Yesterday, you may have heard that President Obama said:
America can absorb another terrorist attack.
Before we get to our example of libertarian retardation, let’s take a minute to analyze this statement from two vantage points: 1) politically and 2) from the libertarian point of view.
Politically, the statement was really dumb. A half-intelligent politician (let alone the President talking to a Washington Post reporter!) should be able to manage to avoid getting quoted saying something like this. No serious person thinks that the US will instantly disintegrate into some sort of Mad Max-style world if we have another terrorist attack. The point is therefore trivial. However, a President’s job is to stop terrorist attacks not discuss our ability to absorb them. You may think that this is a ridiculous standard, but it is the standard that Presidents are held to.
From a libertarian viewpoint, the statement is probably false. One terrorist attack gave us a couple interminable wars, shitty Presidents and large swathes of new un-libertarian regulations. America, the political entity, may be able to absorb another terrorist attack, but post-attack-America will much less libertarian, perhaps almost unrecognizably so from even a 1990s libertarian perspective.
Here’s the statement that I want to call out:
If [Obama] did indeed say it, it’s the most sensible, pro-America thing a politician has said about terrorism in recent memory.
Firstly, it’s not "pro-America" to say that America can absorb a terrorist attack (I don’t think it’s anti-America either, necessarily, but I think assessing the "America-ness" of inane political statements is idiotic). I honestly don’t even know what that comment means.
Secondly, as I’ve said, it’s not a sensible thing for a politician to say. At best, it’s trivially true and damaging to say. So don’t say it.