Tweet
What was worse than Invading Iraq? Liberals invading America!
You've heard of systems that carry the seeds of their own destruction, but only liberalism plants, waters, and fertilizes them, then smuggles in a Mexican to friggin' harvest them.
By "liberalism", I don't just mean Democrats. When I say I despise liberalism, I (and most republicans) mean we abhor the entire 300-year experiment called the "Western Enlightenment", with its science, lightly-regulated markets, courts, and democratic republics. Many of us also think that Nation-States were a terrible idea.
I'm amazed by how few people see the pattern in the failures of democrats and the decline of the west in general. Basically, Liberalism in both meanings of the term, is a collection of moral beliefs and suggested policies - with no concept of strategy. As in, liberals don't even seem to know that strategy is a thing.
I think that's because they don't seem to understand that conflict is a thing. Even though they get reminded very often, and when they do they get very, very angry. Which makes sense, when you don't know that such a thing as strategy exists, getting angry is about all that you can do.
That strategy works well enough for toddlers, but it's not so great for political movements, let alone civilizations.
Steven Walt, of Foreign Policy Magazine, has connected half the dots and explained them well in an article called "Democracy, Freedom, and Apple Pie Aren't a Foreign Policy".
I say "half the dots", because he see sees the blinds spots of American Foreign policy, without noticing that those are the exact same blind spots of liberalism at home.
He writes: "look at what happens whenever some foreign government acts in a decidedly illiberal fashion or objects to U.S. or Western efforts to expand human rights, democracy, or any other cherished liberal principle. The nearly automatic reaction is for U.S. leaders to sputter in rage and then denounce that foreign leader as reactionary and misguided at best, or as the embodiment of evil at worst."
He doesn't use the H word in the entire article, but we all know how liberals deal with the shocking realization that not everybody agrees with them: they accuse the dissident of being Hitler. Or they might use terms they're more likely to get away with, like "racist", or "intolerant", "imperialist" or anything else that basically means Hitler. (Funny how liberalism didn't complain much about racism, genocide, and imperialism until the Germans and Japanese tried to join in on the fun. Just sayin').
[...]
I literally do not need to add anything to this sentence because it's perfect.
And every time they try to boycott something conservatives go out and buy it. I mean, if there was a South-African-built coal-fueled SUV with dolphin-leather seats it would sell like hotcakes even if it's terrible. I know I would buy it.
[...]
Same thing with political divisiveness. My rewritten version:
(Deep breath)
[...]
From over here in Flyoverland, San Francisco really is "abroad".
[...]
By "liberalism", I don't just mean Democrats. When I say I despise liberalism, I (and most republicans) mean we abhor the entire 300-year experiment called the "Western Enlightenment", with its science, lightly-regulated markets, courts, and democratic republics. Many of us also think that Nation-States were a terrible idea.
I'm amazed by how few people see the pattern in the failures of democrats and the decline of the west in general. Basically, Liberalism in both meanings of the term, is a collection of moral beliefs and suggested policies - with no concept of strategy. As in, liberals don't even seem to know that strategy is a thing.
I think that's because they don't seem to understand that conflict is a thing. Even though they get reminded very often, and when they do they get very, very angry. Which makes sense, when you don't know that such a thing as strategy exists, getting angry is about all that you can do.
That strategy works well enough for toddlers, but it's not so great for political movements, let alone civilizations.
Steven Walt, of Foreign Policy Magazine, has connected half the dots and explained them well in an article called "Democracy, Freedom, and Apple Pie Aren't a Foreign Policy".
I say "half the dots", because he see sees the blinds spots of American Foreign policy, without noticing that those are the exact same blind spots of liberalism at home.
He writes: "look at what happens whenever some foreign government acts in a decidedly illiberal fashion or objects to U.S. or Western efforts to expand human rights, democracy, or any other cherished liberal principle. The nearly automatic reaction is for U.S. leaders to sputter in rage and then denounce that foreign leader as reactionary and misguided at best, or as the embodiment of evil at worst."
He doesn't use the H word in the entire article, but we all know how liberals deal with the shocking realization that not everybody agrees with them: they accuse the dissident of being Hitler. Or they might use terms they're more likely to get away with, like "racist", or "intolerant", "imperialist" or anything else that basically means Hitler. (Funny how liberalism didn't complain much about racism, genocide, and imperialism until the Germans and Japanese tried to join in on the fun. Just sayin').
[...]
When moral condemnation fails -- as it invariably does -- liberalism offers no good alternatives.
I literally do not need to add anything to this sentence because it's perfect.
Economic sanctions are a weak tool and usually end up strengthening authoritarian rulers rather than undermining them.
And every time they try to boycott something conservatives go out and buy it. I mean, if there was a South-African-built coal-fueled SUV with dolphin-leather seats it would sell like hotcakes even if it's terrible. I know I would buy it.
[...]
...trying to spread liberal ideals at the point of a gun...by definition means destroying existing political and social institutions. Unfortunately, the collapse of the old order and the subsequent foreign occupation make it even less likely that an effective democracy will emerge. The resulting anarchy empowers those with a taste and a talent for violence, and it forces local populations to turn to ancient sources of local identity (such as tribes, clans, or religious sects) for protection. It is hard to think of a better way to destroy the tolerance and individualism that is central to liberal philosophy.
Yes. Exactly. Does anyone believe that conservatives have always had a long-frustrated dream of seeing elections in Iraq, or pent-up passionate opinions on Afghan women's fashion? No. We support war for wars sake because in war no matter who wins, liberalism loses.Same thing with political divisiveness. My rewritten version:
...trying to spread liberal ideals at the point of a politically-correct witch-hunt, or any divisive tactics...by definition means destroying existing political and social institutions. (Such as culture, religion, and unwritten rules of civility).
Unfortunately, the collapse of the old order and the subsequent foreign occupation (and the liberal lust for weirdness does make normals feel like they are under foreign occupation) make it even less likely that an effective democracy will emerge. The resulting incivility empowers those with a taste and a talent for divisiveness, and it forces local populations to turn to ancient sources of local identity (such as racial groups, or religious sects) for protection. (For example, most neo-nazis joined white power gangs to avoid being raped by blacks in prison, or as liberals call it, "undocumented anal immigration".)
Unfortunately, the collapse of the old order and the subsequent foreign occupation (and the liberal lust for weirdness does make normals feel like they are under foreign occupation) make it even less likely that an effective democracy will emerge. The resulting incivility empowers those with a taste and a talent for divisiveness, and it forces local populations to turn to ancient sources of local identity (such as racial groups, or religious sects) for protection. (For example, most neo-nazis joined white power gangs to avoid being raped by blacks in prison, or as liberals call it, "undocumented anal immigration".)
(Deep breath)
It is hard to think of a better way to destroy the tolerance and individualism that is central to liberal philosophy.
I know that for a fact because I've tried very hard to think of a better way.[...]
Finally, because most liberals are convinced that their cherished beliefs are beyond debate, they fail to recognize that non-liberal societies may not welcome these wonderful gifts from abroad.
From over here in Flyoverland, San Francisco really is "abroad".
[...]
The conclusion is obvious. The United States and other liberal states would do a much better job of promoting their most cherished political values if they concentrated on perfecting these practices at home instead of trying to export them abroad. If Western societies are prosperous, just, and competent, and live up to their professed ideals, people in other societies will want to emulate some or all of these practices, suitably adapted to local conditions.
Exactly. Before launching politically-correct crusades into the deep wilderness of Flyoverland, clean up your own states first.
Comment