriched uranium, but this isn’t practical for large scale production.) The elaphantoid fact in the room is that”“even if you “destroy” all the nuclear weapons you still have to store the plutonium in SOME PLACE. Its toxic. It doesn’t occur in nature. You can’t just grind it up into dust and throw it into the wind. And if it is stored in some place, you can retrieve it and build another nuke in no time at all.
The Djinn is out of the bottle, and its not going back. The bottle is broken. And anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.
Please read this comment on the strategic advantages of nuclear weapons for countries such as Iran. One of the problems with disarmament is that everyone must do it at once, and be trustworthy as well. Does any serious thinker on earth truly believe this is possible? And, if it were possible, would not the world have reached such a wonderful and naturally peaceful state that the existence of nuclear weapons would have become moot?
Here’s some realism for you, in that same comment:
For Obama’s dream to be reality, unlike Reagan’s, SOME nation would have to conquer the entire world, and run it like a Stalin-esque nightmare, wiping out everyone of different ethnicities and religions who did not like each other….Yes World Peace is quite possible. Simply slaughter about 4 billion people, and rule the rest like Stalin.
And here’s one of those skeptics who thinks Obama’s just pandering to the Left—perhaps:
There is a constituency that longs to believe we live in a word where we could just renounce our atomic weapons and everything would be fine. Obama wants their votes, and all they want in exchange is to hear him say the words, so he says them.
The rest of the Democratic Party is confident that he is just pandering to the kooks to further their own agenda. They are probably correct.
People who thought they were smart turned out on several occasions during the twentieth century to be wrong though, about who was pandering to whom.
Fernandez himself, as usual, has one of the best analyses around:
Here’s my philosophical problem with all forms of weapons abolition. Almost every example of a practical, peaceful society ”” with the exception of monastic communities where all the monk’s cells are unlocked ”” are based on the idea of a monopoly of violence in the hands of a consensus ruler. It’s called the King’s Justice. The opposite of the King’s Justice is not Paradise on Earth, but Hell on Earth: barbarism.
Now for the last 60 years, we’ve had a kind of Nuclear King’s Justice. First, the US Nuclear Monopoly, then the Bipolar World in which there was a monopoly of nuclear violence, but it was held by two rational parties paralyzed by mutual terror. This is the reason Armaggedon hasn’t happened.
If we disarm the King’s Men without making absolutely sure that weapons are completely eliminated, then the result won’t be peace but instability. Now if the US disarms, who holds the monopoly of violence characteristic of the King’s Justice? Either it is some international institution or it is the idea that violence will no longer occur because all the instruments of violence will be abolished.
But it is not true that wars will automatically decline with the abolition of nukes. One of the reasons conventional wars have declined in frequency since the Second World War is that not only were they trumped by the King’s Justice, but they always risked escalating into a nuclear confrontation. War became momentarily too dangerous. With the removal of nuclear weapons ”” total destruction ”” from the game, limited war becomes possible again. It becomes cost-beneficial to think in terms of national conquest, where today the risks would be too high.
If I could flick the switch and abolish all nuclear weapons today, China and India would become the most powerful countries on earth because in a situation without WMDs, the nation without [sic; I believe this should be “with”] the greatest conventional warfare capacity and the brutality to use it, would become the dominant power. What it would achieve is not the abolition of military effort, but a sea change in the military balance.
The following is what Obama’s remarks—and the crowd lapping them up—brings to mind for me (although those dancing, prancing horses are still delightful, aren’t they?):
Well, at least Obama’s not Bush
And the resume’ of conservtive foreign policy success of the last 8 years is what? And, as such, why should we listen to your advice?
If Obama isn’t pursuing that failed policy, then he at least is potentially on a different track.
Let’s see, the results of the foreign policy of the last eight years: a free Iraq that’s doing fairly well. No major terrorist attacks in this country. Al Qaeda much weakened. And I hadn’t noticed any significant problem between Bush and Sarkozy, or Merkel, or Brown, or eastern Europe, or any of the other European countries that Obama is presently sucking up to.
Nor do I see any concrete improvements as a result of Obama’s speeches in terms of what Europe is actually planning to do vis a vis the US. It’s all rhetoric; but that’s Obama’s style, anyway, so it’s a good match if rhetoric is Europe’s reaction, as well.
Oh, and saying “at least [Obama’s] potentially on a different track” is an absurdity. “Different” is not better—although those who voted for this dangerous man on the promise of “change” fail to understand that.
You might as well say “Well, at least Hitler wasn’t the Weimar Republic.” True, but hardly a point worth making. And no, it doesn’t mean that Obama is Hitler. But it does mean that the consequences of Obama’s policies could put us, and the world, in a situation a whole lot worse than we had under Bush.
If Bush Had Said It
I think I just may start a new feature on this blog: “If Bush Had Said It.”