Posted on 08/04/2003 8:15:59 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
Edited on 04/23/2004 12:05:46 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
This article is adapted from a talk I gave to the Workers' Liberty summer school in London on June 21 under the title "After the Holocaust: Mutual Indifference and Moral Solidarity." To be fair to those who invited me, I should point out that although the views I expressed in this part of the talk met with a perfectly civil reception, they plainly weren't shared by most of the audience.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Of course they would. Because to them, beating and raping a child who only four years ago could have been murdered while still in the womb, does not give Ashcroft the right to intervene without regard to the civil rights of the so-called 'accused'.
We have become a society that doesn't regard the reality of the situation as being immoral or wrong, but rather who needs the protection from the bad Republicans. The leftists will say, almost as if they were in a trance, that Saddam was a bad guy--BUT, that doesn't mean we should have taken him out the way we did.
My question is --'Why NOT???'. Give me a reason why murder, rape and torture are to be ignored. Tell me exactly why it's ok to make this last one moment longer!
The leftists have convinced themselves that they must oppose everything Pres. Bush does. Everything. And that is what's tearing them apart from the mainstream of America--and why President Bush will be overwhelmingly re-elected.
They seem to have trouble with the action Bush took in Iraq. It was a good thing and fulfilled a moral human rights obligation!
I'll go out on a limb, disagree, and ascribe morals to the marchers; even a self-consistent set at that.
I'll go further and ascribe a great deal of discriminating intelligence to them. After all, many of the world's leftists and liberals are way smarter than I am.
The root cause, so to speak, of the insupportable position described so well in this post, is inertia.
One identifies with a group based on a set of morals, and he learns a set of behaviors. Where the intelligence I posited comes in is that these people know how this whole wave of patriotism with victorious and just wars is going to play out, perhaps better than supporters of the war do. After an entire life's utter commitment to a cause, with ample currency in the world until now, the protesters and their ilk are to be marginalized. A different faction is going to reign supreme. Very few people of any stripe can eat crow fast enough to be reasonable in the face of having backed the wrong horse.
To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below: | ||||
click here >>> | Bush Doctrine Unfold | <<< click here | ||
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here) |
Then they got overextended trying to offer concrete evidence to placate the UN, when Saddam's strategy was apparently to prevent any such evidence from coming to light. Bush did not emphasize clearly enough that the rules of engagement had changed since 9/11 and then got bogged down trying to justify it terms of pre-9/11 concepts.
This controversy has brought to light the "honest" liberals. Those who have a certain, if sometimes flawed, logic and reasoning to their creed. Hitchens is another one. You've got to hand it to these guys, they must not have many close friends (of course, I exaggerate, I hear Hitch has tons of friends and is a great guy to hang around).
If only all leftists were of this ilk, we could get into some serious debate about the issues, instead of ducking the invective hurled our way. Truth be told, I dont know if that would ever be possible, because I suspect that many of those "rational" liberals would come over to the Right. That is exactly what happened to me.
In my view, this is perhaps the most crucial part of the author's argument (although it is a wonderful article that is overflowing with well-reasoned and insightful commentary - wonder why the author doesn't realize that he is a lone voice of reason in the wilderness of the left, and that his moral and logical compass aligns much better with the right or with the libertarians, and not at all with the lefties and liberals). And when it comes down to it, the left does not believe in objective truth or morality, which is why the sanity of the author's argument got such a tepid response from his audience.
Be all that as it may, the author asks how a principled liberal could ignore the humanitarian justification.
One specific way was by believing inexorably (Helen Thomas - style) that the civilian casualities to come would be worse if inflicted by war than if inflicted by Saddam Hussein, who after all usually only tortured and killed dissidents.
Second, consider that the real reason for the war was not humanitarian, but a need to control events in the Middle East. Add that the military's preferred approach would have been to inflict more civilian casualties to save coalistion soldiers' lives. Therefore, any talk about the humanitarian goal is pure politics on the part of the administration and to be resisted.
Remember that the author openly espouses socialism, and therefore sees capitalism as inherently exploiting workers. So that is his definition of "exploitation" I think.
The author has the ability to recognize that absolute power over people by brutal torture is worse.
There is no such 'rotating' list. There were a number of reasons for going to war. The leftist liberal press would focus on one reason a a time, trying to shred it apart. When they realized the public wasn't 'biting,' they'd move on to the next reason.
Why not go back and read the text of Bush's first speech on Iraq? He listed all the reasons from the beginning.
1)Iraq was supporting Al-Qaeda (ignores the fact that Saddam was supported by the CIA for years because he kept Iraq secular and repressed muslim fundamentalism in his country)
He was semi-supported as a balance to Iran, though that is not relevant to your argument regarding support of Al Queda.
2)Iraq was responsible for 9-11 (same as above & not proved yet)
Who said that?
3)WMD (not proved yet)
Proved for years. Iraq even admitted to large quantites of a wide variety of materials.
4)To remove a dictator & free the Iraqi people (true, but it isn't the US's job to replace every dictator in the world with a democracy)
Not every one, but it doesn't follow that lacking the ability to fizx all wrongs one shouldn't work to fix some, especially when it falls into line with fixing so many other problems.
5)"They tried to kill my daddy" (true)
Petty attack. Any reason at all for saying it except to belittle? Has Bush ever expressed such a thing? Is Bush lacking in other justifications?
Bush's opposition predominantly argued against his actions by silly arguments like the bit about his "daddy", and "War for Oil", and other drivel as "justifications".
You forgot: Hussein agreed to a cease-fire condition of turning all WMDs and long-range weapons over to the U.N. for certified disposal and demonstrating none were retained. He flagrantly ignored this...justifying a resumption of the war. It was Iraqs responsibility to demonstrate that they had complied.
Only a very few of the groups the author is talking about complained in the least about Clinton making the same arguments. This despite Clinton's obvious personal opportunism.
I'm paraphrasing from something I read in The Federalist a few years ago: "...because wanting to appear compassionate and likeable is easier than defending moral absolutes and taking a stand." That's why.
Should we then announce amnesty for Saddam and restore him, after apologies, to his office since none of these justifications have been satisfied ? If not, why ?
That is precisely how many of those previously on the left - David Horowitz, Dennis Miller - did "get it right" because they did rethink their positions and honestly critqued their own politics. Rather than be snide, I'm always glad when there is evidence that one of these lefties is seeing the light.
The vast majority of those on the left today are morally bankrupt.
I would go farther and say that, the positions that the left take are morally bankrupt; therefore ALL those on the left are as morally bankrupt as their positions.
I think this is the conclusion the writer has come to, with respect to the War in Iraq; he is pointing this out to his fellow leftists. He is on the way to separating himself from leftist politics, as it conflicts with his moral world.
This is a good thing and I applaud the writer.
You have to understand it as emerging from a form of moral/mental illness. The fact that he can see the hypocrisy means that the light has turned on. Many others have made the trek from left to right; it happens when the cognitive dissonance of beliving in the leftist world view becomes so great that one's world view is shattered. Give him time and he'll become a Conservative.
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.