From the mind of a progressive statist at Mother Jones:
Libya has been Obama’s first real opportunity to make a decision on a new overseas military operation, and within days of making his choice it’s already started to spiral. First he resisted intervention. Then he agreed to a no-fly zone. The no-fly zone turned into a Kosovo-style air campaign in support of the rebels. On Wednesday we learned that the CIA has advisors on the ground. And the administration has made it clear that providing arms to the rebels is under serious consideration too. Given that Muammar Qaddafi appears quite capable of holding out, or even outright winning, against even this, how likely is it that Obama will accept a stalemate or a loss and not escalate even further? Not very, I’d say.
So what should I think about this? If it had been my call, I wouldn’t have gone into Libya. But the reason I voted for Obama in 2008 is because I trust his judgment. And not in any merely abstract way, either: I mean that if he and I were in a room and disagreed about some issue on which I had any doubt at all, I’d literally trust his judgment over my own. I think he’s smarter than me, better informed, better able to understand the consequences of his actions, and more farsighted. I voted for him because I trust him, and I still do.
For now, anyway. But I wouldn’t have intervened in Libya and he did. I sure hope his judgment really does turn out to have been better than mine.
This is the mind of a statist; replace your own judgment, no matter how much conviction you may have for that judgment, with that of your betters. If this phenomena of inserting the judgment of someone else above your own isn’t EXACTLY how shit works in religion, then nothing is.
2011-04-01 » madlibertarianguy