Posted on 10/09/2008 7:51:46 AM PDT by Unam Sanctam
There’s nowhere on your chart for experience. That’s what brings wisdom, along with the rest.
Barack Obama is on record as saying that he doesn’t think doing political favors for money is “corruption.”
They are remarkably inconsistent. I have noticed the above in many places in our society, perhaps because it is generally the polar opposite, of my own approach to people, situations and life.
But...but...he went to Harvard...and reads The Nation. He probably even has a complete set of Encyclopedia Britannica and knows how to pronounce ennui.
But Brooks, like the effete Eastern establishment tooshie that he is, is so very impressed by the fact that Obama can talk about ideas, that he can not spare a thought as to what holding those ideas might actually mean for the future of this country."
Both of the above points are exactly right. The discussion should have been a turn off and flag raiser for Brooks regarding Obama. Instead it increased his admiration. Brooks is apparently non-selective about ideas; almost any old idea will do. The question I would pose to Brooks is, since being an intellectual and the power of thinking are so important to him, how is that intellectual?
It's a strange concept/comment. My reaction to it was similar to yours. Furthermore, while power can be corrupting, it doesn't have to be.
Goodness, armed with power, is corrupted; and pure love without power is destroyed.
One notes that although the reference is to the moral ambiguity of action it can also be used as an apologia for any bad action with good intention, which describes the liberal defense against the consequences of its own actions.
Niebuhr came to realize a few other things watching the Nazis murder 6 million people with their "noble" intentions, one of which is:
There are historic situations in which refusal to defend the inheritance of a civilization, however imperfect, against tyranny and aggression may result in consequences even worse than war.
I'd be happy to hear Brooks's comments on that one with regard to the imperfect but very successful defense of civilization in Iraq. I'm not holding my breath.
The link to the podcast and transcript of the Hugh Hewitt interview are on this FreeRepublic thread: Victor Davis Hanson on Obama, McCain and the Election of 2008.
Excellent points!
Dems Never have to take responsibility for any failure, because their motives and intentions were “good.”
They do recognize that Republicans have to take responsibility for any real or imputed transgressions for two reasons:
1) Conservatives have moral values, so dems are free to point out failings
2) Conservatives are inherently mean, selfish, arrogant, condescending, etc, and so their motives can Never be good.
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.