RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : Israel & Obama: What’s Up With That?

Wednesday
May 25, 2011

Israel & Obama: What’s Up With That? by Tibor R. Machan

Whatever one’s view is of Israel it cannot be sensible to demand that the country voluntarily abolish itself. So then what is this all about? Is it just some kind of geopolitical gambit to the effect that Israel can be given up, even after decades of “investment” in the country made at the expense of the American taxpayer? (Not that this could be justified morally but perhaps given the statist nature of most diplomacy it could make some sense.)
(Read more...)
Discuss this Article (41 messages)

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 - 5:49am

I do not believe that President Obama's suggestion that Israel return to its 1967 borders was meant to be taken seriously by decision makers at his level. It was headline news in the wake of the Bin Laden assassination to assuage the Middle Eastern interests.

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 - 5:55am

Tibor,
Perhaps Obama thinks that, in the words of Neville Chamberlain, "The result will be peace in our time."
Thanks,
Glenn

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 - 10:03am

There is something else going on, like the strange irrationality of antisemitism, that is unfathomable. The far left has acquired a deep fondness for the Palestinians and with that as the rationale or background, they treat Israel as an occupying force, as an oppressor. I don't understand this anymore than I understand antisemitism, but it is there to be seen. And Obama does have that anti-colonialism streak he adopted from his father... that's as close as I can come to understanding this strange behavior of Obama.

Maybe the far left has always had a special kind of blindness that draws it to the wrong political side. There was the warmth towards the Communists during the 30's, 40's and on through the Vietnam era with Jane Fonda finding the North to be the aggrieved party - and that attitude is still there - even in the difficulty calling a terrorist a terrorist.

Maybe there are those in the far left is attracted to those that hate us. Like a woman whose very low self-esteem causes her to be drawn to the wrong kind of man, to a man that will abuse her. Maybe like the abused woman, they think they can apologize and placate, and offer gifts and things will be better.

Thursday, May 26, 2011 - 8:33am

The calculus of the Israeli/Palestinian issue is and has always been fundamentally driven by Rich vs. Poor.

1925. Jerusalem Arab High Council. Arafat's 'Uncle Nazi' was one of the principals. Their primary complaint was 'Too many Jews buying land in the 'hood.'

Buying.

At prices even those selling the land could not afford to pay.

The Jews who left the docks in Europe split; some went to British mandate Palestine, some went to America, some elsewhere.

What are we to believe? That there was an effective Maxwell's Demon at those docks, singling out all the I-want-to-eat-Arab-baby-killer Jews from the reasonable Jews, and sending the former to BM Palestine and the latter to America?

This lingering crapfight is about the Rich vs. Poor sensibilities of the poor local KKK that met those Jews with less than open arms and open minds.

Given the Rich vs. Poor angle, Rich vs. Poor trumps KKK, and that explains to me the left's position on this issue.

Thursday, May 26, 2011 - 8:38am

Steve:

Apply the lens of 'Rich vs. Poor' to all of those instances, and the reaction by the left is made clear. It is knee jerk and absolute. There is only one crime in the left's calculus, and that is ability. There is also only one virtue, and that is need.

It is a calculus that leads mankind on a mad race to the bottom of the hill.

The great overwhelming moral principal at the bottom of all this boils down to two words: tribal envy.

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 5/26, 8:39am)

Thursday, May 26, 2011 - 9:10am

Fred said:

There is only one crime in the left's calculus, and that is ability. There is also only one virtue, and that is need.

That's a nice aphorism, Fred, but I don't think it is true. It's a strawman. Ask someone on the left why the government should redistribute wealth and they will say, and mean, something like the following:
(1) there are people who are in need;
(2) it is everyone's moral duty to give to those in need;
(3) the government should pass laws requiring everyone to act morally;
(4) therefore, the government should take from those who have and give to those in need.

It has nothing to do with the ability of the person with the wealth; they could have inherited it or won the lottery. All that matters is that they have more than they "need" and they should be forced to give some to those who need it. And it has nothing to do with need being a virtue. They want to relieve what they consider to be the suffering of those in need by forcing others to help.

Or perhaps you can give examples.

Thursday, May 26, 2011 - 10:28am

To supplement Glenn's post, I have also seen "general welfare" arguments contending that redistribution actually stimulates an otherwise stagnating economy and creates wealth. The argument says that rich people sitting on "dead equity" cheat themselves and others by not letting others spend that money on consumables that in turn employ producers who in turn generate tax revenues. I cannot point immediately to a link explaining this but I recall reading something along these lines in the past.

Thursday, May 26, 2011 - 11:06am

I see people starting off with a vague, compassionate, or slightly guilt-driven view that it is moral to help others who are in need and that it is immoral not to, when you can.

But that is the child-level view. When one becomes more grown up, they notice that things aren't static, that people move from a state of need to a state of plenty - usually without being given anything but opportunity. They notice that it is important to see that some people choose not to help themselves and that others do. They notice that the economy isn't a static thing either and that some things grow it, while others shrink it. They notice that humans are 'engines' that run on motivation and that self-interest is the most powerful motivation for most and that taking away a person's goods, or enslaving them some part of the time is a powerful disincentive.

