David McElroy

There’s a dangerous idea that’s taken hold of mainstream politicians, media and even voters today that if you don’t support invading other countries and reshaping them to the will of the U.S. government, you’re an “isolationist.”

During a recent GOP presidential debate, Newt Gingrich attacked Ron Paul as an isolationist. Since Gingrich has been employed as a college history professor, you’d think he would have some idea about how dishonest he’s being to score political points. Sometimes it’s hard to say whether people such as Gingrich are ignorant or just dishonest. I suspect it’s dishonesty.

Just because someone doesn’t want to invade other countries, it’s not reasonable to call him an “isolationist.” Reasonably — and more neutrally — he’s a “non-interventionist.” If you’d like to see Paul give an explanation of the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism, check out this five-minute video from four years ago.

If I don’t have any intention of using violence to go into my neighbors’ homes to enforce my will, it doesn’t mean I’m an isolationist. I might want to have good, mutually beneficial relationships with them — for friendship, trade or other things. Declining to attack others who have not attacked you is not “isolationism.”

Keep Reading

Over the past couple of years, I’ve come to appreciate flaws and imperfections in a way that I never did before, especially in people. I confused someone a couple of nights ago by saying that, so it’s forced me to figure out how to explain this counterintuitive notion.

For years, I’ve had the intellectual belief that life is a series of tradeoffs. If you get something positive in one area, you give up something in another part of life. Ralph Waldo Emerson’s essay on “Compensation” influenced me a lot about this subject about 15 years ago. He argued that there’s a natural process that balances everything. I don’t buy everything about Emerson’s philosophy, but I’ve found a lot of truth in this particular idea.

It seems to me that people with great talents and gifts will always have compensating weaknesses, although the positive things sometimes make it hard to notice the negatives. Those who have terrible flaws will almost always have compensating strengths or advantages, even if they’re sometimes hidden by the obvious flaws.

So I recognized — in theory — that great strengths are always going to come with great flaws as compensation. What I didn’t realize until fairly recently was that I had a different standard for certain others close to me. (And for myself.) With certain people, I was expecting incredible strengths and impressive attributes to come with no downsides. So when I found someone amazingly impressive, I put that person onto a pedestal — a place where no one can stay for long.

Keep Reading

A friend sent this story to me today. I wanted to share it with you because it helps explain why I tend to like dogs and cats better than most humans.

A man wrote a letter to a Chicago hotel where he planned to stay while on vacation.

“I would like to bring my dog with me,” he wrote. “He is well-behaved and well-groomed. Would you be willing to permit me to keep him in my room?”

The hotel owner replied, saying, “I’ve been operating hotels for 30 years. I’ve never had a dog steal bedclothes, towels, silverware or pictures off the walls. I’ve never had to kick a dog out in the middle of the night for being drunk and disorderly. And I’ve never had a dog skip out on a hotel bill. So, yes, your dog is welcome at my hotel. And if your dog will vouch for you, you’re welcome to stay, too.”