Just wanted to pass on this article that makes a good point:
The Obama administration - and indeed the left in general - is great at creating new faux crises and threads during peaceful and stable times, but lousy with dealing with actual crises and threats when danger looms.
James Longfield writes at American Thinker:
It is often observed that liberalism is steeped in feelings and emotion. It is guided by what others think and feel at the expense of dealing with reality. Perception reigns supreme, and liberals are good at it.Its worth reading the whole thing, but it comes down to an academic, detached understanding of reality I've noted many times in the past. The left is led by people who are lousy at dealing with real life, but have a head full of offenses and horrors that the rest of the world consider unworthy of serious concern.
Greg Gutfeld made a salient observation the other day. He pointed out that liberalism thrives in times in which there are no crises. In times such as those, liberalism raises lightweight issues and gives them gravitas. School lunch programs, child obesity, the size of soda drinks, gay rights, free contraception, are their rallying “causes celeb”.
However, when crisis presents itself, we reap the consequences of liberalism in governmental leadership. More frequent now are the vapid responses to crisis led by the conveniently appointed, those “politically correctly” installed into position of power. The responses tend to be inept and politically expedient. Imagery, polls and elections are the focus rather than the required action and solution. Is seems to be contrary to their DNA to depart from the warm and fuzzy to the tactful, strategic and necessary.
Keynesian economics is owned by the liberals partly because the solution to economic woes is easy, print money. No budgetary trimming or tough decisions here. Does anyone think that the late Secret Service head was installed for her ability, or was it for her gender? Was Susan Rice anointed for her special talents regarding national security or her allegiance to the talking points? Was the head of the CDC installed for his quick thinking and responsive resolve? All seem to crumble under the weight of responsibility.
This makes them interesting theoreticians, but unequal to the task of any governance or wielding any degree of power. There are people on the left who aren't in this idiot box, but they aren't the ones in charge.