John Kasich

John Kasich's Plan To Propagandize for "Judeo-Christian Values" Is Ridiculous, But Not For The Reasons You Expect.

|

Though popular in his home state of Ohio, Gov. John Kasich has made a terrible showing in his bid to become the Republican presidential nominee. Indeed, after the last GOP debate, Kasich pulled "the least favorable numbers ever seen" in one of pollster Frank Luntz's focus groups.

His latest proposal is unlikely to help his candidacy much. In a national security speech yesterday delivered in the wake of last week's terrorist bombings in Paris, Kasich said the United States should create a "new agency" that would propagandize in favor of "Judeo-Christian Western values" in the Middle East, China, Iran, and Russia.

The full speech, given at the National Press Club, is online.

Here are relevant passages:

Last Friday in Paris it was made obvious to the world yet again that there is an enormous chasm between the worldview of civilized people and the worldview of those who committed these acts of horror. We believe that life has value and meaning. They see no value even in their own lives, let alone others….

There can be no negotiating and no delay with this darkness. We must simply defeat it….

We live in the light of God's love for all creation. They pervert and hijack one of the world's principal religions….

We must be more forceful in the battle of ideas. U.S. Public Diplomacy and International Broadcasting have lost their focus on the case for Western values and ideals and effectively countering our opponents' propaganda and disinformation. I will consolidate them into a new agency that has a clear mandate to promote the core Judeo-Christian Western values that we and our friends and allies share: the values of human rights, the values of democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association. And it should focus on four critical targets: the Middle East, China, Iran, and Russia.

Let's leave aside questions of the separation of church and state, or even how promoting explicitly "Judeo-Christian" values will play not simply to Muslims but Hindus, Orthodox Christians, and believers in other faiths (including, to be ecumenical about it, non-believers). If Graeme Wood is at all correct in his hugely important "What Does Isis Really Want?" Atlantic essay, casting the conflict between Islamic jihadists and Western "civilized people" in explicitly religious terms is reading directly from the script that ISIS and other theologically motivated Islamic terrorists have written. And let's leave aside for the moment, too, precisely what sorts of programming a Radio Free Christian Values might create and whether it could possibly be successful.

Kasich is fundamentally mistaken on two more serious grounds.

First, he presumes that terrorism in the West can be stamped out completely, like cutting out a tumor that will never recur. In fact, terrorism is like crime. It's a chronic condition of "civilized" life. It can be managed and minimized but not eradicated. As Ohio State's John Mueller has argued, creating overreaction among the targeted population is precisely the goal of terrorists, especially when they pose no conceivable existential threat to a given society or country.

France and other countries (including the United States) undeniably face internal security issues. How well are governments monitoring known or suspected terrorists (and how careful are they being in not using their powers to surveil all sorts of other people)? By sending warships to the Persian Gulf and bombing targets in Syria and Iraq, Francois Hollande is compounding France's domestic problems by launching a new cycle of actions that will only end up bringing more attention to the terrorists' cause.

As the Brooking Institution's Jeremy Shapiro writes,

In the 1980s, France responded to terrorism from Lebanon with retaliatory attacks in Beirut and Damascus, Syria, and eventually by sending ground forces to Lebanon. But this did little to improve their terrorism problem, and they soon had to bring the fight against terrorism home. France lacks the power to go abroad to address the root causes of Middle Eastern conflicts and Islamist extremism. Geography and globalization mean that isolating France is simply impossible. Securing the homeland is really the only path to greater safety.

The same is broadly true for the United States, despite our vastly larger economic and military footprint on the globe.

CFR.org

Which leads to the second way in which Kasich's idea is simply ridiculous. To the extent that he is serious about America exporting liberal values of freedom of assembly, speech, and religion, he is actually calling for a wholesale re-examination of U.S foreign policy. His remarks seem profoundly disconnected from the past dozen-plus years of actual American military adventures in the Middle East and Central Asia, and not simply in Iraq and Afghanistan. For istance, the United States propped up dictators such as Hosni Mubarak, who had little use for Western values when it came to maintaining order. Until we allowed that it was time for him to go, at which point, we also exerted pressure to remove the democratically elected government that rose up in his wake (whether you think of these as good or bad things is independent from the implications of Kasich's speech).