At this rather simple, adult-level view, it is no longer reasonable to give to some group the right to force "charity" upon others and to damage the human engine to some degree (to say nothing of rights violations that the extremes of redistribution make obvious to anyone with an open mind).

It becomes much more reasonable to say,
(1) The best large scale cure for economic need is economic freedom.
(2) It is everybody's moral duty to not force their beliefs on others.
(3) The government should protect economic freedom.
(4) Therefore, charity should be voluntary and there should be no redistribution of wealth.

I agree with Fred. Most of the low level followers may be just going along with peer pressure of the group they ended up amongst, but there is envy and hatred that fuels many on the left. And many others are fueled by guilt or shame. And those who are active as lobbiests or politicians or recipients of redistributed wealth are most often motivated by the desire to get unearned wealth or power.

Fred is talking about motivations, not the arguments that are used to rationalize or disguise other intentions, hidden agendas, and ugly motivations.

Thursday, May 26, 2011 - 12:57pm

from what I would call "soft" leftists, they basically say that when people are born poor or disadvantaged, they have much less chance to do well in society. Therefore, by helping provide some things to them, society can lift them up and give them - maybe not the same chance as those born to more wealth - at least a "fighting chance" to do better

Thursday, May 26, 2011 - 1:21pm

Would they be willing to repeal child labor laws and minimum wage laws to make the lowest rung on that "better life" ladder easier to access?

Thursday, May 26, 2011 - 1:38pm

Reminds me of this bleeding heart liberal program "60 minutes" that I saw the other day talking about child labor on farms and how the laws make exceptions for them. The father of one family lamented how they had to take the day off because it rained which meant they'd have to work on their planned day off of Sunday. Ooohh, so horrible. They of course, still get a day off, just not the one they choose (welcome to my life as a hotelier). One farm owner was asked by the reporter how he felt about 14 year olds working for 10 hours on his farm, to his credit, he said he had no problem with it since he had the exact same experience when he was a child. People like my dad, and really anyone over the age of 70 in Greece had the same experience, they worked every day on a farm since they were 9. Somehow those children were able to make it to adulthood and amass some wealth for themselves.

And that is the irony of the liberal position, their policies while intended to help the poor only serve to hurt them. They only deny them the chance to earn wealth.

Thursday, May 26, 2011 - 2:07pm

"They want to relieve what they consider to be the suffering of those in need by forcing others to help."

Sure they do. That is why, after 50 years of Great Society, those pathetic pictures of Detroit and Appalachia...look worse.

The key phrase in your assertion is 'what they consider to be.'

As if, some were put on Earth to be the Emperors of 'what they consider to be,' and others were put on Earth to actually implement their worldview for them.

Their arguments are compelling, right up until the moment they lurch for the guns of government in a once free nation and point them at some for the benefit of others-- including, themselves.

If the political persuasiveness of their arguments are insufficient to sway those they absolutely need to implement their worldview for them, then the forceful persuasiveness of the guns they substitute for argument -- the brute force of numbers in our current out of all control political process -- have insufficient moral authority.

Which is why, without that moral authority, those that have have every moral right to avoid the clumsy forks aimed at them with every fibre of their being and means at their disposal.

Including, buying corruptible legislative favor, ignoring laws without moral basis, and generally giving uis the current economies, which look to all the world like a giant middle finger raised at each other.

This is exactly what we should expect in any tribe that tries to finesse morality in a once free nation.

When it comes to the subsidy of those without by those with, ask, don't tell. Or, go to Hell. Which precisely defines our modern economies.

The irrational existential fear of some -- 'those with may not give enough to implement my worldview for me' -- is precisely moral justification for nothing.

Those with that fear are not the Emperors of Enough.

But if they insist...tell me. How has that model been working out for those that believe in it?

Because if this is a class war, I know damn well who is winning.

But, OK. If some insist...

... until they don't. For as long as it takes.

Until they get it.

They may never get it.

Not my problem.

For some, what is happening to America is precisely Social Justice.

America deserves to be subject to the consequences of that which it has tolerated for decades.

regards,
Fred

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 5/26, 2:11pm)

Thursday, May 26, 2011 - 2:54pm

Uh huh.
So, forgive me for being so obtuse, but what does all of this have to do with
"There is only one crime in the left's calculus, and that is ability. There is also only one virtue, and that is need."

Thursday, May 26, 2011 - 7:30pm

Not my problem.

Friday, May 27, 2011 - 4:24am

John Armaos wrote:

One farm owner was asked by the reporter how he felt about 14 year olds working for 10 hours on his farm, to his credit, he said he had no problem with it since he had the exact same experience when he was a child. People like my dad, and really anyone over the age of 70 in Greece had the same experience, they worked every day on a farm since they were 9. Somehow those children were able to make it to adulthood and amass some wealth for themselves.

