The UN is for lazy people

On the way home, I listened to a good interview on the radio with Jed Babbin promoting his new book Inside the Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe Are Worse Than You Think. The book sounds promising, but based on Amazon reviews, it’s more of a quick summary rather than an in-depth review.

Part of his thesis is that the UN takes traditional diplomacy and puts it into a useless debating forum without action. Babbin argues that because no action is taken, the UN actually makes war more likely. This got me thinking, perhaps there is a simple reason why leftists love the UN – they’re lazy. The UN wants to be the socialist government for the world. Take the world and put it into one centralized pot. But like all socialist governments, this breeds laziness and freedom from responsibility. Why try if the U.N. will take care of it? Got a problem? Leave it up to the U.N. If not their selling point, it’s the model they want to create.

Why do leftists love socialism? Because they don’t have to work. No job? Don’t worry, the government will take care of it. Got a problem? Leave it up to the government. When you look at its track record, the U.N. hasn’t done much in terms of results. But I think for the left, it presents an easy out. Lazy…

One of my favorite Winston Churchill quotes is “We shall fight on the beaches; we shall fight on the landing grounds; we shall fight in the fields, and in the streets; we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.” It captures the essence of the fighting spirit of old. If diplomacy fails, F-U we’ll go it alone.

Here’s my leftist translation of the same quote: “We shall take it to the U.N.; we shall seek to pass resolutions against it; we shall study it in committees and subcommittees; we shall invoke clauses and bylaws; we shall never act unilaterally.”

Not exactly the stuff that captures the imagination.

3 thoughts on “The UN is for lazy people”

  1. Lol, didn’t Mr. Kerry’s steadily reapeated campaign promise to strive for a unity and a happy meeting of the minds between the U.S. and other countries seem a little weird? It is a good thing, it’d be nice, if others agreed with us rather than the obverse. However, it seems such a small idea and such a questionable ideal that it was surprising that the point was emphasized and a little unsettling that it was so often repeated as if it were a priority and an important idea.

Comments are closed.