Posted on 12/31/2007 9:24:06 AM PST by K-oneTexas
Do Democrats Really Want Us to Fail in Iraq? By Adam G. Mersereau
Any time our government takes us to war, there is bound to be strong disagreement, but Iraq has been particularly divisive. At times it seems as if some Americans -- certain liberal Democrats in particular -- are eager to declare or even hasten our defeat.
Our missteps in Iraq have been numerous enough to discourage any patriot. Yet leading Democrats are beyond the point of discouragement. They are pessimistic; even hopeless. They have been this way for a long time.
At the first sign of difficulty, they deemed the war a mistake and victory impossible. They quickly adopted the language of defeat and surrender. Some declared the surge a failure before it began and General Petraus a liar before he uttered a public word about its effects. Others are quick to believe reports of alleged atrocities by our own troops, as if seeking an American disgrace. Now, leading Democrats seem to believe that recovery from past mistakes is impossible, and that any hint of success can be only illusory.
Why do so many Democrats cling so tenaciously to hopelessness, failure and despair in Iraq, even in the face of important recent successes?
The reason for this defeatism among Democrats lies beneath mere power politics, electioneering or disdain for President Bush. The real source of defeatism is rooted deep within the liberal mind.
Defeatist Democrats oppose the war in Iraq, not so much because they fear failure, but because they believe failure is inevitable. They believe the Bush Administration's goal of helping Iraq establish a democratic government is a fool's errand. They believe that the Western values on which democratic government is based -- and the Judeo-Christian truths from which those Western values are derived -- are not valid for Iraqis.
The Democratic Party is the home of modern liberalism, and modern liberals are deconstructionists. As this appellation suggests, deconstructionists are engaged in an effort to philosophically disassemble traditional Judeo-Christian truths. To the modern liberal, the very idea that traditional Judeo-Christian truths might be true for all men is oppressive, limiting, judgmental, discriminatory and outdated. The deconstructionists will not rest so long as anyone in our society believes that traditional Judeo-Christian truths might actually be universals. They desire a post-modern (and post Judeo-Christian) America, in which almost all traditional values and morality are reduced to the status of mere personal preferences, rendering it nonsensical to extend them beyond one's self or one's own community.
Yet Western civilization is founded on the idea that many Judeo-Christian truths -- and the Western values that spring from them -- are true for all men and women. This idea is especially important in the United States, a nation founded on a distilled set of Judeo-Christian beliefs and values that were declared to be true for all men.
Those beliefs and values are well known to most Americans: That God created all men, meaning that any legitimate government must recognize the fundamental equality of all men before Him; that the affairs of men are guided by the hand of Providence, meaning that government is not the final authority in the lives of its citizens; that the natural corruption of the human heart behooves us place checks and balances on governmental power; that it is best for all people, even rulers, to be subject to the rule of law; that government should protect all religions, leaving a man's conscience free to seek God as he thinks best, rather than constraining the religious urge by tyrannical decree or by force; that the maintenance of justice requires the freedom of the people to assemble and speak freely, even against those in power.
Most importantly, however, America's Founders believed that these Judeo-Christian truths were not true only for themselves but for all people. This meant that, for the first time in the history of the world, a nation would be built in which citizenship was determined primarily by allegiance to a set of declared truths. In other words, because these truths were held true for everyone, American citizenship would be available to anyone. (Even though the application of those truths is sometimes defective, such as in the case of early American slavery, the truths themselves have consistently proven larger than the flawed men who penned them.)
Because traditional Western values are so closely aligned with Judeo-Christian truths, the deconstructionists find it necessary to deconstruct traditional Western values as well. This helps explain the Left's love affair with socialism and communism. The Soviet Union, for example, was unashamedly founded on principles quite opposite those of Western civilization, and particularly those on which America was founded. So long as the Soviet Union appeared strong and robust, it seemed to provide a constant reminder that Western values were not true for everyone, and that mankind could indeed find another way to organize a just and productive civilization.
Those were the glory days for the deconstructionists. They reveled in the apparent success of the Soviet Union, and made it their mission to ignore Soviet communism'a obvious flaws (while disparaging America). For as long as the Soviet Union appeared powerful and healthy, their case against the universality of Western values seemed credible.
