Why the Left Has Lost Credibility

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Adam's Apple, Dec 19, 2004.

  1. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    December 17, 2004
    Why the Left Has Lost Credibility
    by Victor Davis Hanson
    National Review Online

    There is much talk of post-election reorganization and rethinking among demoralized liberals, especially in matters of foreign policy. They could start by accepting that the demise of many of their cherished beliefs and institutions was not the fault of others. More often, the problems are fundamental flaws in their own thinking — such as the ends of good intentions justifying the means of expediency and untruth, and forced equality being a higher moral good than individual liberty and freedom. Whether we call such notions “political correctness” or “progressivism,” the practice of privileging race, class, and gender over basic ethical considerations has earned the moralists of the Left not merely hypocrisy, but virtual incoherence.

    Democratic leaders are never going to be trusted in matters of foreign policy unless they can convince Americans that they believe in American exceptionalism and are the proper co-custodians of values such as freedom and individual liberty. If in the 1950s rightists were criticized as cynical Cold Warriors who never met a right-wing thug they wouldn’t support, as long as he mouthed a few anti-Soviet platitudes, then in the last two decades almost any thug from Latin America to the Middle East who professed concern for “the people” — from Castro and the Noriega Brothers to Yasser Arafat and the Iranian mullahs — was likely to earn a pass from the American and European cultural elite and media. To regain credibility, the Left must start to apply the same standard of moral outrage to a number of its favorite causes that it does to the United States government, the corporations, and the Christian Right. Here are a few places to start.

    1. There really isn’t a phenomenon like “Islamophobia” — at least no more than there was a “Germanophobia” in hating Hitler or “Russophobia” in detesting Stalinism. Any unfairness or rudeness that accrues from the “security profiling” of Middle Eastern young males is dwarfed by efforts of Islamic fascists themselves — here in the U.S., in the U.K., the Netherlands, France, Turkey, and Israel — to murder Westerners and blow up civilians. The real danger to thousands of innocents is not an occasional evangelical zealot or uncouth politician spouting off about Islam, but the deliberately orchestrated and very sick anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism that floods the airways worldwide, emanating from Iran, Lebanon, and Syria, to be sure, but also from our erstwhile “allies” in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.

    So both here and abroad, the Western public believes that there is a double standard in the moral judgment of our left-leaning media, universities, and politicians — that we are not to supposed to ask how Christians are treated in Muslim societies, only how free Islamists in Western mosques are to damn their hosts; or that we are to think beheading, suicide murdering, and car bombing moral equivalents to the sexual humiliation and roguery of Abu Ghraib — apparently because the former involves post-colonial victims and the latter privileged, exploitive Americans. Most sane people, however, privately disagree, and distinguish between a civilian’s head rolling on the ground and a snap shot of an American guard pointing at the genitalia of her terrorist ward.

    Moreover, few in the Arab Middle East speak out against the racial hatred of Jews. Almost no major Islamic religious figure castigates extreme Muslim clerics for their Dark-age misogyny, anti-Semitism, and venom against the West; and no Arab government admonishes its citizenry to look to itself for solutions rather than falling prey to conspiracy theories and ago-old superstitions. It would be as if the a state-subsidized Ku Klux Klan or the American Nazi party were to be tolerated for purportedly voicing the frustrations of poor working-class whites who “suffered” under a number of supposed grievances.

    What is preached in the madrassas on the West Bank, in Pakistan, and throughout the Gulf is no different from the Nazi doctrine of racial hatred. What has changed, of course, is that unlike our grandfathers, we have lost the courage to speak out against it. In one of the strangest political transformations of our age, the fascist Islamic Right has grafted its cause onto that of the Left’s boutique “multiculturalism,” hoping to earn a pass for its hate by posing as the “other” and reaping the benefits of liberal guilt due to purported victimization. By any empirical standard, what various Palestinian cliques have done on the West Bank — suicide murdering, lynching without trial of their own people, teaching small children to hate and kill Jews — should have earned them all Hitlerian sobriquets rather than U.N. praise.

