Obama vs Carter

Michael Ledeen at Pajama Media has an excellent article up comparing how the Obama administration's foreign policy is just as hazardous to the United States interests as James Carter's disasterous presidency was. What got my attention was his adaption of something Jeane Kirkpatrick had written in 1979. With the change of one word, substitute Obama for Carter, and it eerily still rings true.

Inconsistencies are a familiar part of politics in most societies. Usually, however, governments behave hypocritically when their principles conflict with the national interest. What makes the inconsistencies of the Obama administration noteworthy are, first, the administration’s moralism, which renders it especially vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy; and, second, the administration’s predilection for policies that violate the strategic and economic interests of the United States. The administration’s conception of national interest borders on doublethink: it finds friendly powers to be guilty representatives of the status quo and views the triumph of unfriendly groups as beneficial to America’s “true interests.”

Something to think upon as this country still drifts towards impending global conflicts while Obama vacations and points fingers at everyone but the man in the mirror.