When Ideology Meets Reality or What It Takes To Lead A Nation

Kevin of the Paulians then proceeds to ask where in the constitution does it say that the government has any right to take our money and pay it to other nations? Even for defense and alliances, I might add.

Of course, I believe that falls under Article I, the president's powers to negotiate treaties (which can and have historically included money) and Article II wherein the house raises the funds through taxes and authorizes them for expenses such as "defense" and "general welfare".

Kevin of the Paulians reaches back into ye old archives and proceeds to quote various founders regarding the purpose of the constitution, the establishment of "enumerated powers" limiting the powers of the government and various gentlemen insisting that they could not raise taxes and spend it on things like French refugees as their constituency would not approve of having their money spent that way.

My answer, in short, was to point out that the French refugees were likely monarchists and, regardless of the monarchy's assistance in our own revolution, we were highly unlikely to give aid to a group of people who most resembled our late oppressors. That, and tax money was fairly limited, needing much to be spent on a navy that we could barely decide to raise along with, gasp and shockingly, "tribute" to the Barbary Pirates to protect our commerce.

I believe that most people don't know that we actually did conclude a number of treaties and paid multiple tribute payments to these Barbary states before, during and after the Marines marched on Tripoli. It was a matter of expediency. In fact, what occured was entirely dependent on whether the Barbary state held up its end of the bargain (which it rarely did and we paid several times up to a million dollars - what is that in modern money?).

Even Jefferson and Madison, two whom Paul quotes, took part in, negotiated, authorized and paid these payments. It was only at those times that they were finally tired of it and felt they had not choice that Madison, many years later, presided over our Trip to Tripoli, the dethroning of a king and the installation of another only a few short months after having concluded a rather hefty treaty and tribute to Algiers.

Here is where ideology meets reality meets history meets modern day diplomacy and security. For all the talk about ideology and certain principles, when these men whom we revere were tasked with leading this country and defending it, the reality of nationhood set in and tempered ideology to action that turned out to be pragmatic. Several countries received treaties and money and others, not so complacent, got the gun boats and the Marines.

Ideology may be the guide of leaders and movements, but to actually lead requires some form of pragmatism. Leaders who lead through ideology alone are bound to fail spectacularly or even lead their nation to ruin. I'd invoke Hitler here, but I'd hate to have Godwin hammered on me.

Democracy, as our founders discovered, was exactly about having ideas and principles, but compromising enough to form a nation, govern it and defend it.

Frankly, I think Kevin is lucky that his candidate didn't get the nomination. He can continue to believe in his purity and his idealism without ever having it tested nor defending its failures. I'm sure Kevin doesn't see it that way so I'll leave that with a "good luck next election".

Amongst all the issues that I have with the Obamanation, maybe that is the one underlying them all. With all his ideology riding on the "hope" band wagon that there is a place for reasonable discussion even with unreasonable men, what will Obama do when he's faced with the multitudes of real problems that face the leader of a nation? What happens when Chavez decides to shut down the oil or Iran goes Nuclear or North Korea ejects the inspectors for the thirtieth time? NATO refuses to give more forces to Afghanistan? China decides to place members of its military in Sudan and Ethiopia among the many oil and natural gas sites holds necessary to its survival?

Or, terrorists blow up the major Al Aqsa oil refinery in Saudi Arabia? Or Pakistan falls to the Islamists? Or Iranians kidnap American soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan? Or another massive attack occurs on these United States?

There are many things that Obamanation and hope are good for, but hope does not heat the home or buy the gas for delivery of food and maintaining our defense forces. I think that this is the weakest part of the Obamanation platform and the most dangerous.

Obama simply does not have the experience nor any real idea beyond ideology to do so. Obama may be able to speak like a Baptist Minister at a revival, but he does not have what it takes to lead a nation.