Rice’s anti-Americanism, again, and inevitably
Speaking at the State Department, Condoleezza Rice said:
The United States of America is an extraordinary country. It is a country that has overcome many, many, now years, decades, actually a couple of centuries of trying to make good on its principles. And I think what we are seeing is an extraordinary expression of the fact that ‘We the people’ is beginning to mean all of us. [Italics added.]So, until a black is nominated by a major party for president, “We the people” did not mean all Americans. Meaning that the country has been living a lie up to this moment. Only at this moment is it just beginning to cease to be a lie.
As I always say, the more liberal equality progresses, the more worthless the actual America becomes, because under the liberal paradigm, each new advance for nonwhites and women must be seen as an advance over a pre-existing darkness, so that everything in America up to this moment has been darkness—including the previous advances of liberal equality. So that America as a historical country is worthless. If a woman becomes House speaker, we are told that “Only now is America breaking the glass ceiling and realizing its promise.” But then if a black gets nominated as presidential candidate two years later, we’re told that “Only now is ‘We the people’ beginning to mean all of us.” Which cancels out the previous millennial achievement of the woman becoming the House speaker, doesn’t it? And if in the year 2032 an Inuit gets nominated for president, someone will say, “Only now is ‘We the people’ beginning to mean all of us.” Which means that the black being nominated for president back in 2008 did NOT mean that “We the people” was finally beginning to mean all of us. That great happening did not occur until the Inuit got nominated. So the great achievement of the black getting nominated is also canceled out.
Under liberalism, only the ideal of a perfectly equal and inclusive America is good. America the actual country as it has existed up to this moment is no good. It’s found wanting. It’s inadequate. It’s incomplete. It doesn’t come up to our standards. It just doesn’t make it. It has a debt to pay that it hasn’t paid for 232 years. It’s a deadbeat nation. That’s the at least implicitly accepted view today, and not a single conservative other than at this website has ever criticized the vile Condoleezza Rice for using her position as Secretary of State to put down this country and make it seem inadequate in its own eyes.
Finally, what would real inclusion, making America truly true to its ideals, mean? It could only mean an America which equally includes and represents every race and ethnic group on earth. Meaning, it could only be an America that has become co-extensive with all of humanity. Thus the only true realization of America is a single, global,.borderless nation. America, the actual, historical country, is of no value in itself. It is is merely an instrument—a deeply morally compromised instrument—to reach that ideal, and ultimately it must be destroyed in order to reach it.
LA replies:Speaking at the State Department, Rice said: “The United States of America is an extraordinary country. It is a country that has overcome many, many, now years, decades, actually a couple of centuries of trying to make good on its principles. And I think what we are seeing is an extraordinary expression of the fact that “We the people” is beginning to mean all of us.”She is invoking the Liberal Ideal America, compared to which the real America is a failure. That’s why she uses the weasel words “is beginning.” She’s not saying that we are finally making good on our principles, but that we are just beginning to make good on our principles. And the process will never end, even were a New Guinean cannibal to make it to the White House.
Thanks to Gintas for bringing out a point I didn’t make clearly enough in the initial entry. What she said is even more egregious than I indicated.Spencer Warren writes:
Terrific post! I noted the use of “beginning” just as you did. She is despicable and no one says boo except you! Further, she exemplifies the abstract view of our country as an idea which most “conservatives” subscribe to. The average “Reagan Democrat” has a truer appreciation of America than these “educated people.” The Reagan Democrat loves America just because it is America. Just as Frenchman should love France, etc etc. Because it is us! The people, the families who came before us, the land, our honored dead, our conquest of a continent, the civilization we have built up.Kristor writes:
That’s the problem with gnosticism: the perfect drives out the good. The liberal gnostics quite properly hate evil, but are not prepared to admit that, albeit corrupted by evil, the world is basically good. For them, any evil anywhere ruins the whole shooting match. It is the moral stance of the two year old who wants both to keep his cake and eat it. Nothing is ever good enough for them. That is why they have difficulty with any wholehearted allegiance to any concrete entity like America. Their allegiances are to abstract ideas, which by nature cannot ever be perfectly instantiated in the world. They love ideas; they hate the world; and, logically, they would hate any world, because worlds as such are congeries of disparate entities that are forced to reconcile themselves to each other (so as to constitute a world), and thus to compromise on their ideals, and thus to introduce to the world some defect or other in the perfect actualization thereof. This is why there are conservation laws in physics; There is No Free Lunch is the conservation laws of physics at work in society.LA replies:
“That’s the problem with gnosticism: the perfect drives out the good. The liberal gnostics quite properly hate evil, but are not prepared to admit that, albeit corrupted by evil, the world is basically good. For them, any evil anywhere ruins the whole shooting match.”LA writes:
Frank at Common Sense Junction has caught the essence of Condoleezza’s remark about Obama. He links this current VFR blog entry, and gives his own entry the title:James P. writes:
According to Condi, nothing America did for blacks before this moment—including the Abolition movement, hundreds of thousands of dead in the Civil War, the Civil Rights movement, desegregation, a gazillion dollars in transfer payments to blacks, and affirmative action—represented the beginning of success in making good on its principles. You might think she would at least cite her own experience as a member of the National Security Council staff, as professor and provost of Stanford, and later as Director of the NSC Staff and Secretary of State, as evidence that America had at least begun to live up to its principles. But no, it was all failure until this week.Carol Iannone writes:
But based on Rice’s reasoning, what will happen if Obama loses? That will mean that the new beginning will have been nipped in the bud, America is still not ready for progress, etc.LA replies:
Yes, absolutely. One wonders if this has occurred to anyone, not to mention Rice. According to the Republican Rice’s own implied reasoning, the Democrat Obama’s election is a moral imperative.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 04, 2008 02:29 PM | Send