Elevating non-Western civilizations to impede the ascendance of Western values led directly to the "multiculturalism" movement. Going beyond the mere study of other cultures, multicularalism seeks to indoctrinate people with the notion that (almost) all cultural values are equally valid. This helps deconstructionists promulgate their claims against Western civilization. After all, if the non-Western world is thriving without Western values, those Western values cannot possibly be true for all people.
To elevate other cultures, the multiculturalists inevitably must strain to find beauty in many cultures that are not so beautiful; some in which children were sacrificed, in which violence is a way of life, in which discrimination is systematic, in which women are treated as property, and in which totalitarianism, ignorance and occultism have resulted in great human suffering. The more lovely they can make other cultures appear, the smaller and less significant appear traditional Western values. This is the multiculturalist agenda.
The deconstructionists not only downplay the failures of other civilizations, they grossly exaggerate the failures of our own.
Proud of your Judeo-Christian heritage? The deconstructionist sees only religious oppression and bigotry in our past.
Inspired by the great sacrifices made by Americans to eradicate slavery on our shores? The deconstructionist will argue that no amount of white men's blood can compensate for the injustice of slavery, upon which, they claim, our illegitimate nation was built.
Grateful for the advancements in the human condition spurred by free enterprise? The deconstructionist insists that free enterprise is singularly responsible for global poverty and the destruction of the planet.
What does all of this have to do with Iraq? Everything.
If traditional Western values of governance ultimately provide the basis for a strong, peaceful and free Iraq, then the world will see that much of what was true for 18th century white European Judeo-Christian colonials is also true for 21st century Muslim Iraqis. The universality of Western values -- and of the Judeo Christian truths that form the foundations of those values -- will gain profound credibility. Deconstructionism and its current political host, the Democratic Party, will both suffer enormously. For deconstructionists bent on discrediting Western values, victory in Iraq is the worst possible outcome.
The most ardent deconstructionists do not believe victory is even possible. Because deconstructionists believe Western values are a sham, they believe President Bush's strategy cannot possibly prevail. How, after all, can we expect Western principles of governance to help heal Iraq if the very foundations of Western governance are flawed?
So they feel duty-bound to say or do whatever is necessary to truncate the violence by accelerating our inevitable failure. In their hearts, they believe they are acting out of humanity, to stop the pointless suffering of a futile struggle. They must bring low all successes, and they must amplify all failures. If enough Americans would only reach the conclusion that Iraq is beyond hope, they will call more vigorously for withdrawal.
Western values would be left bleeding in the streets of Baghdad, and the deconstructionists would win an important victory.
So things are worse than they seem. While our soldiers are fighting on the battlefield, the leadership of the Democratic Party is deconstructing the Western values for which they fight.
Listen closely to Osama bin Laden's recorded monologues, and you will detect at least some subtle similarities to the diatribes of the Democratic Congressional leadership. This is not a coincidence, for the core beliefs that Judeo-Christian truths and Western values are passé, and that Western civilization is therefore a sham, are to some degree shared by both camps. This leads to Democratic anti-war rhetoric that strikes many average Americans as unpatriotic.
But in fairness, the Democrats are not unpatriotic. They love America. They simply define America differently than most Americans. Their America is a very small place. They do not believe that America's greatness is found in the truth of its founding principles, but in their own enlightened leadership, and in a deconstructed brand of "freedom" that more and more resembles license.
They do not believe our founding truths are necessarily true at all. No wonder they want to cut and run.
Adam G. Mersereau left the United States Marine Corps as a Captain in 1995. He is now an attorney in Atlanta, Georgia.
IMHO, the approach is overly simplistic. The powers that be are more distributed than are controllable by the political leaders, and within the political power structures there is competition amongst adversarial parties.
Both sides in our 2 party system see the direction of world events in part and play their hands accordingly. IMHO, the object of the liberals probably isn’t as much to attack ourselves as much as it is to attack their competition believing such conflict will advance their position ultimately. That attack on friendlies is convoluted by an arrogant perception to advance a worldly system per their own viewpoint independent of others, doing what is right in their own minds.
IMHO, both sides would be better served by placing their faith in Christ first, then managing the economies of the resources they have been afforded.
.
Thanks potlatch -
Good comments on the libs and good links
Thank you devolve.
If the dems think we deliberately went into a war unprepared, they would be aghast at the prospect of being attacked and having to immediately retaliate ‘unprepared’ for war. Or would they?