Like Ted Cruz, Kasich seems to believe that terrorism is happening because America is not projecting enough military strength around the world. After introducing the idea of a government agency devoted to promoting Judeo-Christian values, Kasich turned to Ukraine (we need to be doing more to defend it and new NATO states, he avers), China (we need to be more confrontational and hem in that country's desires for more global power), and the U.S. military more generally (again, more is better). "Rebuilding our military is no easy task," Kasich, said. "We know it'll be expensive." Kasich again seems disconnected not from some distant, rosy past but the immediate past, in which defense spending grew exponentially under George W. Bush and Barack Obama before declining slightly over the past several years as we wound down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. With a baseline defense budget of about $600 billion dollars—a massive increase over where it started out in the 21st century—it beggars the mind to say that the military needs "rebuilding."

Which is to say that although Kasich started out talking about America's civic religion—freedom of speech, assembly, and religion—he ended up talking about feeding more dollars into the precise military-industrial machine that has spent virtually all of the 21st century prosecuting and losing two elective wars. If the only way to fix our past failures is to repeat them once again, this time in the name of Judaism and Christianity, we're in bigger trouble than Kasich has pointed to.

Advertisement

NEXT: A Surveillance State Doesn't Have To Be a Police State

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I can think of no better way to increase both conversion to Islam, and stoke Islamonutter rage.

    1. No kidding.

      Just what we need. A “my imaginary sky god is better than your imaginary sky god” propaganda war.

      1. “Our god is an Indian who can turn into a wolf, and-”
        “Dude, that’s Wolfen.”
        “Yes, well, Wolfen will come after you. With his razor.”

      2. Just cut to the chase. “My imaginary sky god is better than your imaginary sky god because He gave me The Bomb.”

      3. It would certainly settle once and for all who God really favors.

      4. He just had to slap ‘Judeo-Christian” in front of Western Values.

        Hitchens was right when he wrote religion ruins everything.

      5. I lost the part where nationalsocialism also embodies jewish values… can anyone reconcile that?

  2. Kasich said the United States should create a “new agency” that would propagandize in favor of “Judeo-Christian Western values” in the Middle East, China, Iran, and Russia.

    I’m pretty sure we have been doing this for decades.

    Maybe he just thinks we need to do it harder.

  3. a new agency that has a clear mandate to promote the core Judeo-Christian Western values that we and our friends and allies share: the values of human rights, the values of democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association

    What better way to demonstrate our commitment to those principles than to seal our borders and restrict the religious practices and assembly of millions?

    1. “the values of human rights, the values of democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association”

      Christianity promotes democracy? Encourages dissent? Allows worship of other gods?
      Who knew?

      1. Huh? Where was the First Amendment in 1929 when the federal government sent agents to slit open wigwams and break up peyote ceremonies?

    2. Back in the early ’60s, a Milwaukee Circuit Court judge with the improbable name of Christ T. Seraphim gave a Memorial Day speech at a cemetery across the street from the junior high school I was going to. He said that the United States was engaged in mortal combat with an enemy that demanded that its citizens be prepared at all times to give up on command everything, including their lives, to the service of the state. His proposed solution was for Americans to be prepared at all times to give up on command everything, including their lives, to the service of the state. I hadn’t read Sumner’s “The Conquest of the United States by Spain” yet, but young as I was I suspected that there was some kind of flaw in his argument…

  4. Whatever happened to that thing where we were going to separate state and religion?

    1. Ask Obama, he keeps wanting the State to tell people what is acceptable to their religion.

    2. That was in the 1931 platform of the American Liberal Party, along with reject communism, no dole or welfare, no blue laws, repeal prohibition, let the state legislatures again elect Senators, reform the courts… Naturally that stuff is heresy, and Prohibitionists have burned those books, declared them unpersons and enacted as thoughtcrime all reference to liberals (other than as a cowardly and misleading euphemism for socialists).

  5. On election day there was a guy outside my polling place who asked me to sign a ballot-access petition for Kasich. I laughed in his face. His “I guess that means no” response was priceless.

    1. He didn’t notice your rainbow t-shirt?

      1. Cute, but I don’t wear those.

        1. This is what I get for not having any gay friends.

  6. As Ohio State’s John Mueller has argued, creating overreaction among the targeted population is precisely the goal of terrorists, especially when they pose no conceivable existential threat to a given society or country.

    THE Woody Hayes Chair of National Security Studies. True story.

    1. Woody Hayes created terror Up North.

      But it had a basis, and was acted upon, every year.

      I still miss the Woody and Bo hate/love fests. THOSE were the Good Old Days!

  7. First he needs to tell me what “”Judeo-Christian Western values”” are?

    1. I’m guessing it doesn’t involve ass secks, Messicans and pot.

      So I’m right out.

