Posted on 10/06/2009 9:08:49 PM PDT by ancientart
In the wonderfully funny movie “Mom and Dad Save the World,” one of the heroes admits that his people are not so bright. “But what we lack in brains,” he says, “we make up for in ...good intentions.”
Gentle mocking here of the frequent appeal of the incompetent for tolerance of their mistakes: How can you blame us if our intentions are good?
The trouble is that much of what's really rotten in the world is due to people who thought that their good intentions would ensure a favorable result. Maybe the best example of this: former president Jimmy Carter.
Carter began his presidency with the best of intentions. In foreign policy in particular, Carter was determined to make this country a force for good in the world.
Key to his strategy: the Helsinki Accords, an agreement on human rights originally negotiated during the Ford administration. Concern for basic human rights, Carter assured us, would be the No. 1 priority of his administration.
Good intentions for sure. But how well did this work out?
In Iran, Carter tried to protect human rights by pressuring the often-ruthless Shah to release his political prisoners, to replace military tribunals with public trials and to allow full freedom of speech. Result? Islamic radicals took immediate advantage of the opportunities Carter had forced the Shah to give them. The Mullahs stirred up angry mobs, and, sure enough, the Shah was soon gone. Good! Only not so good, because in place of the Shah, the Iranians ended up with leaders so unconcerned with basic human rights that they would unhesitatingly send children into minefields to clear the way for their holy war against neighboring Iraq.
Similarly in Nicaragua, Carter's pro-human rights campaign helped lead to the ouster of ruthless strong-man Anastasio Somoza. Good! Only not so good, because Somoza's departure meant the dominance of the even more ruthless Sandinistas.
And then there's Cambodia. When Carter took office, the Khmer Rouge had already begun a campaign of genocide against its own people. Jerry Ford had begged Congress to allow him to try to stop the bloodbath but to no avail.
However, daily reports of new Khmer Rouge atrocities began to convince even some of the most ardent anti-war Democrats (South Dakota's George McGovern among them) that the U.S. just had to intervene militarily. But Carter refused to act, and the atrocities continued. Ultimately, almost 2 million people died - a third of the Cambodian population.
And here's where it gets curiouser and curiouser. Carter now decided it was time to get involved. Knowing full well it would mean a return of the Khmer Rouge to power (and probably more atrocities) Carter began pressuring the Vietnamese to get out of Cambodia!
With a choice between two sets of bad guys, count on Carter to back the greater villains - every single time.
When it comes to foreign policy (and much else) the Obama administration is giving those of us who remember the Carter presidency an overwhelming sense of deja vu.
Once again, we have an inexperienced and over-confident president trying to pave the way to foreign policy success with his constantly proclaimed good intentions.
Where will that road take us? Given the paving material, it shouldn't be too hard to guess.
I am tempted to think Carter and Bummer are both secret sabotage agents. Bummer less secret, because we KNOW he was mentored in Marxism.
Obama: Failure, with a sense of urgency...
“Where will that road take us? Given the paving material, it shouldn’t be too hard to guess.”
Good line.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.