The Clintons would probably, once again. reduce the preparedness of our Military.
I think the true America-haters are limited to the extreme socialist left and are pretty rare. Most anti-war liberals love their country -- it's just that they believe the best thing for their country is defeat. They see a humiliating defeat in Iraq as having all kinds of benefits. For one, Bush and the Republicans and especially the neocons, the quasi-fascist internal real enemy that's destroying the country, would be vanquished. Liberals have chosen the wrong enemy of course, but still you can see why they would want this for the country.
And maybe a painful defeat would shock the country into a crisis that would force it to take a critical look at its beliefs about itself. Maybe America would finally abandon the belief that it is exceptional among nations (someone -- was it Dennis Prager? -- has said the most consistent divider between liberals and conservatives is the belief in American exceptionalism), or at least the notion that America can accomplish good things in the world through independent action, especially military action. For the left, these are cosmic falsehoods that lead to grave error, and the opportunity to be rid of them is very valuable.
In fact, all totalled up, a defeat in Iraq looks to them like a very clear net good for the country. Which is why the antiwar crowd can see themselves as patriots even as they wish for defeat.
A view often held by the feckless victim of the schoolyard bully.
Had he ever fought back, though, he would've found that it worked.
Alas, a lesson unlearned by the few...that is costing us all, today.
Especially Reid and Pelosi and the rest of the RATs who fear the moveon.org crowd of socialists, all backed by Soros et al.
The Deconstructionist Movement, q.v.
It's real, and it started in college English departments, of all places. (I think English depts. had "radicalism envy" and wanted to out-do the poly-sci freaks with how fast they could tear the nation apart. Seriously.)
The author only HINTS at what "deconstructionism" is. Guys, it's real, Google it, and we must learn how to combat this multi-headed hydra!
Sauron
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Democrats are really in one of two groups: Marxists or Useful Idiots.
Scratch a liberal and under his thin skin is a socialist. Dig a little deeper and you will soon find the Marxist nuclear fuel rods that drive everything he says and does.
Democrats ( really Marxists) believe they can perfect man in their own anointed image.
Marxism is our nation’s most important and serious threat. They are in every government bureaucracy. They populate our colleges and universities, and there are armies of their Useful Idiots in our government K-12 schools.
The Marxist’s most important weapon is our schools. We can survive a nuclear suitcase bomb but we can not survive if they succeed in indoctrinating the next generation of voters. They are hard at work our children’s minds every day of every government school year.
The author of this article outlines very well the anti-Christian, anti-Western Civilization, anti-American, and anti-capitalist ideals being taught daily in our government schools! This is why I am so caustic, and sharp in my criticism of government schooling, and why I believe it must be shut down. The very survival of freedom depends upon it.
I pretty much agree. I do believe the school system could be cleaned up, but nobody seems inclined to do so. For instance, there’s absolutely no basis for teaching about Martin Luther King in deference to our founding fathers.
The libs have run our universities into the ground, have a lock on the media, and have entrenched themselves in the K-12 schools like little Stalinist storm-troopers.
Either clean this up or close it. I’ve for either at this point. Just end it one way or the others.
BTW, this was an excellent article.
the school system could be cleaned up,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Government schools need to be shut down!
Remember, any government school powerful enough to force my ideas on them, is powerful enough to force theirs on me.
When I was a kid, I attended public school in Diamond, Missouri. The education was first rate and there was none of the indoctrination that is going on today.
The administration and staff were dedicated to teaching the children their ‘three Rs’ and developing good loyal citizens that practiced the golden rule.
If schools had remained steadfast in those goals, I wouldn’t have a problem with public schools. They didn’t, and I think it’s high time we called them on it.
We need a person with the fortitude and character to decry what is going on today.
I understand where you are coming from. If you want the NEA and the Department of Education to be destroyed, we’re on the same page for sure. Local run public education is not a problem for me, providing it is put back on track with sound values.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Local control is a problem for me. Even if districts were as small as a suburban subdivision block, two neighbors could gang up on another.
Freedom of conscience and government schools can not coexist!
Any government school powerful enough to force my ideas on my neighbor’s children is powerful enough to force my neighbor’s ideas on my children.
By the way,,,this really is an excellent article. I did what you suggested. I bookmarked it in my favorite education articles folder.