    2. You would know if you ever bothered to bathe in the light of God’s love.

      1. I thought we were supposed to bathe in His blood.

        1. No, you’re supposed to drink the blood.

          1. So “cannibalism” is one of the values?

        2. I thought you were supposed to drink the blood.

          1. Yeah but you drink the blood because you were washed in the blood. You need to wash out your insides too.

            1. That explains the sacramental prunes.

            2. I’m pretty sure the process goes like this:

              Get doused with oil
              Then get exposed to the light of God’s love
              Then eat a flesh cracker that has been soaked with God’s blood

              1. The Flesh Crackers would be an excellent name for a psychobilly band.

    3. I was going to ask the same question. I assume it is like feminism, where the definition is whatever you want it to me.

      1. mean, not me. Finishing words is hard.

      2. This. If you ask five believers, you get seven answers, none of which differs significantly from what the believer giving it wanted to believe anyway.

    4. First he needs to tell me what “”Judeo-Christian Western values”” are?

      “Man, if you have to ask what Judeo-Christian Western values are, you’ll never know.”

      Apologies to Louis Armstrong.

      Seriously, why bring more religion — “highjacked” or not — into the equation?

      1. It worked for Germany… until May of 1945 at least.

  8. Whether it’s South Korean soap opera DVDs smuggled into North Korea, or American and British rock music smuggled into the Eastern Bloc, we already have the best propaganda that money can buy, all produced without taxpayer dollars.

    1. Free(r) markets really are the solution.

    2. Yeah, once a bunch of neo-Luddite religious hardliners see our unbridled consumerism they will be putty in our hands. After Islam, the Amish.

  9. He might have gotten some play if he characterized the bureaucrats in the Department of Judeo-Christian Western Values as a kind of Jedi knights doing his bidding around the world.

    1. Department of Jedi-oh/Seven-Level Chessman values, amirite?

  10. like cutting out a tumor that will never recur

    So you’re saying, “IT’S NOT A TUMOR!”

  11. Sorry, this is Kerry from another thread regarding Charlie Hebdo

    perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of

    Fuck this cocksucker….really fuck you Kerry.

    1. That’s actually a really awful story but without more context I don’t think peeps are going to get it, Troy.

      In the last days, obviously, that has been particularly put to the test. There’s something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that. There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of ? not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, okay, they’re really angry because of this and that. This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate. It wasn’t to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong. It was to terrorize people. It was to attack everything that we do stand for. That’s not an exaggeration. It was to assault all sense of nationhood and nation-state and rule of law and decency, dignity, and just put fear into the community and say, “Here we are.” And for what? What’s the platform? What’s the grievance? That we’re not who they are? They kill people because of who they are and they kill people because of what they believe. And it’s indiscriminate.

      1. I’m not sure I can understand the brain of a person who believes that drawing a picture is asking to be murdered by fanatics but wearing slutty clothing isn’t asking to be raped by psychos.

        1. That brain would also make big deal of pretending to throw his war medals away.

    2. Dude, he immediately stops himself and rephrases it to something understandable. Kerry is a scumbag and wrong to differentiate the Hebdo attacks as not an attack on France and decency and dignity at large, but the point he makes about the Hebdo attacks being targeted and having a legitimacy rationale is fair.

      1. I understand what you’re saying, but it infers that a derogatory cartoon is enough of a rationale to murder. It is not.

        1. You can understand someone’s rationale without thinking it’s rational.

  12. In fact, terrorism is like crime. It’s a chronic condition of “civilized” life. It can be managed and minimized but not eradicated.

    Well put.

  13. The new department’s birth cry will be the wonderous voice of Joel Osteen ringing from every speaker on this planet.

    1. *shivers in disgust*

  14. We need to start airdropping the cultural objects that make America the great nation that it is: Bruce Springsteen cassingles, Levi jeans, and anatomically correct Ronald Reagan blowup dolls.

    1. What about dropping all the Confederate flags that have been confiscated?

    2. Along with Bruce Springsteen?

    3. You forgot bacon made from pigs grown in Iowa, America’s heartland. That’ll win ’em over.

  15. Wasn’t the dip in military spending during the Clinton years in part due to re-organization (closing of bases, etc) and removing certain tasks from the military, which have been replaced by the Halliburtons of the world?

  16. United States should create a “new agency” that would propagandize in favor of “Judeo-Christian Western values” in the Middle East, China, Iran, and Russia.

