I often tell my girlfriend that the day will come when I become a "liberal" (I know you don't like labels, but for the sake of simplicity...). That day will come when the world is so wealthy that matters of equitable distribution will be irrelevant. That day will come when
all of humanity understands and values the principles of human dignity. That day will come when technological progress makes not lending a helping hand seem pointless and cruel. That day hasn't come yet.
I understand the mind set that goes behind being ""liberal" and indeed it is a noble mind set, but it also naive. A liberal believes that all people of the world should be helped with the utmost generosity, but they do no understand that wealth is still finite and that matters of distribution are still a zero sum game. A liberal believes that war is abhorrent and wrong, but they do not understand that there are dictators, terrorist organizations and states who have no respect for human dignity or civilized society and can only be stopped by force.
I do not hate liberals. They may frustrate me to no end, but I do not hate them. I do hate a few liberal politician. An example would be Hillary Clinton. I can see right though her. She is driven by greed and blind ambition. Every word that comes out of her mouth is double talk. I would not trust her as far as I could throw her.
I contend that one of the reasons that our great nation has reached the heights that it has is because we have unified. Our homeland hasn't experienced the hideous destructive power of a full scale war in nearly 140 years. Wars destroy progress. You'll get no argument from me on that fact. If the rest of the world could take war off the table as the 50 states of the Union have they would be better off for it.
Look at the western world. War hasn't been taken off the table among western democracy simply because of the United States' overwhelming supremacy. It has been taken off the table because the people in these democracy have realized that war is unacceptable. That it must be resisted because it is a losing equation. Democracies tend to liberalize and enlighten people.
But then there is a different war. There is the war that needs to be fought to preserve the freedoms generated by democracy. There is the war that needs to be fought to protect the enlightened world from the unenlightened world. For in the world that we live, if the enlightened world falls there will be chaos for a thousand years. It is a sorry state of affairs when so many in the western world cower away from the obligation they have to rid the world of this brutal despot, Saddam Hussein. First, he opposes our interests, and our interests are the interests of the enlightened world. We are the ones who forge ahead through the darkness to conquer the unknown. By promoting ourselves we are promoting progress. Second, liberals should be supporting the removal of this animal for, if no other reason, the humanity of it. Yes, there are others in the world like him. Yes, there are ulterior motives. But getting rid of him will be a good thing, and worth the price in blood. By down playing Saddam's atrocities the Left has revealed its political agenda.
The argument that this war is about oil is insulting. People who say this are telling halve truths. Oil is a commodity, it can be purchased just like anything else. We wouldn't be going to war if this was just about oil. The indirect correlation to oil is our interest in not being leveraged by a brutal dictator because he can exert influence in a region that has 2/3 of the world's known oil reserves. Sometimes the forces of freedom must take a stand. Negotiations with scum like Saddam are not an option. We learned that lesson long ago. In our world, wars are not preferred, but sometimes necessary.
And then there's the domestic front.
You keep saying that the world is coming to a new stage in human progress. That ego and greed are not inherent in human nature, but the systemic effects of societal ills. I simply do not agree on this point. Ego is inherent. Everyone wants to succeed, everyone wants to be at the top. That is what makes society advance. There are negative aspects of human nature which are not caused by environmental factors. A child will deceive you without being taught to do so. It occurs when they begin to develop a sense of self. Their logical brains tell them that it advantageous to deceive. You see, the human brain is not concerned with benefiting society, but on benefiting itself.
The human brain is not part of a collective. It is society (their parents) which must impart to them the rule of law and its importance in maintaining order.
I want to qualify everything I say about human nature and its effects on society by saying that I am not "pro ego" or "pro greed". I am simply making observations about their nature and origin. There are things that disgust me with this society. The profit motive is often the antithesis to progressive movement. A company will always do what is in its interests over the interests of society. It is only natural. Profit is their bottom line.
And, of course, you can always follow the money trail right back to Washington. The average Joe Blow off the street can't run for high office. You need millions of dollars to make a serious run for even Congress. So how do you get that money? By pandering to special interest groups. That way when you get elected you are beholden to them. Hence the profit motive creeps all the way up the ladder to the highest levels of government.
Its not a pretty picture, but is it necessary? Isn't profit what gives us our strength? Isn't profit what gives us the resources to protect our liberties? Isn't profit the driving force in a capitalist society?
Alas, it is the nature of the beast. The evils of the profit motive are also what makes our society progress.
Sometimes there are so many ideas in my head that I feel like I am going to explode. I want to have an influence on this world, but the pragmatist in me tells me to lower my expectations. Things are slow to change. I try to analyze the world as it is, not how it should be. If I think there is a realistic way of changing the world for the better I support it, but things are not always so simple. If they were they would have been done already.
Anyone who is a student of history must be struck by the acceleration of progress that has taken place in the past 150 years. Technological innovation has limited the value of historical perspective. Prognostication for future scenarios is becoming impossible. The curve is becoming to steep, the toys more dangerous. And through all of this there is hope and fear. Hope, that humanity will reach the light at the end of the tunnel in spite of itself--that logic and reason will prevail. Fear, that the primitive ugly aspects of humankind's past will rear its head once again and take us all into a death roll. I remain agnostic.
Edited by Kissinger, 03 February 2003 - 06:41 AM.