And that is the irony of the liberal position, their policies while intended to help the poor only serve to hurt them. They only deny them the chance to earn wealth.

They also deny them the cultivation of an actual work ethic and a direct experience of the relationship between tangible labor and tangible payoff. Sitting on asses in classrooms day after day listening to lectures and grinding out "busy work" assignments definitely does not. An honest educational system could probably get a good proportion of kids onto their feet as independent humans by the time they reach puberty. As it stands now, it keeps them infantile into their early 20s.

My dad "expected" me to work on his farm when I was at home. I confess many mixed feelings about that. On one hand, it cultivated an appreciation for work. On the other hand, he could act like a real hammerhead at times and fail to understand the magnitude of some of the schoolwork assigned. So he wanted me to do well in school but then dumped unexpected farm tasks in my lap when I got home that prevented that from happening. So I have some sympathy for the farmer in the news show, but not as much as you might think. My childhood experiences reinforced my leanings against having any children of my own.

Friday, May 27, 2011 - 5:07am

Luke:

"As it stands now, it keeps them infantile into their early 20s."

It prepares folks for the endless Thirteenth Grade of Life, where all that is required every year is to show up.

Perfect fodder for a politics based on dependency on the political class.

Friday, May 27, 2011 - 5:46am

Understood, Fred. Have a nice life.

Friday, May 27, 2011 - 10:40am

This passage has some relevance regarding the contrast between the upper-class value of child education and the lower-class value of child labor:

Progressive-era reformers tried to remedy such social ills and vices through education, their most valued weapon. Public education in such areas as hygiene, they contended, would solve the problems of venereal disease and alcoholism. Only a few groups, such as the Catholic Church, pointed out that a wide gap existed between education and morality, or that secular knowledge did not equate with spiritual wisdom. Reformers silenced those voices with ridicule and embarrassment.

Reformers such as Jane Addams firmly believed all urban dwellers should conform to certain Progressive ideals regarding living spaces ("clean" and not too crowded), personal behavior (eschewing hard liquor, prostitution, gambling, and other vices), and civic equality (women should vote and be educated). The fact that they were imposing what were, in reality, upper-class values on people who did not have the means to maintain them did not stop the reformers.

Social activists found that they needed more than good intentions to gain the upper ground in the reform debates—they needed an aura of expertise. Consequently, intellectuals and academics appropriated the concept of professionalism and special insight based on science and numbers, and now they applied a strange twist. To claim superior understanding of urban issues, reformers could not rely on established fields of learning, so they created entirely new subjects in which they could claim mastery. These social sciences by their very name asserted scientific explanations for human behavior. The new social scientists found that if, in addition to numbers, they could invoke esoteric and virtually indecipherable theories, their claims to special insight became even more believable.

Schweikart, Larry (2007). A Patriot's History of the United States (Kindle Locations 12083-12095). Sentinel. Kindle Edition.

This thread seems to have diverged significantly from the subject of the original article but the "progressive" ideology looks like the common theme.

Friday, May 27, 2011 - 12:13pm

To continue the diversion from the original thread.... There is something else about the issues of child labor, the educational system, and the failure to fully mature that we should be addressing.

The teenage years are the years between childhood and adulthood and back when teens spent part of the day with their peers, a part of the day with adults in an apprenticeship, and part of the day with the whole family it gave them an important kind of education that is missing today. They learned to be an adult, and they learned how a family operates, and these two things would inform and be subject matter for exchange when with their peers. We are goal oriented creatures and the apprenticeship with strong expectations coming from the adults had the effect of setting a primary goal of "become an adult," and that made a huge difference.

We can't, and wouldn't want to go back to those specific practices - much has changed. But we need to recapture the way they oriented the teenage mind so that it picked up that primary goal - that motivation and orientation.

We will forever lose if we let peer pressure set the primary goal in the individual's growth... the goal arising from the question of "What should I be?" The amount of schooling must increase as mankind's store of knowledge increases, but we have to get better at teaching (first step being to get government out of the education business) but then our culture needs to remodel the educational delivery system so that each stage of our early life is better oriented to the primary purpose of growth for those of that age.

The business of passing from one generation to the next what we know, what skills we possess, what is good, what is bad, what is right, what is wrong, and how to be a friend, an adult and be a family is very critical. When any important aspect of our culture does not get to the next generation, or is transferred in such a corrupt form, then it is gone. It is like the passing of a baton from one runner to the next, but being done over a bottomless pit. Drop the baton, and that baton is just gone. Drop too many, and the race has ended. We have to improve and change what we pass on as we learn more and as technology changes, but currently we are making changes that diminish the quality and quantity of what we are passing on (like Jane Jacob's book, Dark Age Ahead).

Friday, May 27, 2011 - 5:58pm

Glenn,

Based on your statements in Post #5, would say that it's a fair characterization of the left to say that they favor the motto, "From each according to his ability to each according to his need"?