Madeline Albright’s strange theory on global conflict

posted at 8:47 pm on January 11, 2008 by Bryan

The former Secretary of State has an interesting view of our times.

Albright’s message centered on the need for equality – not just domestically, but also on a global scale.

“If we were all rich, that would be very nice,” Albright said. “If we were all poor, it would be too bad, but we would be the same. What the problem is now is the poor know what the rich have as a result of information technology and the spread, generally, of knowledge. And, it creates a whole new host of problems in terms of disquiet and anger.”

So if the world was full of nothing but poor and ignorant people, we would have peace?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I quote:

“What the problem is now is the poor know what the rich have as a result of information technology and the spread, generally, of knowledge.”

I love how Albright refers to this as “a problem.” Actually, this is a good thing. It gives less-well-off people the incentive to try to better their lot in life. If they are good people, they will do so through education, industry and self-discipline. If they are bad people, they will try to take it without earning it, either through violence, contrivance or through the use of government power.

What the “problem” really is, as others have noted, is when people believe that they “deserve” the good life without earning it. While it is true that there are some in this world who have the good life (and by good I mean material good, of course) without earning it, that number incredibly small. In fact, if you look at the number of heirs in the Forbes 400 list of wealthiest people, it is actually quite small. Most are self-made.

Self-interest is one of the most, if not the most, powerful forces on Earth (besides gravity and the allure of chocolate cake on a Sunday morning). Why deny that?

furytrader on January 12, 2008 at 8:05 AM

The left always equates equal oppotunity with the need for equality of outcome.

What I’d surely appreciate is an equal opportunity for what Obama got in land deal he made with that lobbyist.

So maybe Albright has a point.

drjohn on January 12, 2008 at 8:14 AM

Then again, how much of her wealth has she discharged in recognition of this dilemma?

It’s our wealth she wants to disseminate. Not hers.

drjohn on January 12, 2008 at 8:16 AM

The very thought that Madeline Albright and those like her made/make decisions that affect our lives makes me want to throw up.

sinsing on January 12, 2008 at 8:20 AM

The poor woman knows nothing of history does she.

boomer on January 12, 2008 at 8:33 AM

I have always referred to her as Madam Not-so-bright. Some accused me of being sexist. It is ironic that I should now have to thank her for proving that I am not sexist after all.

4Bear on January 12, 2008 at 8:45 AM

Really read what Ms. ‘Alright’ Albright said:

“If we were all rich, that would be very nice,” Albright said. “If we were all poor, it would be too bad, but we would be the same. What the problem is now is the poor know what the rich have as a result of information technology and the spread, generally, of knowledge. And, it creates a whole new host of problems in terms of disquiet and anger.”

1. “If we were all poor, it would be too bad, but we would be the same.” If we were all poor we would not be able to afford a government and those who would ‘take’ from others to be able to tell the remainder of the poor to give up everything they had for the protection from those who were now wealthy by robbing the weaker poor.

2. “the problem is now is the poor know what the rich have as a result of information technology and the spread, generally, of knowledge.” If we were all poor there would be no technology but the poor know instinctively when someone else has more than they do. Thus reinforcing point one, which is the liberal rational for governance. Control all remaining possessions of the poor and offer the poor who complied protection and eradicate those who refused to comply too assure disquiet and anger is mitigated.

MSGTAS on January 12, 2008 at 8:50 AM

The blind squirrel has found a nut. The power of the KGB to convince the masses that American blacks were in poverty was lost to the VCR when they saw Eddy Murphy (Trading Places) portraying a poor black man, and he had Converse tennis shoes that fit his feet. Suddenly, they knew that they were the world’s true poor, waiting in line for bread with worn out shoes that didn’t fit. Too bad her solution is unlike theirs, she would expand tyranny and have us all barefooted. Except herself, of course.

4Bear on January 12, 2008 at 8:55 AM

She is just a communist. What do you expect? A moron as well, of course. But, a communist through and through. Now,, in nothing she says should anyone think she meant that the elites and leaders of nations should be poor. They should always remain rich. Her preference, I am sure, would not be that we would all be rich and equal. I think she just felt she had to say that. If she were more honest that she has been here,, her preference would be that we were all poor and “equal.” She has inferred here that rich people and technology cause problems. So, poor ignorant people are best. A perfectly communist idea!
I am glad that God is real.

JellyToast on January 12, 2008 at 8:56 AM

Just remember this folks.

It was Hillary who told Bill who she wanted as Secretary of State. She was the one who pushed for Albright. She is the one who thinks ‘woman’ first and ‘qualified’ second.

Poor judgement is a quality we can do without in a president. If this woman gets back in the White House we can expect more of the same kind of appointments, with the same kind of disastrous results.

Albright thought you could save the world by giving autographed basketballs to commie thugs and by serving subpoenas on jihad terrorists.

Insane Diplomacy.

fogw on January 12, 2008 at 9:33 AM

Madeline Albright’s Halfbright’s strange stupid theory on global conflict

Fixed

NoFanofLibs on January 12, 2008 at 9:33 AM

She needs a nice long stay in a deeply padded room.

thekingtut on January 12, 2008 at 9:46 AM

This is how the Marxist left talks casually among themselves behind closed doors, and these ideas are deeply embedded in our politicians, universities, and media. Every now and then the mask slips, like this incident (Madeline Albright will probably be encouraged to drop out of sight for a while). But the mask doesn’t slip this badly too often, so it takes concentrated and focused prying at its edges to expose the monster beneath.

Thank goodness for Rush/talk radio and now the blogosphere.

