Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is the polar opposite of John
F. Kennedy.
Judging from recent comments, Obama apparently would pay no price, bear no
burden, forsake any hardship, support any foe and oppose any friend that
wished to pursue liberty. Kennedy understood that evil exists in the world.
He saw it in World War II as his generation defeated the evil that gripped
Europe and Japan. And he witnessed it as president when Nikita Khrushchev
approved the building of the Berlin Wall and the installation of Soviet
missiles in Cuba, acts that flowed from Khrushchev's perception that the
young president was weak and inexperienced.
Obama thinks he can negotiate with evil and transform evil into something
else. Initially his foreign policy platform was a naive pledge to meet
"unconditionally" with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba and
other nations dominated by dictators. In recent days he has changed his tune
somewhat. He would still meet with the heads of these mini evil empires
without preconditions, but "there must be careful preparation. We will set a
clear agenda."
This leads to an important question: On what basis does a free nation
negotiate with nations that are not free? Does Obama expect leaders who got
where they are by undemocratic, even violent means, to embrace press
freedom, religious liberty, political pluralism and rights for women? What
would evil leaders demand of him? Any concession given to dictators, who are
not known for keeping their promises, would surely result in the United
States being taken less seriously and contribute to the undermining of our
national security.
In his recent speech to the Israeli Knesset, President Bush pointedly noted
that evil cannot be accommodated, negotiated with, pampered, or appeased. It
must be opposed and defeated.
Obama's "strategy" for dealing with evil is the progeny of a secular age
that sees everything bad as curable through counseling, good intentions
masquerading as wishful thinking and/or pharmaceutical intervention.
Prosperity and a sense of entitlement have dulled our senses to what evil
looks like. These days, evil is the political party to which you don't
belong and the ideology to which you do not subscribe.
Evil has a definition. Dictionary.com calls it: "morally wrong or bad;
immoral; wicked." There is a presumption contained in this definition. It is
that a standard exists by which evil (and its opposite, good) may be judged.
Too many of us have been taught in government schools and by contemporary
culture that such notions belong to another, less sophisticated era. In the
Internet age "evil" has become extinct.
Continued... |