Several items that crossed our desk in the past 24 hours remind us of
that clich about the definition of insanity. The first is a piece by
Jonathan Chait of New York magazine titled "The Ideological Fantasies of
Inequality Deniers." As The American's Jim Pethokoukis notes, this is a
familiar rhetorical trope:
Liberals think there are lots of ideas that intelligent
Americans just aren't supposed to challenge. If they do,
they'll be labeled "deniers," intentionally raising a nasty
comparison to Holocaust rejectionists. It's politics at its
absolute lowest.
Among the unchallengeable dogmata: the Obama stimulus created
millions of jobs, Obamacare will save trillions of dollars,
Dodd-Frank prevents future bank bailouts, and policy uncertainty
isn't an issue hampering the recovery. And, of course, global
warming poses an existential threat to civilization and
humanity. Make that an "undeniable" threat.
We don't entirely agree with Pethokoukis; for one thing, politics can get
a lot lower. The "denier" trope is most familiar from global warmists,
but where has it gotten them? For years now they've been lamenting that
they can't seem to win the debate. Maybe it's precisely because they
can't resist invoking the specter of the Holocaust, a variant of the
argumentum ad Hitlerum that cannot succeed on account of Godwin's Law.
Fareed Zakaria, the CNN host who may or may not advise or have advised
the president on foreign policy in private, has some public advice for
him in a Washington Post column:
Early in the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama signaled
that he was going to break with the Bush administration's
Manichean foreign policy. The topic was Iran. He explained
repeatedly that the Bush policy of simply pressuring Iran was
not working and that he would be willing to talk to the
country's leaders to find ways to reduce tensions and dangers.
Two years into his presidency, Obama's Iran policy looks a lot
like George W. Bush's--with some of the same problems that
candidate Obama pointed out two years ago. . . .
Obama should return to his original approach and test the
Iranians to see if there is any room for dialogue and agreement.
The reason Obama abandoned that approach was that it failed--and of
course it failed. The entire identity of the Iranian regime centers on
its hatred for the "great Satan." In the course of making his argument,
Zakaria observes: "Within the context of Iranian politics, [Mahmoud]
Ahmadinejad is the pragmatist." It sounds laughable, but for all we know
it's true. And if it is true, it shows why Zakaria's recommendation is so
preposterous. For once, at least, Obama knows better.
Maybe for twice. The Puffington Host's Sam Stein reports that "months
into the president's run for a second term, mentions of [George W.] Bush
have all but disappeared." Say what you will about Obama, there is
increasing evidence of his sanity.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