    2. “Imperialism” and “hegemony” explain nothing about recent American intervention abroad — not when dictators such as Noriega, Milosevic, the Taliban, and Saddam Hussein were taken out by the U.S. military. There are no shahs and Your Excellencies in their places, but rather consensual governments whose only sin was that they came on the heels of American arms rather than U.N. collective snoozing. There really was no secret Afghan pipeline behind toppling the Taliban, nor a French-like oil concession to be had for the United States from the new Iraqi interim government. Many of Michael Moore’s heroic “Minutemen” of the Sunni Triangle are hired killers — hooded fascists in the pay of ex-Baathists and Saddamites, along with Islamic terrorists and jihadists who hate the very idea of democracy in the heart of the Arab world. The collective cursus honorum of these Saddamite holdovers during the last two decades — gassing the Kurds, committing atrocities against the Iranians, looting and pillaging in Kuwait, launching missiles into Israel and Saudi Arabia, slaughtering Shiites and Kurds, and assassinating Western and U.N. aid workers — rank right up there with the work of the SS and KGB.


    Reformers like Allawi and Yawar of Iraq are not “puppets” but far better advocates of democratic reform than anyone else in the Arab world. Nor does “no blood for oil” mean anything when an increasingly small percentage of American-imported petroleum comes from the Gulf, and when an oil-hungry China — without much deference to liberal sensibilities — is driving up the world price, eyeing every well it can for future exploitation without regard for political or environmental niceties.

    3. It won’t do any longer to attribute American outrage over the U.N. to a vast right-wing conspiracy led by red-state senators and Fox News. All the standing ovations for Kofi Annan cannot hide the truth that the Oil-for-Food scandal exceeds Enron. Indeed, Ken Lay’s malfeasance never involved the deaths of thousands, while cronies siphoned off food and supplies from a starving populace. The U.S. military does not tolerate mass rape and plunder among its troops, as is true of the U.N. peacekeepers throughout Africa. There can be no serious U.N. moral sense as long as illiberal regimes — a Syria, Iran, or Cuba — vote in the General Assembly and the Security Council stymies solutions out of concern for an autocratic China that swallowed Tibet. Millions were slaughtered in Cambodia, Rwanda, and Darfur while New York bureaucrats either condemned Israel or damned anyone who censured their own inaction and corruption. Rather than faulting those who fault the U.N., leftists should lament the betrayal of the spirit of the U.N. Charter by regimes that are neither democratic nor liberal but who seek legitimacy solely on their ability to win concessions and sympathy from guilt-ridden Westerners.

    4. It is also time to take a hard look at the heroes and villains of Hollywood, liberal Democrats, and the Euro elites. Many are as obsessed with damning the senile dictator of Chile as they are with excusing the unelected President for Life Fidel Castro. But let us be frank. A murderous Pinochet probably killed fewer of his own than did a mass-murdering Castro, and left Chile in better shape than contemporary Cuba is in. And the former is long gone, while the latter is still long in power.

    Similarly, Nobel Prizes increasingly go to either unsavory or unhinged characters. Yasser Arafat was a known killer and terrorist, not a global peacemaker. Wangari Maathai’s public statements about AIDS are puerile and ipso facto would have eliminated any Westerner from consideration for anything. Rigoberta Menchu Tum herself was a half-truth, her story mostly a creation of a westernized academic publishing elite. Jimmy Carter’s 2002 award was not predicated on his past work on housing for the poor, but his critically timed and calculated opposition to George W. Bush’s effort to topple Saddam Hussein — as was confirmed by the receptive Nobel Committee itself. Recent winners Kofi Annan and Kim Dae-jung are now better known for having their own sons involved in influence-peddling and bribery while they oversaw bureaucrats who trafficked in millions with unsavory murderers like Kim Jong-Il and Saddam Hussein. In short, such an august prize has come a long way from Mother Teresa and Martin Luther King Jr. — and precisely because it has privileged leftist rhetoric over real morality.