RushBaby on January 12, 2008 at 10:24 AM

I have always referred to her as Madam Not-so-bright. Some accused me of being sexist. It is ironic that I should now have to thank her for proving that I am not sexist after all.

4Bear on January 12, 2008 at 8:45 AM

Your name for her is almost the same as mine: Madmadam Not2bright.

Guess I’m a neanderthal.

Texas Nick 77 on January 12, 2008 at 10:25 AM

How ironic that her new book is titled….Memo to the President Elect: How to Restore America’s Reputation and Leadership

Such a book was needed after the Clintons and Albright destroyed our reputation and showed absolutely zero leadership.

Such a book authored by General Petraeus after Albright’s disastrous state department work would have been welcomed.

BobJones-77 on January 12, 2008 at 11:14 AM

Thats perfect

Capitalism= the uneven distribution of wealth
Communism= the even distribution of poverty

Maddy Albright seems to think its better for everyone to be miserable.

VolMagic on January 12, 2008 at 11:17 AM

The poor have access to this information technology? That’s news to me. What she meant to say that the information technology allows mainstream “journalists” to photoshop their stories in an effort to convert their spin into “information”.

Or did she mean that this information technology is exposing more and more of the corruption that robs the 3rd world of opportunity?

Or did she mean that this information technology facilitates a debunking of sanctimonious bags of socialist wind in nearly real time?

She so strongly believes in what she is saying that she is scaling back her personal life to that of the average American. Right? I’ve had all the hypocrisy from the socialist utopians I can stomach, thank you.

shaken on January 12, 2008 at 11:27 AM

Didn’t we try this after the fall of the Roman Empire? I mean , the dark ages were swell and all, but I’m not sure things were very peaceful.

AUINSC on January 12, 2008 at 11:48 AM

William Amos on January 11, 2008 at 9:08 PM

Exactly what I was thinking, it sounds like 1984. The leftists have tried hard to make us all think the government in that book was a far right wing one, but it actually was far left totalitarian state. That meshugana Albright is the epitome of this thinking. She’s the one who said that a half million Iraqi children dying as the result of the sanctions was “worth it” then flushed it down the memory hole.

Kafir on January 12, 2008 at 11:54 AM

Wouldn’t it be great if everyone were equally rich or equally poor. But some poor farmer would one day have a calf, and would end up with two cows while his neighbors only have one. The jealous neighbors would kill the second cow, just to make sure that nobody was better than they were. Liberalism seeks to take the incentive (read profits) from everybody who has anything more than the poorest, so that everybody will have everything equally. It works so well in Communist countries, that I am surprised that we don’t have it here. Oh, right. It doesn’t work. But if only the liberals here had been in charge, it would have worked wonderfully. Bless Liberalismn! (sarc off now, thankfully)

TimothyJ on January 12, 2008 at 12:29 PM

The world would be better off if she had stuck to sumo wrestling.

petefrt on January 12, 2008 at 12:56 PM

And the U.N. Oil for Food crimes. What did she know and when did she know it ?

JonRoss on January 12, 2008 at 1:51 PM

These people don’t have a clue. Even heaven itself has levels of reward and hell has levels of punishment. We’re never equal here on earth and we won’t be equal in heaven or hell for all eternity.

People are equal in North Korea and unequal is South Korea. Where would you rather live?

Mojave Mark on January 12, 2008 at 2:57 PM

And I thought I was a dumb a$$

oldernslower on January 12, 2008 at 3:09 PM

The world would be better off if she had stuck to sumo wrestling.

petefrt on January 12, 2008 at 12:56 PM

Not the part of the world that watchs Sumo. what do you propose we do about the epidemic of blindness in Japan that this would cause, hmm?

trubble on January 12, 2008 at 3:12 PM

How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan

scruplesrx on January 12, 2008 at 3:15 PM

We ought to start calling the Dems Failure Incorporated! Afer all, they brought us:

Carter for economics and foreign affairs

Hillary for health care

Albright for foreign affairs

Bill Clinton as an example to school children

…pretty much an unbroken record of unmitigated failure!!

landlines on January 12, 2008 at 3:21 PM

We ought to start calling the Dems Failure Incorporated!

landlines on January 12, 2008 at 3:21 PM

Thinking, thinking…Yep! Works for me.

RushBaby on January 12, 2008 at 4:16 PM

RushBaby on January 12, 2008 at 10:24 AM

Excellent point – she’ll be locked up because she gave away their master-plan. Some of the richest on their side are also the most hypocritical too. Can you see a Soros/Clinton/Gore/Edwards living the same as her, even?

Thinking people should, however, know what they’re up to. Unfortunately most people are out ‘shopping’ most of the time.

Entelechy on January 12, 2008 at 4:47 PM

The world would be better off if she had stuck to sumo wrestling.

petefrt on January 12, 2008 at 12:56 PM

Not the part of the world that watchs Sumo…

trubble on January 12, 2008 at 3:12 PM

LOL !

petefrt on January 12, 2008 at 6:45 PM

Good grief why don’t these people just move to stinkin Cuba!

Akzed on January 12, 2008 at 7:46 PM

No, what it means is that the peons should not know how much better off their “betters” are. That way they wouldn’t be so envious. Strange, coming from a Democrat. Their whole stock in trade is based on envy and resentment.

schmuck281 on January 12, 2008 at 8:25 PM

I think that picture on the Homepage link says all that needs to be said.

Bladerunner1701 on January 13, 2008 at 3:48 AM

The Clinton’s choice.

She might come back if Weepy gets elected.

Hening on January 13, 2008 at 8:08 AM

Comment pages: 1 2