“Naive” Obama? Egotist Is More Like It

[Dan]

One of the primary reasons the divorce rate hovers around fifty percent is that people enter marriage with unreasonable expectations. The number one unreasonable expectation? One partner can “change the other one for the better.”

What drives such thinking? Hubris. It is the idea that one actually has the power to: a) completely alter another person’s worldview to suit their own, and b) that their own worldview is inherently superior to everyone else’s.

Such hubris is the essence of liberalism. And it is precisely why Barack Hussein Obama and other Democrats went ballistic when George W. Bush brought up the issue of appeasement in Israel last week.

Winston Churchill once remarked, “it is better to jaw-jaw than war-war.” Yet Churchill knew when the time came to stop talking and start fighting. If truth be told, so did Democrats at one time. But their party has been hijacked by the “hubrists,” for whom no transgression–not even 9/11, apparently–will convince them that world peace cannot be secured by some clever conversation.

If not for hubris, even a cursory understanding of Islamo-fascism would make one realize the limits of jaw-jaw with those who believe suicide–with an optimum number of murder victims included–is a “viable” means of political expression. Perhaps liberals would be willing to explain the merits of a conversational exchange that goes something like them saying, “let’s find ways to live together” to which the Islamo-fascist response would be, “either convert or be killed.”

It has been said that Barack Hussein Obama is “inexperienced” or “naive” regarding foreign affairs. He is neither. He is simply an egotist who believes his phrase, “yes we can” is inexorably transformative. Nothing and no one is beyond the reach of his “healing powers”–given enough time.

If Obama is elected, Iran will certainly allow itself to be “healed”–for exactly as much time as it takes to perfect a nuclear weapon.

After that? It could be a very messy “divorce.”