« The Creepyness of Obamamania | Main | Barack Obama's Problem with the First Amendment »
September 30, 2008
A Childlike View of the World
David Gelernter knocks it out of the park with a piece in The Weekly Standard that will leave youngish yuppie liberal types seething.
His thesis is that the generation who grew up after the 60s Cultural Revolution know little about recent history, and most of what they do know is wrong. Recall Obama actually using the Kennedy-Khrushchev summit as a reason why he should meet with Ahmadinejad.
He calls them "gen-CR", and his indictment is stinging
We know what to expect of gen-CR. Unless they have grown up in regions or families with an unusually strong grasp of tradition, patriotism, and reality, gen-CR'ers tend to have a fuzzy view of history, an unconditional belief in tolerance and diplomacy, and contempt for the military and war-making. Their patriotism (such as it is) tends to focus on the "global community" or "the planet" or some other large, meaningless object. (Beyond a certain point, patriotic devotion spread too thin simply evaporates-which is a good way to get rid of it if you are, say, an English intellectual trusting to the European Union to eradicate this primitive emotion.)
Ouch.
To be sure, not everyone in a particular generation fits to type. After all, not all baby boomers burned their draft cards and protested the war in Vietnam. But there are certain general characteristics (dare we call them "stereotypes"?) of each generation.
On to some history:
His (Obama's) announcement that he would meet Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions shows exactly why a president must not merely know history but have a decently nuanced view. It was wrong for Chamberlain to meet Hitler and foolish for JFK to meet Khrushchev, but right for Begin to meet Sadat and for Churchill to make repeated long, dangerous journeys to meet Stalin.
We've all read leftie blogs gleefully point out that we were supposedly "allied" with Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war, and how in 1983 Reagan-envoy Donald Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad and shook hands with Saddam, and how these supposedly illegitimized our 2003 invasion.
Never mind that we weren't really "allied" with Iraq. For awhile I tried to point out that we were very much allied with Stalin's Soviet Union, and yet as soon as the war ended fought a Cold War against them for 40 years, so did our onetime alliance with them illegitimize that too? Eventually I grew weary and gave up. Too many on the left today lack the moral clarity to understand the difference.
But other than racism, sexism, or the new one, "homophobia", Hemingway points out that "Gen-CR recoils from the idea of enemies." Last night I was listening to Dennis Prager on the radio say that when he spoke with Europeans they told him that what they didn't like about America was that we spoke about good and evil. Anecdotal to be sure, but it rings true.
Start with a given: An Obama administration might still bring about defeat in Iraq; speeded-up troop with-drawals might weaken this new democracy and bring on its collapse like a burnt-out log into a blaze of terrorist violence. But if it did-if the left's policies proved tragically mistaken-Obama's supporters would never know it. What would the collapse of America's noble project in Iraq look like in the funhouse mirrors of the New York Times, NBC, Time and Newsweek and NPR and the rest of the establishment media? "In the end, Bush policy plunged Iraq into chaos, but Obama was smart enough to pull out before more American lives were lost." And that's what Democrats would "know" about Iraq.
It would all just be another excuse to blame George W Bush and from which to seek political advantage, the better to put us all under the rule of the EPA.
Members of the CR generation who had mainstream, establishment educations have been trained like pet poodles to understand where romping is allowed and where it is forbidden. The permissible range of thought on such topics as protected minorities, protected species, protected psychosexual deviations, et al. is clearly spelled out from kindergarten onward.
Yup. I see more intolerance among the "tolerance" and "diversity" crowd than anywhere else. The push for gay marriage is about a lot of things, but marriage isn't one of them. Their real agenda is to force everyone to accept and approve of the gay lifestyle whether they want to or not. Anyone who deviates from correct thought will be severely punished.
You doubt me? Consider the fate of Harvard President Harry Summers, and before the incident that got him in trouble he was considered a right-thinking liberal:
To understand this generational shift in the making, consider the resignation of Harvard president Lawrence Summers in 2006, under attack for having said that, just possibly, the far greater number of male than of female scientists might have to do with innate differences between men and women-something that a large majority of working scientists (male and female) almost certainly take for granted (whether or not they are willing to say so). But Summers had expressed a forbidden thought, and (despite his abject confessions and apologies at the Harvard show trials) was duly banished. In the gen-CR age now approaching, such embarrassing accidents will no longer happen. Forbidden ideas simply won't occur to the Harvard presidents of the future.
The Obama generation in action.
Posted by Tom at September 30, 2008 9:30 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/1198
Comments
As a "youngish yuppie liberal type", I am more amused than seething. Speaking of an skewed view of history, Mr Gelernter (who spent 1968-1972 studying classical Hebrew literature at Yale, then pursued a PhD) authoritatively states in his article that:
"...all those things applied to Vietnam in 1972 just as they do to Iraq today. Thanks to the substitution of Abrams for Westmoreland in May 1968, the war was slowly and surely being won."
Rehashing Vietnam is not my goal, but it's rare that I see someone boldly state that we were "surely" winning the war in Vietnam. Having visited Vietnam and studied the lessons learned (which have served as a foundation to temper the Army's excellent recent Counterinsurgency field manual), I would not be so childish as to say were were surely winning that war.
Continuing with his simplistic view of the world and history, Mr. Gelernter naively states: "the United States is now winning its faraway war against terrorist armies and murderous ideologues underwritten by foreign powers...."
Tom, I would hereby tip my hat to your more realistic view of the world, such as your Sept. 9, 2008 Afghanistan briefing post, which has a much more realistic view of the nuanced "war on terrorism" in Afghanistan/Pakistan.
Lastly, I really enjoyed reading this Yale computer science professor rant about "the CR generation who had mainstream, establishment educations...." If going to Yale in the 1960s isn't an establishment education, and then sticking around as a professor, I don't know what is. I was also amused to read him decry the "New Deals, Fair Deals, New Frontiers, Great Societies, etc.", after I had just read on his Yale homepage he is a member of the "National Council of the Arts", an American manifestation of socialism if ever there was one.
Posted by: jason at October 1, 2008 6:46 AM
Hi Jason
You make some fair points, and thank you for the compliment. Overall though you missed the point of the piece, which is that too many Obama-types have a childlike view of the world. On this Gelernter is surely right.
Posted by: The Redhunter
at October 1, 2008 8:21 PM