    That’s what ISIS wants!

    1. We should not to business with men who engage in boy rape, though. I am not sure if that is a Judeo-Christian value or not.

      1. Depends on which priest you ask.

  17. It’s thinking like this which has made Ohio the intellectual paradise that it is.

    1. “Mt. McKinley 4EVA!!!!!”

    2. Compared to wherever you live, which is teeming with brain power (no doubt)

    3. I wonder what Bob Taft would think of this.

  18. “John Kasich’s Plan To Propagandize for “Judeo-Christian Values” Is Ridiculous, But Not For The Reasons You Expect.”

    Don’t bother. The ‘expected reasons’ are more than sufficient.

  19. Wiki sez use of the phrase “Judeo-Christian” to describe ethics dates to 1939 and was later used to sort of get Catholics, Protestants, and Jews on the same team.

    The thing is though, there is nothing in the bible about free speech, religious toleration, checks and balances, etc. All that stuff is from Enlightenment era thinkers.

    OT: French kid makes more sense than his dad regarding terrorism

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkM-SDNoI_8

    I can understand the dad wanting to avoid looking like an idiot on TV while also not upsetting his son. Still, what a dumb thing for him to say.

    1. I saw this on network news last night…and I thought the Dad did look like an idiot on tv. A French version of Pajama Boy or something.

    2. The thing is though, there is nothing in the bible about free speech, religious toleration, checks and balances, etc. All that stuff is from Enlightenment era thinkers.

      That’s because it’s not a book put together to make a government… at least not one made for Earth. If you have any question about if the Bible says anything at all about “rights”, I suggest you ctrl-f an online Bible.

      “He has shown you, O man, what is good;
      And what does the Lord require of you
      But to do justly,
      To love mercy,
      And to walk humbly with your God?”

      1. “That’s because it’s not a book put together to make a government.”

        Please go forth and spread that gospel, brother.

        1. Most Christians don’t like hearing that. They like trying to “serve two masters”, not realizing that doing so is breaking the first 2 commandments…

          Oh, but I try to tell them. God knows I try.

          1. Well, Jesus said render unto Ceasar…. etc

            So, I think he was permitting the 2 masters lifestyle.

            1. My reading of this is simply that saying “you cannot serve two masters” is not to be interpreted as meaning that you get to steal from Caesar. If you owe something to Caesar (a state of being to be avoided if possible), then what is owed to Caesar needs to be rendered to Caesar. This does not make Caesar your master.

            2. If we “render to Caesar”, it is supposed to be because we are following God’s command. We aren’t to put Caesar up to the level (or above) God.

              I honor my family because God said I should. If honoring my family meant that I must disobey God, then I must follow God first.

    3. “The thing is though, there is nothing in the bible about free speech, religious toleration, checks and balances, etc. All that stuff is from Enlightenment era thinkers.”

      The only uniquely Christian value (the Jews want no part of this) that I’m familiar with is the injunction to love thy neighbour, turn the other cheek. You are right about free speech etc being a bourgeois enlightenment value. They are antithetical to religious values.

      1. You are right about free speech etc being a bourgeois enlightenment value. They are antithetical to religious values.

        Apparently you are excluding Christ’s words on “turn the other cheek” from anything “religious”. After all, “turn the other cheek” was in reference to insults or minor assaults, not deadly force… So “free speech” would be protected by those following Christ; I’m not saying most “Christians” do it very well…

        1. “So “free speech” would be protected by those following Christ…”

          I don’t see why it would be. There are plenty of examples of Christian communities practising their religion in secrecy and silence, sometimes for stretches of hundreds of years. Christianity (and probably any other religion) absolutely thrives when it is suppressed by government or even banned. I’m no bible expert, but the only thing that comes to mind regarding speech is the commandment which forbids followers from saying frivolous things about god. You may have other teachings in mind.

          1. I was speaking about what Christians should do with government. Telling your followers not to blaspheme isn’t an attack on free speech.

            I was taking your meaning to be that “religious values” must preclude allowing others to speak freely. I probably misunderstood your meaning. This all being said, even within Christian churches, free speech is a necessity if only to prevent the kinds of abuses that the Roman Church brought about (I’m thinking about the time of Luther).

            1. I think we are in agreement here, and there is nothing in Christianity that teaches against free speech. However centuries of institutional practice have shown the established church is no friend of free speech or hot heads like Luther. And for good reason. If anything it was free speech that brought down the pope from his position of master of the world to something like the mayor of the Vatican.

