Again, my apologies for missing yesterday's quote. I had every intention of posting one, but I laid down for a nap in the early evening because I wasn't feeling well, and didn't wake up until 4 AM, and then only because I was horribly ill. I am still not feeling so well, but as the earlier posts show, I am able to write once again, so I figure I should live up to my promise of a quote a day.

Unfortunately, I set myself a specific target today, and when I started looking for the quote I wanted, I could not find a truly stupid quote, or, to be accurate, all the truly stupid quotes were either long or dull. And so, instead of a truly stupid quote, I am going to post a hopelessly naive and misled quote today.

And so, for your consideration, I submit the hopelessly naive quote of the day, from presidential candidate Ron Paul:

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms.

However, this one quote really does stand out, especially as it fits well with some of the critical articles I read earlier today (especially here), comparing Paul to many leftist movements, such as the McGovern candidacy. (I once compared it to LaRouche, but that is a different issue.*) And this quote fits that mold perfectly. Filled with such naive optimism, it reminds me of those who think that one day we can eliminate war by having the UN arrest leaders who do wrong. It sounds great until you think about how it would work in practice.

Let us start with the very basics. Criminals are not criminals because we did something wrong. It is not our bad example that makes criminals criminals. They are criminals because of their own failing, they think they can use force to achieve their goals. Whether muggers in your neighborhood or nuclear extortionists in North Korea, criminals are criminals because of their failings, not ours. No setting of good examples is going to stop that.

If you want proof, go into the worst neighborhood imaginable, and set up shop. Set all the good examples you want. Until you start doing something punitive, be it calling the police, or at the very least shaming the criminals, there will be no change. And, even if you shame the criminals, this will only work on some. A few die hard sociopaths will still exist who are not touched by shame. And until you actually remove them from positions where they can do harm, they will be a danger.

But Ron Paul seems to think we can just live a virtuous life and it will keep us from being attacked. Which makes me wonder whether he thinks Czechoslovakia, Austria, Poland and France brought it upon themselves in World War II. Did they fail to live virtuously enough and thus brought Germany down upon them? That seems to be the logical conclusion of his "good example" theory, that the victim is to blame, not the aggressor, that somehow had the victim been a bit more virtuous it would have stopped the aggressor.

This is a combination of the two worst liberal trends, the need to absolve criminals of blame, and to accept our guilt for everything bad that ever happened.

I do not have an objection to a more limited foreign policy, at least a scaling back on some commitments which no longer seem relevant, such as the large concentrations in Europe, or in Japan. We also need to reassess our domestic bases to make sure what we have is needed for defense and not to ensure congressional reelections or the support of important committee chairmen. We likely could also fine tune our deployments overseas and still leave adequate forces for the defense of our citizens overseas as well as preventive actions against potential aggressors.

But I stop there. I am not willing to say we should not defend our citizens overseas, nor that we should never strike first. If an army builds along the border of Mexico saying openly they will invade, I don't believe they have to cross the border before we strike. Similarly, I don't think an obvious threat needs to act before we can respond.

And I certainly don't think the proper response is to be a good example. Living well may be the best revenge, but a swift, hard blow is probably the more effective one.

=======================================================================

* My LaRouche essay can be found at "Deja Vu". I think Paul and LaRouche resemble one another because of their conspiratorial appeal. Both candidates suggest they alone have The Secret, both can explain everything, and both are ignored by the mainstream. This appeals to the same people who go for conspiracy theories, and so tends to attract the fringe. ("The Appeal of Conspiracy Theories", "Mumia, the DaVinci Code, Full Body Scans, and Loose Change - How Conspiracy Theories Arise", "All Conspiracies Great and Small") Sadly, much of what Paul promotes in terms of economics and government actually is correct, but the way he packages it, and some of the elements he throws in, such as militant isolationism, tend to attract rather nutty types, especially antisemitic isolationists and antiglobalization types, not to mention extremist "paleocons" and the most paranoid of libertarians, bringing the worst of the right and left fringes into one movement. (I am sure such statements will anger someone, but I call them as I see them.)