There are only two kinds of diplomatic doggies.

“Diplomacy is the art of saying ‘nice doggie’ whilst finding a rock.”—Talleyrand*

You may know that America is testing a different definition of “diplomacy”.  The Administration spent $70,000 dollars to have the President and Secretary of State personally assure Pakistanis that American government is blameless.  They also pointed out those deserving of Muslim hatred.  So, pace Barack and Hillary:

“Diplomacy is the art of saying ‘nice doggie’ whilst pushing someone else in front of it.”

This strategy bothers a lot of Americans for the wrong reason.  They feel that representative government should protect citizens, not sacrifice them.  That’s true, usually.  But get real.  When modern politicians choose between dying diplomats and dying YouTubers, the bitter clingers and Tea Baggers are disposable.

Remember:  the federal government represents America.  Making Barack and Hillary’s reaction to violence perfectly understandable:

To the world, the federal government is the face of America.  And the State Department is the visage of the federal government.  Face2!  You’re disappointed that Barack and Hillary flinched?  Don’t judge until you’ve been blindsided in a bar by having a drinking glass smashed across your face.  There’s even a word for that experience:  realpolitik.

Obviously the President and Secretary of State will push us in front of snarling dogs.   If they could face sacrifice they’d have joined the military.  If they could face risk they’d have joined the private economy.  Being selfish and cowardly, they gravitated into the Ruling Class.

But our realpolitik problem isn’t selfishness.  It’s not even the cowardice of the Commander in Chief.   Our military is so amazing that its bosses can be as personally craven as they like, as long as they’re also smart or wise.  But…like me in that bar fight…our leaders are complete idiots.

“Diplomacy is the art of saying ‘nice doggie’ whilst finding a rock.”—Talleyrand.

Is that the best definition?  As a former victim of realpolitik, I assure you it’s not.  Here’s the second-best, (paraphrased):

“Diplomacy is the art of saying ‘bad doggie!” whilst finding a rock.”—Ronald Reagan

Why is it better?  It never, ever allows you to delude yourself and become weak or complacent.  It demands that you never glance away from the son-of-a-bitch who’ll otherwise mash a Long Island Ice Tea glass into the side of your face and you drive yourself a blood-dripping twenty miles to the Emergency Room because that bar full of “nice doggies” turned out to be indifferent or even amused doggies.

Realpolitik.

Speaking of which:  how do you feel about eliminating foreign aid?  It’s a big departure from America’s half-century-old strategy:

“Diplomacy is the art of saying “nice doggie” whilst feeding it Milk Bones and Scooby Snacks.”

For now Sen. Paul is only proposing to stop feeding the bitin’ dogs, which is obviously a good idea.  But our budget is broken, so every mutt will see a Kennel Ration-cutback,  sooner rather than later.  How big is this free-loading pack, anyway?  Over a hundred, right?  How many of those soon-to-be-hungry dogs will never bite the hands that (used to) feed them?

Oh well.

I’ll close with my own bashed-in-the-face analysis:  the “good doggie, bad doggie” paradigm is simple-minded and ridiculously optimistic.  There are only two kinds of dogs:  rabid…and pre-rabid.  Ergo,

“Diplomacy is delaying action until the results of the latest rabies test are known.”

Barack and Hillary are trying to domesticate rabid dogs by offering them human flesh.  And it’s exactly as intelligent as it sounds.

 

*To those who think this is a Rogers or Heinlein quote, all I can say is…”nice doggie!”

About wormme

I've accepted that all of you are socially superior to me. But no pretending that any of you are rational.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to There are only two kinds of diplomatic doggies.

  1. Billy says:

    >>>how do you feel about eliminating foreign aid?

    Aid to each country should be individually debated and voted on separately. In the past it has been one vote to cover all which is no way to trim and cut. And need to truly track ROI (return on investment) for each and be ready to pull funding or strong-arm the country if ROI falls short.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s