DeMediacratic Nation: Answering the Question

Apologies up front as it's just kind of my mood today.

Reading Byron York this morning regarding last nights Democrat Debate on MSNBC with Brian Williams asking and anticipating a military type response (I assume, but that’s from my war-mongering stance, I guess), Williams asked:

‘“If, God forbid, a thousand times, while we were gathered here tonight, we learned that two American cities had been hit simultaneously by terrorists and we further learned beyond the shadow of a doubt it had been the work of al Qaeda, how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result?”’

I am struck by the responses received. This from Senator Barack Obama I will use as the sample:

'“Well, first thing we’d have to do is make sure that we’ve got an effective emergency response, something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans. And I think that we have to review how we operate in the event of not only a natural disaster, but also a terrorist attack.”'

'“The second thing is to make sure that we’ve got good intelligence, A, to find out that we don’t have other threats and attacks potentially out there; and B, to find out do we have any intelligence on who might have carried it out so that we can take potentially some action to dismantle that network.”'

'“But what we can’t do is then alienate the world community based on faulty intelligence, based on bluster and bombast. Instead, the next thing we would have to do, in addition to talking to the American people, is making sure that we are talking to the international community. Because as has already been stated, we’re not going to defeat terrorists on our own. We’ve got to strengthen our intelligence relationships with them, and they’ve got to feel a stake in our security by recognizing that we have mutual security interests at stake.”'

Please note that there are other responses from a couple of the other candidates that York analyzes and I suggest reading the piece. My thoughts on the responses, using the above go in a slightly different direction…so there you have it.

I realize politicians on all sides of the spectrum do not like giving direct answers. They usually like to dance around a bit to the tune they feel that we can all dance to best as well; they also like to touch on points they have prepared in advance and fit those in where possible. The good senator did not answer the question.

Regardless of its relationship to reality, Williams gave the scenario that Obama then uses to, in a sense respond with a Jeopardy type answer. Not to the, ‘with all your steps addressed senator; what would you then do’ sense of the question. Why is that and does it really make one think we would be safe in the hands of a commander and chief?

Setting the political aside, which I’ll admit can be difficult; the response rang with the dull peal of a pillow in a bell like most thoughts in my feeble mind. Gagdad Bob has been running through the “10 Commandments of the Nihilist,” over the past week or so and although each one may touch upon, in varying degrees to the senators response; one in particular came to mind.

In the nihilist commandment, “thou shalt not commit adultery” Gagdad writes:

“I'm sure you've noticed that speaking with a conservative is easy, since they are logical, coherent, clear, dispassionate, and able to explain exactly what they believe and why they believe it. You may not agree with them, but you will know exactly what they think -- i.e., small federal government, low taxes, school vouchers, economic liberty, don't make stuff up that's not in the constitution, etc.”

“But why is it the opposite with illiberal leftists? Why can they never give a straight answer? Why all the evasion and double-talk that they confuse with "nuance?"

My feeling, although I am very swayed by the doog Gagdad is that they’re just full of it; but why be so full in the wrong way? Obviously, more understanding is necessary regarding “cognitive style.” As Gagdad continues, of the left or illiberal left:

“they chronically confuse abstract and concrete, and internal (subjective) and external (objective). Furthermore, this is how they are able to make reality conform to their fantasies, for they can always identify exceptions to general rules. For example, it is a truism that America is the most wealthy and prosperous country because it has the most free economy. But how difficult is it to find a particular person who is not prospering?”

“Conversely, the leftist will champion a generality such as "universal healthcare," but entirely overlook the particulars -- that is, how the cruelty and inefficiency of such systems actually affects individuals who, for example, must wait six months to get an MRI while there is a tumor growing inside them.”

Do you get where I going with this? I certainly hope so as I really don’t. It’s just that where one may wish to lay it all on being full of something of the fecal variety, it is actually something much deeper (you can think fecal variety here if it makes you feel better). They, in their own reality, believe in what they say and believe that they are saying it? Huh? Look, I didn’t say I understood what I was talking about, but if you wish to lose some of the disheartening feeling that you may often feel when listening to the likes of Harry, Nancy, or Obama you should read more on the differences at One Cosmos.

As for me I’m still grappling with it. But, considering and being able to think upon the senator’s answer that regardless of the psychology behind it this frame of mind in dealing with the external threats to our existence as we know it is outright wrong headed. You can imagine depth of the accomplishments in an Obama presidency or any of the other Democrats running when you get right down to it.

Maggot Rave by ~lordsomber on deviant ART