Retired U.S. Army Brigadier General Steven Anderson has given an example of the sorts of crazy arguments that the Left give in support of their policies and people in their regime. Thus, Anderson has claimed that Kamala Harris as president will send a message to Vladimir Putin, that America means business on diversity, electing a mixed-race person as president. Well, he already saw Obama, and was not impressed. And Putin is even less impressed with Harris, mocking her cackle in one of his speeches. He supported Harris, in satire, as she would make mistakes that benefit Russia.
But behind this argument is the idea common with liberals in the West, that everyone accepts the diversity ideology of multiculturalism. In fact, few countries outside of the West do, even if they have a number of ethnicities in their culture, and usually have discriminatory laws to protect the locals, as we see in Malaysia. And these countries care nothing about the moral projections of the West, including America. As well this "what would they think" argument has been around doing damage for a long time, with the White Australia policy not being put in the Australian constitution, as Britain felt it would offend India!
"Of all the cockamamie reasons the left has given us for why we simply must install Kamala Harris in the Oval Office, retired U.S. Army Brigadier General Steven Anderson has given us one of the craziest. Anderson, however, is crazy like a fox: while trying to give the impression that he was making a case for why Harris would be a better president for international relations than Bad Orange Man, the wily old general was actually speaking to Harris' domestic base, trying to make sure that it stays on the reservation. Could that be an indication that everyone in the Harris camp is not as confident of victory as the establishment media makes out?
It could be, but whether it is or not, Anderson still gave us one of the most ridiculous arguments for voting for Harris that has been advanced thus far. Fox News reported Thursday that during an appearance on (of course) MSNBC, Anderson explained that if Kamala is elected, Vladimir Putin "will know the U.S. is committed to democracy when it elects a Black woman and product of a mixed marriage."
Oh, brother. Yes, leftists are so extraordinarily narcissistic that they assume that everyone in the world have exactly the same perspective and values that they do, including people who have quite spectacularly demonstrated the contrary, such as Putin.
Anderson claimed that "people like Vladimir Putin are going to say, 'Hey, wait a minute, these guys, you know, they truly have a democratic country. They truly are representative, they truly are fighting for all their people, and Kamala Harris is a manifestation of that.'" The mind reels.
Does Anderson, who somehow attained the rank of brigadier general in the United States Army, believe that Putin is waging war in Ukraine because he doesn't think that the U.S. is true to its stated principles of equality of rights for all people? And if Putin really does think that or something like it, why would the election of Kamala Harris make any more difference than the election of Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012?
Beyond that, what does Anderson think would be the upshot of Putin's supposed discovery that, gosh darn it, those Americans really are committed to "our democracy" (i.e., leftist hegemony) and to equality of rights for "people of color" (which Kamala Harris is more for electoral purposes than in reality)? Will he pull back his troops and end his war in Ukraine? Will he come to Washington, hat in hand, and shame-facedly confess to Queen Diversity I, that is, President Kamala Harris, that he was wrong and had drastically misjudged America and Americans?
Steven Anderson may not know it, but it's actually extremely unlikely that Putin will be impressed with the United States if Harris is elected. It's even more unlikely that Putin loses any sleep over America's commitment to "our democracy" or to the question of whether or not we have had a "brown" female president.
In fact, many Russians view the American left's obsession with "diversity" with a mixture of amusement and contempt. An American who taught high school in Russia for several years, including during the 2016 presidential campaign, told me that his Russian students were confident that Hillary would win the election. One student told him, to general agreement among her classmates, "You have had your black president, and now you have to have your woman president." They thought the whole idea of choosing a president based on race or sex and bean-counting the number of this or that race in various professions, was absurd. And they were right.
Steven Anderson, however, claimed that electing Harris would be better for our "national security situation" than electing Trump, whom he said was "totally unfit." He added an improbable story: "I travel a lot overseas. I have a lot of work and business overseas, and I'm constantly asked, 'Hey, are you serious? Donald Trump can get back in the White House? A cacophonous buffoon like that?' And I say yeah. Unfortunately, they've got a lot of people that live and breathe by everything that he says."
Kamala would be better, Anderson said, not because she is competent but because of her race: "Kamala Harris would be just the opposite. Why? Because she's an inspiration. Not only is she positive, does she bring hope and optimism, but as a black woman, the product of a mixed marriage, she will inspire millions of people throughout the world."
Once again, Anderson displays his myopia and narcissism. Given the state of the world today, it's much more likely that if America elects Harris, the nation will be regarded as weak and vulnerable. And that perception would be one hundred percent correct."