Our friend Dafydd ab Hugh finds the explanation for Samantha Power’s foreign policy prescriptions in Jonah Goldberg’s best-selling book Liberal Fascism. One of Goldberg’s theses (as Dafydd presents it; I haven’t yet read the book) is this:
Liberal fascists abhor the status quo more than anything else; the driving force behind this detestation may well be simple boredom. . .[T]hey’re filled with ennui when things stay the same and only feel alive — and can only flex their power — when they’re actively changing things around. It really doesn’t matter how they change them; being pure pragmatists, they have no coherent ideology anyway. But when they’re moving pieces around the chessboard, they experience the godlike high of pure power. They’re shaking things up; they’re on the move; they’re taking action directe.
Thus, as Dafydd sees it:
Samantha Power’s major foreign-policy proposals — to send American forces to carve up Israel and hand over choice pieces to the Palestinians, and to precipitously flee Iraq while ethnically cleansing the inhabitants — is not to achieve any particular result. The purpose of them is simply to do them. “Action, action, action.”
Dafydd may be right. But why do the foreign policy prescriptions of a certain type of liberal almost always entail “action, action, action” in the form of concessions or worse by this country and its close allies?
To comment on this post, go here.