Liberal Psychics, Reasonable Thinking And Psychological Insights

The heavily self esteemed and pious Glenn Greenwald notes:

I feel — in this vaguely intuitive sort of way — as though there is some kind of a pattern buried within this set of facts, but as much as I search, I just can’t quite figure out what it might be:……

The administration — which has made its contempt for all forms of oversight as clear as can be, and which has engaged in every possible effort to block scrutiny of its conduct — obviously simply decided that, despite all of these controversies, and despite their legal obligations, they would keep ensuring that highly relevant e-mails continued to disappear, or would simply break the law by using e-mail systems that did not preserve their communications, including communications relating to ongoing investigations. What other reasonable conclusion is possible in light of these facts?

No word from the guy who redefined hypocrisy into an admirable attribute about his ‘intuition’ as they relate to other, more well documented ‘patterns of behavior.’

There were 900 plus FBI files of political ‘enemies’ found in Hillary Clinton’s library. Bill Clinton authorizes Sandy Berger to visit the National Archives and sure enough, documents go missing. The Clinton’s documented use of private investigators to intimidate, harass and threaten political enemies and the reality that the Clinton Administration was one of the most corrupt and deceitful in history, has also escaped Greenwald’s moral ‘intuition’ meter.

No matter how hard Greenwald tries, he can’t drag this Administration down to become as criminal or morally equal to the one that preceded it- and that is what this is all about, because in the end, the Bush Administration will inevitably be compared to the Clinton Administration. ‘Nuff said.

Greenwald would be more credible as a Tarot Card reader.

Blandly Urbane has a couple of posts worth a read. The Smoking Gun post is excellent. He begins by stating an obvious truth:

We armchair “intelligence analysts” and “political pundits” see what we want to see when it comes to defending our points of view. I am guilty of it as many others are as well. Try as we may, one is not always successful in avoiding this; while many do not bother trying at all.

There is no way to excerpt the post fairly. It has to be read whole and in context. There is a sublime and Anchoress-like sensibility (her calm, reasonable take on the Imus histrionic passion play is the best you’ll read, anywhere) in his view as he takes a step back from the cacophony that is so prevalent and that has become the hallmark of political milieu.

In Repeat A Lie Long Enough, Blandly Urbane casts a critical eye on that irrelevant media darling, Joe Biden, who has taken it upon himself to be a foil to John McCain:

While acknowledging (diplomatically) McCain’s argument regarding the consequences of failure in Iraq, but to stick with a “failing policy” is a “mistake.” Senator Biden sees this as lacking reality and that really, “the problem is that for every welcome development, there is an equally or even more unwelcome development that gives lie to the claim that we are making progress.”

…The problem I see with Mr. Biden’s logic is that with every action in LIFE, there is an “equally” welcome or unwelcome development to follow; oftentimes not in a singular fashion…

This is where a sense of necessity and perseverance comes into play in the Iraq Theater of the war on terror. Mr. Biden, as well as most Democrat politicians, chooses to see the one side of the situation in Iraq, decide it is a failure and then choose to do everything within their power to make it so. This is not just an example of an “equally or even more unwelcome development.” It is an outright attempt at willingly thwarting an action or operation to arrive at an advantageous political situation; that they hope to use in resting power in government. This “game plan” they have chosen will also have its likely own “equally or even more unwelcome development;” a development that they have thus far chosen to ignore in their call for a “new direction.”

Clarity is a wonderful thing, don’t you agree?

In examining the Nancy Pelosi-Tom Lantos Middle East Road Show, Dr Sanity looks at the two kinds of selflessness- the kind that originates from humility and the other kind, that originates from hubris and self aggrandizement.

In Selfless Narcissism, The Political Left And The Betrayal Of The Good, she clearly defines and differentiates the selflessness that elevates man from the selflessness that is toxic and destructive. By way of example, Dr Sanity uses a classic scene scene from the film, The Bridge on the River Kwai, to illustrate her point.

Colonel Nicholson becomes so narcissistically invested in the Bridge and his role in creating the structure, that he loses all perspective of the larger picture and ends up betraying his country and the very values he believed he was supporting by working with his captors. The moment when he suddenly realizes that his commitment to an abstract ideal has led him and his fellow POWs down the path of betrayal is the climax of the movie…

There are two kinds of “selflessness”. One derives from the humility and insight that comes when both the grandiose and idealistic sides of the self work together. This psychological synthesis leads to true benevolence and is psychologically healthy for both the individual and the society in which they live. And then there is the kind of narcissistic and self-serving “selflessness” we see regularly displayed by the thoughtless, irresponsible, and destructively pandering Democrats (and many Republicans for that matter–what ties them together is that they act only out selfish interest, but despicably disguise it as selfless); as well as most of the morally righteous, posturing members of the political left; whose self-aggrandizing antiwar antics only lead to prolonging war and increasing the number of deaths as their own fanatacism serves to inspire and encourage the fanatical jihadists. Those jihadists must be rolling on the floor laughing, as they prepare their next suicide attack against the troops.

Pelosi trots out Tom Lantos as her “moral authority” because he happens to be a Holocaust survivor. Indeed, the Holocaust is a good moral lesson to learn from, particularly since the very people that Pelosi et. al. want to negotiate and have tea with are actively planning the next big one. But, like Pelosi, Lantos’ supposed ‘selflessness’ in this matter is self-serving and driven by his own hubris.

If you want to tap into some real moral authority regarding the Holocaust, then you should look to someone like Elie Wiesel who truly speaks for the dead of WWII’s Holocaust. When he is asked, if he can personally forgive those who perpetrated the Holocaust:

“It depends. If it were an individual person, of course I could. One person coming up. But for the whole . . . Who am I to forgive?

Later, when talking about the jihadists, he notes:

Fanaticism in the name of God is a real problem now, with the jihadists . . . Those people who kill for God make God into their accomplice, an accomplice to murder.”

It is very easy to get caught up in the narcissism and selflessness of the toxic kind. That said, it is unlikely that Pelosi and Lantos will have that ‘Aha!’ moment and come to their senses. Their destiny, it would seem, is to serve as a Chamberlain-esque example of the road to hell, paved with good, if stupid and naive, intentions. Like Chamberlain, they too will be regarded as failures, politicians with no sensibilities or grasp of reality.

UPDATE:

Just a few more thoughts. As Krauthamer today notes, the war in Iraq didn’t preclude Joe Lieberman from getting elected in Connecticut,  one of the most liberal states in the union. In fact, there is a very good argument to made that the Jane Hamsher and Christy Hardin hysteria (and histrionics) ensured Lieberman’s victory, and made sure Ned Lamont paid for it. The people of Connecticut weren’t quite ready to make their state election a referendum on the war in Iraq. So much for the ‘analysts’ at Firedog Puddle.

In fact, almost no Democrats  in the last election ran on exiting Iraq by a date certain. The very clearly made that very clear. Even they understood that their constituents could only be conned so many times.