Wow. Right after my lengthy posts on liberal envisioning, Barack Obama's paper on nuclear disarmament, written when he was a senior at Columbia, comes to light and is commented on in the NYT.
Note his phrasing about "military-industrial interests" and " twisted logic." It compares favorably to Hillary Clinton's Wellesley valedictory in 1968 for vacuity, cliche, and touching oneself for pleasure.
I especially like the part where he says that he's "not naive" because he knows that his bigger-half-of-the-wishbone fantasy "will not be achieved quickly."
Next up, Obama's plan for everyone to win Powerball and buy a Holodeck.
I don't want to lean too far in the other direction, here. Most people who voted for Obama did not support him just because he has the right vision. They all remember a dozen pot-addled hippies from their youth who shared that dream, but couldn't be trusted to remember which toothbrush was theirs. What Obama and all progressives offer is the promise that they know how to get there. They have good practical skills for making it come to pass. They don't just talk about nuclear disarmament - heck, anyone can do that - they have actual plans that will work.
What if that's not true? Consider the possibility that Obama's theory of how to reduce nuclear armaments is much like Anne Elk's theory about the brontosaurus. Or more likely, How To Rid The World Of All Known Diseases. What we'll do is, we'll give up some of ours. That will inspire other nations to give up some of theirs. If they're reluctant, we can sweeten the deal with some carrots and sticks. Then we'll give up a little more of ours, then they'll give up more of theirs. After a long time, they'll all be gone. It's foolproof, I tell you.
Does this seem harsh and unfair? Then tell me where Obama's plan differs substantially from my exaggeration. And oh, read that link about his senior paper first.