Where your idea breaks down for me, is the realization that there truly are people out there who are unable to home school. I would like to have some form of education for their kids that could still provide a wholesome learning environment.
One idea that might work would be to form a cooperative where parents that didn’t work could take over a teaching position and use the home school materials to teach from.
I am convinced this type of cooperative could work. Volunteer parents would receive little or no pay. The unions would instantly be put out of business and the DoE would be done.
Teaching plans would eminate from a wholesome source instead of UNESCO as they opten do today agenda wise.
I believe that every child in this nation could have a private education for free. Hey! Harvard has a $35 Billion dollar endowment! Americans could do the same for private foundations that could provide private vouchers to private schools.
We are a wealthy nation. Every child could have access to a private voucher to a private Christian school. Christians could do this if they wanted.
Also...I completely agree with you. We should give up the idea of brick and mortar schools. With today's technology we can have excellent ( and wholesome) curriculum available inexpensively to all who wanted it.
We should be thinking in terms of homeschools, "micro-schools", or even "one room school houses" that would meet in buildings like the Elks or Lions Clubs or in the basements of small churches.
You are correct about volunteers. Honestly, aren't the children of a congregation THE MOST IMPORTANT mission field of any member??? I would hope so! More retired people should see teaching as a very important way to spread the gospel.
It easy to post a rough draft like we have, but I really do think that with some tweaking, you’re on to something here.
Simply retire the schools. There’s not much more I like to do than to replace the public schools in this manner.
“democrats are really in one of two groups: marxists or useful idiots.”
useful idiot or hard-core marxist, in the end, it’s all the same; the revolution takes place, the enemies of the marxist state are liquidated, darkness descends as free speech is stifled and the affairs of people turn into manipulated caricatures as the tyranny of intellectual superiority poisons human life.
the sad part is that a large part of the population will gush over the electoral victory of some hard-core leftist
demagogue who promises heaven on earth and who instead delivers the bitterness of arbitrary and whimsical manipulation through government.
they have succeded in indoctrinating more than half of the population, so be prepared for the future; say heil hillary! with your arm extended, palm down, and do not dare look into her eyes for you must practice the worship of superior humans who will save the human race.
It really is that serious!
Yet,,,,the very people with the power to turn things around ( Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill OReilly) rarely use the word Marxist.
Rush rarely mentions school issues.
Sean and OReilly do cover the PC nuttiness that goes on in our nation’s schools but, to my knowledge, have NEVER even once identified the problem. They have never pointed out that Marxism is our nation’s most serious threat or that our schools are their MOST IMPORTANT weapon!
(barf!) Talk about stupid!!
None of the 3 Stooges, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Bill OReilly, has NEVER to my knowledge plainly given the solution!
1) Remove your kids NOW!
2) Organize a massive school tax revolt and SHUT these Marxist indoctrination camps down!
3) Thoroughly reform or close down our nation’s colleges and universities and start new one based on Judeo Christian principles.
Rush is always telling us about the “worst disaster the government has ever created”. The public school system.
You should listen before you criticize.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I do listen.
To my knowledge Rush Limbaugh has never identified Marxism as our nation’s most SERIOUS and important threat.
To my knowledge, Rush Limbaugh has never identified schools as the Marxist MOST important weapon aimed against freedom.
To my knowledge, Rush Limbaugh has NEVER given the solution:
1) REMOVE YOUR CHILD IMMEDIATELY!!!( yes, I am shouting!)
2) Organize a massive school tax revolt and shut these Marxist indoctrination camps DOWN! ( NOW!)
3) Stop giving money to Marxist dominated colleges and universities. Thoroughly reform these institutions, or close them down. Start new colleges and universities based on Judeo Christian principles.
We can survive a nuclear suitcase bomb, but freedom will not survive if the Marxists who run our nation’s schools succeed in indoctrinating the next generation of voters.
But,,,hey!...I can understand why Rush Limbaugh is timid about this.
1) He does not have children.
2) Most of his conservative audience uses the government schools. He is running a business, and business people don’t want to offend their customers.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The education of young children is always “indoctrination”. Always. It is axiomatic.
Children are incapable of critical thought, and they are blank slates. If as the author of this article proposes is true ( Judeo Christian values are universal for all people), then it is important that we indoctrinate our nation’s children with these principles.
The enemy ( The Marxists who run the schools) are doing just the opposite.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.