That sounds like something an adjunct lecturer at the University of Chicago might say in his classroom, one who believes that America is more a force for evil than for good, and one who doesn't know that Communism really does take away everyone's property, and their basic rights as well. It sounds nothing like what any American President should believe. And, based on the record of his time as State Senator, US Senator and US President, we can safely guess that the President’s idea of “what works” would be about 180 degrees away from what actually has worked in America for the past 240 years or so – and also would be more in tune with “what works” in Marxist theory or the wishful thinking of socialists everywhere, rather than the disasters produced by Communism and socialism in practice.
By John Shaffer We realize that we are so behind the times that we yearn for the days of Ronald Reagan, who championed America and the values it represented, and he did so in a way that did not denigrate our friends and allies although he had little truck for the sensibilities of America’s enemies. But boy, how we were yearning for a President of that stripe as we listened to President Obama in Argentina last week, saying this: “So often in the past there has been a division between left and right, between capitalists and communists or socialists, and especially in the Americas, that’s been a big debate. Oh, you know, you’re a capitalist Yankee dog, and oh, you know, you’re some crazy communist that’s going to take away everybody’s property. Those are interesting intellectual arguments, but I think for your generation, you should be practical and just choose from what works. You don’t have to worry about whether it really fits into socialist theory or capitalist theory. You should just decide what works.”
That sounds like something an adjunct lecturer at the University of Chicago might say in his classroom, one who believes that America is more a force for evil than for good, and one who doesn't know that Communism really does take away everyone's property, and their basic rights as well. It sounds nothing like what any American President should believe. And, based on the record of his time as State Senator, US Senator and US President, we can safely guess that the President’s idea of “what works” would be about 180 degrees away from what actually has worked in America for the past 240 years or so – and also would be more in tune with “what works” in Marxist theory or the wishful thinking of socialists everywhere, rather than the disasters produced by Communism and socialism in practice. By John Shaffer President Obama is the first American President to visit Cuba since 1928. Cuba is an economic basket case – and is one of the the poorest nations in the Hemisphere (it was much wealthier in 1959). Its human rights record is abysmal, and although the Batista government overthrown by Castro in 1959 was no paragon of political virtue, Cuba was a far freer place, with a vastly superior human rights record, far more honest legal system and far freer economy than Cuba has ever experienced since. President Obama recognized the Cuban government last year, in exchange for nothing; and this week made his historic visit to the Communist island. Again, the US got nothing in exchange – but to be fair, the President did not ask for anything. No release of political prisoners; no economic liberalization; no guarantees of human rights.
But, give President Obama his due. Did he stand silently by as Cuban leader Raul Castro blasted the American blockade and embargo of Cuba and our allegedly “illegal” possession of Guantanamo Bay (by the way, terrorists in detention at Guantanamo have more legal rights than the average person does in Cuba - in jail or not.) and claimed that America falls short of Cuban standards of compassion and welfare. No, the President did worse than stand by silently – he essentially agreed with Castro: “President Castro, I think, has pointed out that in his view making sure that everybody is getting a decent education or health care, has basic security in old age, that those things are human rights as well. I personally would not disagree with him.” Where to begin? Well, in the first place – there is no freedom in Cuba. Several hundred dissidents who had been released from incarceration over the past year have been rearrested and reimprisoned, and several dozen were rounded up in the week before the President dropped by. The President has not mentioned the several billions of dollars of wealth that the Castro government expropriated from American citizens or companies, to say nothing if the even greater wealth that it expropriated from Cuban citizens. President Castro’s assertion that Cuba provides health care and welfare and full larders of groceries is a sick lie. Even in the very week the President visited Cuba, boatloads of Cubans died trying to escape to America. By John Shaffer President Obama has promised to close the center at Guantanamo Bay that is being used to imprison detainees taken in the "war on terror." The President believes that Guantanamo Bay is a "recruiting tool," that is, its existence persuades people to take up arms against the United States; thus, goes the President's thinking, it must be closed.
Well, we don't know if Guantanamo is used by the recruiters or not, but we don't believe that if those detained at Guantanamo suddenly were granted freedom or transferred to prison or detention in other countries or perhaps in places in the United States, that the stream of terrorists would dry up or the attacks against America would stop. We doubt if the President believes it either. Many attacks took place before there even was a detention center at Guantanamo, and many attacks have occurred against targets in Europe, Africa, the Mid-East or Australia - and none of those places have their own "Guantanamos." By John Shaffer One of the fundamental choices that citizens can make in a free society is (in the words of Benjamin Franklin) between liberty and safety. The current controversy over Apple refusing to obey a court order to break the code on an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino terrorists highlights brings this to the forefront.
This is not a simple issue, cut and dried. In the first place, one wonders why the government ever made public its inability to crack the encryption of the phone. The wiser course of action would have been to have let the terrorists believe the phone was yielding mounds of important information. Maybe ISIS would have figured it was a bluff; maybe not; but better to plant seeds of doubt in your enemy's mind than to let him know his secrets are secure. Or perhaps they should not even have mentioned the phone - again, it can throw an enemy for a loop if he doesn't know what you do know about his plans. Second, the government should have asked for Apple's help quietly and behind the scenes. Perhaps turned the phone over to them, asked them to open it and then taken it back once the task was accomplished. This would have removed questions of public pressure and might have allowed the code to be broken, which is all the government should have wanted, anyway; to find out if the terrorist had been in contact with others and had been involved in any other potential plots. The constitutional questions are important, perhaps central, but are not the immediate concern here. Protecting Americans from future attacks is. Better to do that than to be distracted by weightier but less immediate matters. |
Local ColumnistsFind articles by date or topic through quick links below. Categories
All
Archives
March 2020
|