A Dangerously Unconstrained View

At a National Press Club luncheon, billionaire Democrat activist, George Soros, said the following with regard to John Kerry: “offense is not necessarily the best defense if it offends those whose allegiance we need. John Kerry is aware of this other dimension. ... He is nuanced because reality is complicated...." As near as I can tell, this seems to be the distilled foundation of Kerry supporters' take on the war on terror. It's flawed to the core.

Can we not suppose that situations may arise whereby those whose allegiance we need will never give it? Apparently not. In Soros' world, our so-called allies will always have the judgement and commitment to come to our aid when we really need it. Therefore, when we do not have their allegiance, it is because we have incorrectly assessed the need for action. In short, if our allies do not help us, we're doing something wrong. This kind of thinking comes directly from a misunderstanding of human nature. It comes from an unconstrained vision of the world.

To have an unconstrained vision of the world is to believe that man is perfectible, and that his flaws are the result of the systems (such as economic and political systems) under which he lives. If those systems are set up correctly, man's perfection will reveal itself. It just so happens, in this view, that the American system is the system that brings out the worst in humanity. It is for this reason that adherents of the unconstrained vision typically hold a deep-down disdain for this country. They hold most any other advanced country in much higher esteem than their own. One who holds the unconstrained vision will, therefore, without reservation, defer to the judgement of the leaders of these countries. This is where Soros is coming from.

The unconstrained vision, while romantic, does not square with reality. It is downright ludicrous to assume that our allies will know what's best for our country and will come to our assistance every time we need them. History has proven that the constrained vision is the accurate one. This vision accepts, right away, that man is driven by self-interest. It recognizes that individuals are always present who sincerely feel each other's pain and act accordingly, but it does not presume that all people are like this. In fact, the constrained vision rests upon the assumption that it is extremely uncommon for this to be true. Therefore, systems must, first and foremost, work within this constraint. One with the constrained vision will never let so much ride on the hope that our allies will do the right thing.

It is now painfully clear that much of the UN Security Council was on the take leading up the Iraq war. Russia and France, at the very least, were financially incented against supporting US efforts to hold Saddam accountable to the deluge of resolutions that have been passed against it. So, if we took Soros' approach, we would never have been able to act in our defense. No evidence would have gained the assent of these two supposed allies. Once again, the constrained vision is on parade for all to see. Alas, there are far too many who feel that it just can't be this simple.

This is the sentiment behind Soros' second and third sentences. "John Kerry is aware of this other dimension...He is nuanced because reality is complicated..." This other dimension? I am convinced that the intelligencia has a tendency to overthink matters that pertain to human behavior. Could it be that man really is corruptable by nature? Could it be that there really are people who can't be reasoned with? Could it be that there really are people who won't do the right thing, even when lives hang in the balance? If so, the intellectual's complex models of the world don't work. If the answer to these questions is yes, these brainiacs have to abandon their penchant for social engineering and accept that utopia is unattainable. But then what would they do? They'd have one less vehicle for proving their mental superiority to the masses. Joe Lunchbucket would actually have it right, while they've had it wrong all along. This, the elite, simply cannot handle. They, therefore, cling to their unconstrained vision and all of the nuance it affords them.

Kerry has tried to talk his way out of the global test comment by saying again and again that he will never give any foreign party a veto over American action. But if he shares Soros' viewpoint, and I think he does, this is nothing more than political double-speak. Kerry has consistently given the impression that he takes the judgement of the international community more seriously than he takes the judgement of America when she acts alone. One sentence to the contrary is not even remotely convincing. So, yet again, we see a dramatic difference between the two candidates. And yet again, this is the only difference that matters on Tuesday.