Malice, stupidity and Democrats

Deborah Orin writes in an commentary:

"December 2, 2004 -- THE United Nations looms as a new hot political issue, thanks to the exploding revelations of corruption of its oil-for-food program — and that spells more trouble for a Democratic Party still reeling from its Nov. 2 election losses.

Why? Because Democrats tend to reflexively back the United Nations — that's what 2004 loser John Kerry did, suggesting that a corrupt U.N. that cheerfully let Saddam Hussein rip off $21.3 billion could be trusted more than President Bush in Iraq.

'The idea that we need the U.N. to help us was certainly not a popular thing in focus groups that I watched this fall,' dryly remarks senior Democratic strategist Anita Dunn. "

Gee, YA THINK?

This article validates Walter Mead’s description [pdf] of both the Wilsonians and the Jacksonians. As I’ve blogged elsewhere, the Wilsonians are transnationalists who favor transnational institutions as primary actors (e.g., the UN) over nations (the U.S.). In contrast the Jacksonians have no respect for — dislike it actually — the UN; they firmly believe that the U.S. will be royally screwed if she depends on anybody else to defend her interests. Put another way, Jacksonians believe that nobody will take better care of the U.S. than the U.S.

I know that Jacksonians were in her focus groups. Anita Dunn didn’t indicate she had a clue about this.

Anita Dun continues:

Democrats first and foremost need to make it clear that they have a commitment to protect this country's security regardless of what other countries say. We live in a dangerous world at a dangerous time — and I'm not sure our party communicated that."

Gee, for a “senior Democratic strategist” she sure learns quickly. OK, I'm being snide; she's a slow learner. I don't say this because she had to repeatedly bludgeon herself over the head with focus groups before she could get used to the idea that many Americans — particularly the Jacksonians — held the UN in much lower regard than, say, George W Bush. I say this because she evidently still believes that the UN can be trusted more than George W Bush.

Put another way, consider what information had to be ignored or rejected before someone sincerely believes that the UN could be capable of conferring “legitimacy” on the U.S.:

You would have to ignore the emerging Oil for Food scandal. This scandal was obvious to anyone who watched cable news (or at least FoxNews). This scandal implicated all of the UN’s primary players who opposed the removal of Saddam’s regime.

It should be blindingly obvious to anyone exposed to this information that a hostile power, Saddam, had bought off primary players at the UN — converting a “neutral” transnational organization into a defender of one of the worst regimes in the world. To cause the U.S. to “submit to the will of the UN” is to cause the U.S. to submit to the will of Saddam. This would occur — if the Wilsonians had their way — not because it was in the U.S. interest but because French, UN, and others found it to be in their interest to sell their influence at the UN to Saddam.

You would have to ignore the blindingly obvious conflict of interest enjoyed by certain members of the UN Security Council (i.e., France, Russia, China). Saddam had huge debts with these countries. If Saddam was removed then certain UNSC members would lose hundreds of billions of dollars in uncollectible debt. Further, these same countries had also signed huge contracts that they couldn’t exploit until after sanctions were lifted from Iraq.

Both of these were well known issues in the last few months of the election. This level of corruption in the UN — intolerable in the U.S. even for dogcatchers — was ignored by the Democrat’s elites, their presidential candidates and their “senior Democratic strategist”.

Deborah Orin continues:

If Dems don't watch it, they'll all land with Kerry on the wrong side of the exploding scandal over the $21.3 billion rip-off plus what U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan knew about secret payments to his son and when he knew it. [emphasis mine—johnh]

Republican pollster Jim McLaughlin puts it this way: "Kofi Annan has run the U.N. like Tony Soprano — and when voters realize it, they're going to be really angry."

He contends some news outlets, like CBS and The New York Times, have downplayed the scandal because they are reflexively pro-U.N., just like most reporters. But even they are starting to have to cover it — and congressional probers of both parties say what's out so far is only the tip of the iceberg.

Deborah Orin would be right, except I would rather say that the Democrats are already on the wrong side of this issue. The only question is how long will it take for the implications to dawn on enough voters.

Put it this way, whenever one suffers an injury inflicted by another — unless it is obvious — you have to consider whether the injury was caused by stupidity or malice. That is because — if the cause as malice — your attacker would normally attempt to disguise an attack as an accident to avoid retribution.

Current, the U.S. is uninjured because — under George W Bush’s leadership — we basically dodged a bullet. And the voters are begining to realize that we wouldn’t have dodged this same bullet if the Democratic elites, Democratic candidates Dean and Kerry, and “senior Democratic strategist” had their way.

The emerging UN scandal leaves the Democrats with their tit caught in the wringer: it proves that the Democrats’ best advice was wrong and would have enabled Saddam to indirectly veto American efforts to defend her interests.

This leaves the voters pondering the “malice or stupidity” question: did the Democrats know that insisting on UN approval was a roundabout way of preventing America from defending her interests or are they just too stupid to run this country in a dangerous world?

Either way, it shows the Democrat’s are fundamentally unsuitable to lead this country in this dangerous world.

One last comment on Anita Dun: recall her rueful observation:

We live in a dangerous world at a dangerous time — and I'm not sure our party communicated that."

You cannot demand that we have the approval of the UN and "make it clear that they have a commitment to protect this country's security regardless of what other countries say". These two propositions, when taken together, are incoherent; demanding that we have the approval of the UN proves that you disregard this country's security.

Also recall Republican pollster Jim McLaughlin's contention:

...some news outlets, like CBS and The New York Times, have downplayed the scandal because they are reflexively pro-UN ...

This is noteworthy: these pro-transnationalist news organizations regard certain figures and organizations as saintly (e.g., the UN and Hans "where's my ass" Blix) and to be protected from “inordinate” criticism while it regards other figures as evil (e..g, George W Bush, Ashcroft, and anyone else who effectively defends America) and deserves everything they can throw it them. Consequently they both tried not to talk any more than they had to about the UN's corruption and why it menaced our efforts to protect our interests.

These aren't news organizations, they’re Judas goats. With any luck both C^BS and the NY Times will be taken out with the shrapnel.


Hat tip to lucianne