      2. The only uniquely Christian value (the Jews want no part of this) that I’m familiar with is the injunction to love thy neighbour

        Bzzzt. “Love thy neighbor” is actually directly from the Jewish law. Christ quotes it in the New Testament, specifically in Mark:

        One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

        “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

        Do you ever get bored with being completely and totally wrong about every fucking thing?

        1. “Christ quotes it in the New Testament, specifically in Mark:”

          Funny this “Jewish Law” of yours can only be found in the New Testament. Not in the Jewish holy book.

          1. Leviticus 19:18 “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.”

            1. Jesus taught universal love. It was unqualified, unlike the passage you quoted.

    4. Well, you see, the Enlightenment was driven by people who had Christian names and may have even been Christian at some points in their lives (and probably continued to at least pretend to be Christian lest they be persecuted by freedom loving churches).

  20. “They pervert and hijack one of the world’s principal religions.”

    It sure is fascinating how thousands of Muslim militants all over the world are “perverting” their religion in exactly the same way.

    The problem that many people refuse to see is that there are thousands if not millions of young men who have been taught that killing and dying for the sake of Islam is the greatest deed possible. The promise of eternal pussy is just the icing on the cake.

    And for some reason, we shouldn’t criticize Islam because it will create more terrorists. It’s OK to shoot them and bomb them, but never, ever criticize their religion.

    1. Someone really should do a study to get some solid numbers on the peaceful : violent ratio.

      1. Someone really should do a study to get some solid numbers on the peaceful : violent ratio.

        Pew Research (2013): At least 1 in 4 Muslims do not reject violence against civilians (study did not distinguish between those who believe it is partially justified and never justified).

        (three breaks)
        http://www.pewforum.org/upload…..report.pdf

        (three breaks)
        Pew Research (2010): 84% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
        86% of Jordanian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
        30% of Indonesian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
        76% of Pakistanis support death the penalty for leaving Islam
        51% of Nigerian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
        http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around- the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

      2. Someone really should do a study to get some solid numbers on the peaceful : violent ratio.

        Pew Research (2013): At least 1 in 4 Muslims do not reject violence against civilians (study did not distinguish between those who believe it is partially justified and never justified).

        (three breaks)
        http://www.pewforum.org/upload…..report.pdf

        (three breaks)
        Pew Research (2010): 84% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
        86% of Jordanian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
        30% of Indonesian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
        76% of Pakistanis support death the penalty for leaving Islam
        51% of Nigerian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
        http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around- the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

      3. fucking hell Reason makes it hard to post sometimes

        1. Whatever, you just posted twice at once, how is that difficult?

      4. Way less than 1% actually go on jihad. About 1% actively support jihad through money and propaganda. At least 50% passively support jihad- that is, they do nothing to resist it. I don’t know how many actively or passively resist it.

        There are great guys like Maajid Nawaz and Zuhdi Jasser who try to spread the truth about jihad while also continuing to be Muslims.

        1. Way less than 1% actually go on jihad.

          So some number south of 15,700,000 jihadists? Lets be conservative and say one tenth of one percent and you get 1.57 million trigger pulling/bomb detonating jihadists.

          At least 50% passively support jihad- that is, they do nothing to resist it. I don’t know how many actively or passively resist it.

          50% support jihad at least passively, some materially but the important thing is that they get popular support, even if it’s just rhetorical, for their actions from these people. That’s hugely important considering that the jihadists are recruited from this population and get social approval to do what they do from this group.

          Even if only a quarter of Muslims in the US says that terror attacks against American civilians is justifiable, that’s a huge proportion to believe such things, and American Muslims are more moderate and well-assimilated that most around the world.

    2. Who said it was okay to shoot or bomb them?

      1. Politicians, pundits, and many other people.

    3. “The problem that many people refuse to see is that there are thousands if not millions of young men who have been taught that killing and dying for the sake of Islam is the greatest deed possible.”

      Surprisingly, those who study the motivations of suicide bombers have found that religion is pretty minor when compared to political factors. In a nut shell, it’s a tactic to force democracies to withdraw from territory the terrorists want for themselves. That applies to Muslims or non-Muslims.

      1. Pew Research (2007): Muslim-Americans who identify more strongly with their religion are three times more likely to feel that suicide bombings are justified
        http://pewresearch.org/assets/…..df#page=60

        1. Politics requires community. Religion can supply that community. This doesn’t detract from the findings that religion is a relatively minor player among the motivations of suicide bombers.

