An example of the well-founded principle that the use of the passive in political discourse generally signals childish incoherency of thought

Take the following sentence:

"It has been crystal clear for more than a century that modern technology makes war so overwhelmingly destructive that it should no longer be allowed."

Um...by whom?

An obvious question, one would think. (Along with the question, "And your alternative is...what, exactly?) Equally obviously, a question the author of the blog post in question would probably go to any lengths to avoid having to face straightforwardly like a man. (My guess is that he would say, "The United Nations" and then plead a just-remember prior engagement as an excuse to avoid being cross-examined on the UN's record of past accomplishments.)

But the point of my post is simply this: try rewriting that sentence without using the passive voice.

"It has been crystal clear for more than a century that modern technology makes war so overwhelmingly destructive that..."

What's the subject of that dependent clause going to be?

See, if you can't take your political proposals and cast them entirely in the active voice, then you don't have political proposals at all. You're just flattering yourself with the illusion of having engaged in political thought.