Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
Here’s what strikes me as the ultimate willingness to put my beliefs to the test, as well as the most scientific approach:
I am unwilling to sign on to a program of intentionally exterminating the poor and the weak because that’s simply monstrous. Instead, I believe that either something better will happen which is beyond my ability to predict or that the trends identified so far will hold me in good stead.
Don’t get me wrong — I am all for liquidating direct threats as such. But merely being unfortunate should not be a death sentencce. Since I am powerless to affect who lives and dies in most cases, the least I can do is not support a program of attempting to pick and choose except where justified by apparent hostile intent, as opposed to merit as measured “scientifically”.
Zafar, I assume you are provocateur enough to be baiting me a little in this. I say roll the dice fair.
Hey – I’m not suggesting exterminating the poor and the weak. I’m just not okay with pretending that approaches which keep them poor and weak are other than they are because the poor and weak perceive them as meaningful or important.
(Which is also how I feel about people who support abstinence focused sex ed – I’m not about to do anything bad to them, but I’m not going to pretend that they make any sort of sense in the real world either. They’ll live with the consequences of their beliefs, and I think that’s harsh enough.)
This is a more complicated approach when it’s something we ‘do together’ – like foreign policy, say – but again, there’s no point pretending something makes sense when it doesn’t. That doesn’t mean I’m going to try and physically gut people with whom I disagree because they’re wrong. Just argue vociferously and not let the negative outcomes slide because ‘well their intentions were good’.
Herb,
Why be an optimist. Why extend yourself to an epistemological level that is unnecessary. Your analysis is correct. “If Obama’s policy was a scientific experiment, then it would be a failed experiment.” This is completely true. Even if it remains, forever, only a thought experiment then it is still obviously true.
Why not be a realist. Obama’s foreign policy is a complete failure. The rejection of the principles upon which it is based is in order.
You’ve done an excellent job. Why quibble. Just stand pat.
Regards,
Jim
Gee, I can remember a time when I didn’t have to choose between being an optimist and being a realist.
I can even remember — sort of, vaguely — a president who combined these qualities and led us to victory in the Cold War. (Cannot quite remember his name, but he was a cheerful guy from California who kept telling jokes while he changed the world….)
One of the most striking features of so many comments about my essay is the pessimism, even hopelessness, of so many of you about the prospects of making things better in the future.
Ever the optimist, I think you’ll all eventually come around to my side….
Herb,
I am only an epistemological pessimist. This is a Kantian’s duty. There is a limit to what man can know. However, when it comes to America and her potential I see no inherent limits. Rather I see tremendous potential for resurgence.
Your essay is important because the only way we can come back is to completely renounce Obama and Obamism. Here is an example of the realism that I like.
JOHN BOLTON CALLS ON JOHN KERRY TO RESIGN IN YAF SPEECH
Regards,
Jim
Hi, Jim,
So, you’re an epistemological pessimist because it’s your Kantian duty to be one.
Um, for those of us who barely squeaked through college what on Earth are you talking about?
You’re impressed because John Bolton has called on John Kerry to resign? Bolton has called for the resignation of every Secretary of State since Dean Acheson….
Herb,
Please listen to the speech itself. The comment about Kerry only happens in a question after his talk. His main theme is the particulars which brace up your main thesis. He reviews the general situation and the Obama responsibility for it.
As for epistomology, unfortunately, social science is often very late with very inconclusive results. This tempts the left to massage the data (normal people call this lying). Also, unfortunately, the right if it insists upon a purely empirical approach is much more honest and it therefore is paralyzed by the lack of clarity.
If you remember the gentleman from California you were referring to, he could use empirical data quite well but was never limited to it. He always talked about the “shining city on the hill” and a “rendezvous with destiny” both references to ethical objectives. A Kantian considers ethics above the material-empirical. I think our Californian thought of it in that way too. In fact he specifically frames it ethically in this speech.
Regards,
Jim
Hi, Jim,
Yes, I see your point. And that’s (yet another) great speech by President Reagan.
By the way, when Reagan met with Gorbachev at their first summit, in Geneva, the president and the Soviet leader held a long conversation that covered a lot of topics. But at one point along the way, Reagan simply couldn’t help himself….he was, after all, Reagan. He said to Gorby:
Mr. President, what’s the difference between a scientist and a communist?
Gorbachev shrugged his shoulders and replied: Ya nye znayo (I don’t know.)
Reagan smiled and said:
A scientist would have tried it out on rats, first.
I’ve always thought that this was the moment when Gorbachev first realized who he was up against…and that he didn’t stand a chance.
Herb,
halleluyah!
Regards,
Jim
A compelling argument Herb but I’d be surprised if 5% of Americans had much knowledge of any of this. And I don’t know if Obama is proud of what he has “accomplished” or not but I’m certain he’ll never admit to any mistakes.