Preaching to the converted

Reading about Iran’s thumb-in-the-eye rocket tests this morning, I was thinking about how hopelessly over-matched Little Lord Fauntleroy … er, The One … is in dealing with the thugs running Iran (and Russia, Venezuela, Afghanistan, North Korea, and on and on). The question is, why is he over-matched? It’s because of his squishy, utopian world-view. That world-view is well explained in a piece by Janet Daley in the London Telegraph, and I think she also began by capturing why his teleprompter-reading at Babel by the Bay, a clear case of preaching to the converted, aggravated so many Americans.

You are a political leader whose domestic programme is bogged down in messy controversy: what do you do? You go global. You walk the world stage with an air of supercilious moral righteousness…

I am not just talking about Gordon Brown. He is part of a great tradition of failing prime ministers and presidents at the fag end of their tenures going walkabout on the international circuit, in the hope that this larger arena will provide some sort of dignified final chapter to their historical story. But Barack Obama is at it too…

OK, admit it– when you read the phrase “… going walkabout on the international circuit..” a lot of you immediately were reminded of the Huckster from Hype’s interminable farewell tour, but I digress. Daley posits

There is a new discourse in the air which goes beyond the established understanding of the relationship between national and international politics: a language of “global governance” and an apparent consensus that all the interests of responsible countries are now “shared interests”.

She makes the point that that kind of talk is ignored outside the US because “older nations are sufficiently cynical” to realize it’s happy talk but is incendiary here because our poltical arena is defined by specific words found in our “sacred documents”. What makes “shared interests” governing dangerous isn’t the obvious downsides pointed out.

The idea of global governance is meaningless without mechanisms to enforce it, so what are we talking about here? World government? A system of laws and policing which would be beyond the reach of the electorates of individual countries, and therefore have no direct democratic accountability to the peoples of those nations?

Although Daley explores the implications of an unaccountable bureaucracy (EU, anyone?) in my opinion the real danger is summed up in her last paragraph:

But perhaps you find yourself convinced, in the present economic circumstances, that there are no national crises any more, only global ones – and that the governing of all nations must now be subsumed under some overarching international framework of law and supervision, to be monitored and policed by suitably empowered agencies. Maybe you think that is an acceptable price to be paid for stability at home and security abroad. But consider this: what if the new dispensation, once installed, fails to produce that stability and security, or delivers it only to certain nations (not yours), or does so only by limiting freedoms that you consider precious? What recourse will you have then to remove it peaceably from power, as you do your national government?

It seems clear to me– as much as anything The One says or does can be considered to be clear– that  mushy one-world government is what he loves. Well, assuming he’s in charge of it of course. Tragically, if it happened, it would inevitably become a massive despotism; with humans running it, it could be nothing else. Today, the UN is a toothless despotism, but it’s the model to be built from. Most dangerous for us, despotism is what most attracts the left. It’s why The One and his ‘bots will never stop. Otherwise, how do they achieve the New Soviet Man?