The Lost Art of Logic
by John Reit (October 13, 2006)

I recently took a personality test at my company called Meyers-Briggs. It’s been around since the 1940s, and is used to determine what kind of person the subject is. Apparently, I’m an INTP. I won’t go into the details of what that means, but one big thing it says is that I’m logical; I determine what I think will work in the future based on what’s worked before. Again, this is a personality thing and everyone is different. But honestly, I cannot fathom why so many are so averse to logic... especially with the issues we face today.

Let’s take the most relevant topic of the day – North Korea. Presumably, they’ve just tested a nuclear bomb, possibly two. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that this is trouble. A nuclear weapon in the hands of an unstable leader can only lead to bad things. If he doesn’t use it himself, this head of an impoverished nation will gladly sell it to well-funded terrorists. Now, the question is what to do about it.

If you ask a liberal, we should head right over there and negotiate or let the U.N. work out a solution. Bottom line: do whatever is necessary to avoid military conflict or imposing economic harm on the innocent North Korean civilians. Concede if necessary. Don’t exacerbate the situation. Be nice to them and they will return the favor.

Another school of thought – the conservative one – is sanctions. Make the North Koreans economically and socially uncomfortable to the point that they determine being a player in the nuclear game isn’t worth it. In other words, call their bluff.

Which approach will work? Let’s say you’re a visitor to this planet with no sense at all of its culture or history, and the decision of which way to go has been put in your hands. Both options might seem viable. So, the only way to determine which has the best chance to work is to look at it logically, based on historical accounts of similar situations.

The most obvious milestone to examine is WWII. Just like our situation with North Korea, the leaders of Europe were faced with a military aggressor. And likewise, there was an opportunity to stop him while he lacked the capacity to be too great of a threat.

From 1936, when Hitler established a foothold in the Rein Valley (a violation of the Treaty of Versailles) until he invaded Poland in 1939, the European leaders took the liberal approach. Led by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, they practiced a policy of non-aggressive appeasement in order to try to convince Hitler to halt his antagonistic campaigns. Not once did Hitler ever go to meet with Chamberlain in England. Chamberlain always went to Germany or Italy. England and France even went so far as to reduce their own military capacity, believing Hitler would do the same. They soon learned that the German Chancellor had no intention of diminishing his armaments or his imperialistic endeavors.

The result of Chamberlain’s solution to the Hitler dilemma cost the world 60 million lives. The absolute resignation to peace at any price ended up being more damaging than initial military deterrence would probably have been.

But let’s not even go back 70 years. When North Korea announced intentions to pursue its own nuclear program in 1994, the Clinton administration rushed over to Asia and in true Chamberlainian style, brokered a peace agreement that resulted in Kim Jong Il with possession of actual nuclear technology and no mandate for inspections.

Noticing any similarities? It should be no surprise then that Kim Jong Il is now stronger than he was before the peace agreement. Like Hitler, Kim used the fear of war to his advantage.

Even with the test of his nuclear weapon, we are once again faced with the opportunity to stop a dictator in his tracks.

Thinking logically, one looking at history can determine that peace talks will go nowhere and only end up costing more lives later on. Strong military or economic retaliation is clearly the only solution, right?

Frighteningly, the “peace at any cost” crowd is alive, well, and vocal. This leads me to believe that liberals must have some kind of genetic defect that prevents logical thought. It’s not just with world affairs, but with domestic ones as well. For instance, we might be able to give a pass to Lyndon Johnson when he initiated his Great Society program. After all, no one had ever really tried such a bold measure to eliminate poverty before. And there might have been cause to believe that giving an unprecedented amount of money to the poor would actually help them. But as we’ve seen over the past 40 years, it has done the exact opposite. Yet the liberal population insists that more money and more government is still the answer to America’s social ills.

It sure doesn't make sense to me. But then, according to my tests... I'm logical. Perhaps too logical for my own good.

Regardless, if we have to spend anymore taxpayer money on federal programs, I have one suggestion – medical research to repair the defective liberal gene. If we can do that, perhaps we can find viable solutions to our conflicts both here and abroad.

We’d certainly be a lot safer and more prosperous.