    If the moralizing Left wants to be taken seriously, it is going have to become serious about its own moral issues, since that is the professed currency of contemporary liberalism. Otherwise, the spiritual leaders who lecture us all on social justice, poverty, and truth will remain the money-speculator George Soros, the Reverend Jesse Jackson of dubious personal and professional ethics, and the mythographer Michael Moore. And we all know where that leads…

    ©2004 Victor Davis Hanson
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  2. NATO AIR
    Offline

    NATO AIR Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,275
    Thanks Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    USS Abraham Lincoln
    Ratings:
    +282
    yea, i read this a few days ago, quite a good article
     
  3. menewa
    Offline

    menewa Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    474
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Denton, Texas
    Ratings:
    +13
    this article implies that liberals condones beheadings and suicide bombers explodig next to children. I've never seen any liberal publication approve of such actions and I doubt I ever will.

    This article also places all blame for the oil for food program on a morally corrupt UN. But the issue is much more comlplicated. Oil for Food was run throught the UN Security Council, of which the US is the most prominent member. Every transaction that occurred within the program had to be reveiwed by every memebr of the Security Council. Also, all oil that left Iraq passed through waters patrolled by the US Navy. As many as 99 US naval vessels were in the water and routinely boarded oild being shipped out to make sure it complied with transactions legitimized by the UN Security Council.

    US officials looked at the paperwork surrounding every transaction. In fact, the US would sometimes prevent food items as benign as yogurt because the yogurt cultures could possibly be transformed into some kind of bio-weapon.

    To just say, the UN is corrupt is a drastic simplification of the situation. The entire Security Council holds blame.

    As for Hollywood. Who Care? These people do not hold office in the US legislature or the executive branch. They have no experience or education in foreign affairs. Why cry about their opinions when it's obvious they are not experts in any of these issues?
     
  4. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Hey sticksmoker.

    The article didn't imply they condoned it; it implied the libs want us to morally equate sexual humiliation with beheading. Many libs on here have made this exact argument. The article is accurate. Your reading and interpretational skills are subpar.

    Hey, I know you've missed the pain you sick freak! :whip3: :dev3:
     
  5. menewa
    Offline

    menewa Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    474
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Denton, Texas
    Ratings:
    +13
    Still, no liberal publication has equated humiliation with decapitation. This writer is distorting truth to create sensational prose.

    You know that your hurtful comments only get me hot and bothered you big, bad boy.
    :69: :69: :69:
     
  6. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Libs continually hold up abu graib as an example of how "we're no better". This implies they believe "we're no better" . That's moral equivalency.
     
  7. menewa
    Offline

    menewa Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    474
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Denton, Texas
    Ratings:
    +13
    The humiliations at Abu Ghraib do not equate with beheadings, agreed.

    But, the slaughter of thousands of innocent Iraqis in this conflict does. Even though the deaths may be accidental, the end result is equivalent.
     
  8. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Not at all. What matters is who is fighting for what. we're fighting for the morally superior goal of instituting freedom in iraq. They're fighting for their continual right to control their population according their outdated tyrannical modes of thought, a morally inferior goal. We are way better.
     
  9. Gem
    Offline

    Gem BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,080
    Thanks Received:
    782
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +782
    menewa,

    I agree with you that MOST liberals do not equate the two, nor do they condone beheadings or any of Saddam's tortures...however unfortunately for the majority, your mouthpieces are people like Michael Moore, who called the beheaders and terrorists, "Minutemen," and "Freedom Fighters." Or Howard Dean, who implied on television that Bush had Bin Laden captured and was simply holding on to him for a "November Surprise."

    It is the extremes in any debate that get more press...and unless you vocally seperate yourself from people who think that the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are justified in their actions, you are going to be lumped in with the most vocal segment...
     
  10. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    NYT has continually compared Abu Gharib and the beheadings. In fact in many instances, the NYT has stemmed the cause of the beheadings on Abu Gharib. In their minds its worse because of their politicall blindness.
     

Share This Page