      2. “Surprisingly, those who study the motivations of suicide bombers have found that religion is pretty minor when compared to political factors.”

        The religion of Islam is infused with politics. There is no separating them.
        When a jihadists is motivated by his politics to become a suicide bomber, that is the same as saying he is motivated by his religion to become a suicide bomber.

        1. “The religion of Islam is infused with politics.”

          The notion of a community of believers is extremely important to Islam. That much is true. It’s also true that the boundary between religious and political motives may not be clear. However, the desire to rid your land of foreign invaders (which Depretomonist didn’t mention) is clearly political while the desire to be awarded with virgins in heaven (which he did mention) is just as clearly religious. They are not the same thing at all. Moreover, they are given different weight by the suicide bombers themselves, at least according to the studies I’ve skimmed over.

  21. Unless he’s calling for an end to all taxes, perhaps he should look up 1 Samuel 8 (or simply “thou shalt not steal”).

    Maybe he should look up and read about the plank in your own eye and the speck in your brothers’…

    1. I think first you’ll have to persuade him, and majorities in congress, and majorities in all 50 state legislatures, that taxes are theft.

      1. Fair enough, but the reading of 1 Samuel 8 is plain enough. Wanting a “big government” (taxes at 10%!) was disobedience to God.

        Then again, the Supreme Court constantly rules that A = ~A so what do I know?

  22. OK, how about the federal government gets out of the way and lets individuals, merchants, media outlets, churches, and civil society institutions more generally engage with people in different parts of the world. Let them put their best foot forward in expounding Western values.

    In particularly, try engaging in personal relationships where, through all sorts of kindnesses and alliances, the “target audience” can say, “gosh, we can work with these Americans, we don’t have to blow them up!”

    There will of course be a hard core which isn’t going to be dialogued with and will reject any kindnesses (or dismiss them as weakness). Dialoguing with this hard core would probably involve more bullets and bombs than dialogue with the other group.

  23. In short, Kasich is taking the missionary position.

    1. I see what you did, there.

  24. So, are vapid clickbait titles the new norm?

    1. They’re trying to hide it by leaving off the:
      “You won’t believe what he said next”

      1. “save your civil liberties with this one simple trick”

  25. It’s more of a plan than “If only Obama would say the three magic words ‘Radical Islamic Terrorism’, everything would somehow get better.”

    1. True, it’s more of a “plan” and just like all government “plans” it would turn out much worse than no plan at all.

      1. Central planning is hellava drug.

  26. I wish NG would be less nuanced and go Total Ron Paul.
    Let’s just get the fuck out of the MidEast and quit mealy-mouthed tap-dancing around the fact AIPAC and its ilk relentlessly push for dumb, costly and counterproductive interventionism.
    It is the NeoCon stranglehold on the repukelican party that keeps advancing Kasichs while, in 2012, barring Ron Paul from a debate because his non-interventionist views were deemed (by the donor class) “too extreme”
    So fuck nuance.

  27. Leaving aside the facts of reality is a good way to narrow down an argument. The graph of military spending clearly shows what Mencken predicted and Eisenhower warned us against. But the whole point of the Cold War was the exact same thing as today: the imported income tax guarantees politicians who can conjure up an endless procession of hobgoblins unlimited wealth if they pander to superstitious fears. Communism was an altruist religion that worshipped government, not the Baby Jesus. Mohammedanism is an altruist religion that worships some false prophet, not the Baby Jesus. Either is as good for frightening the rubes in Kansas, Iowa and Oklahoma and getting those taxes raised. The party I vote for offers to gradually eliminate the root causes of these problems: prohibition and the individual income tax.

  28. Throwing in Judeo-Christian values was for the primary voters. He means Western values (which are largely influenced by Judao-Christian teachings.) Assuming, by critics, that this has to anything do with religion is ridiculous.

  29. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.buzznews99.com

  30. ‘In fact, terrorism is like crime. It’s a chronic condition of “civilized” life.’

    Point well taken. Conor Cruise O’Brien made a useful distinction between ‘problems’ and ‘situations’, and noted that especially in the West (and I think, further, especially in the United States, with our ‘can-do’ hubris) we have a tendency to see everything undesirable as a ‘problem’. Unfortunately, that deludes us into thinking that we can *solve* it–nowadays, inevitably by ‘making war’ on it–because it is in the nature of problems to have solutions. Situations, on the other hand, have outcomes, which we can sometimes influence in our favor, often not, and in any case we have to live with.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.