Left howls, but refuses to argue

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | January 23, 2003 | GEORGE WILL

[Chi-townChief]

After braving sub-freezing temperatures here to urge the president to heed the Beatles (''Give peace a chance''), crowds at last Saturday's anti-war demonstrations returned to their suburban homes or their hotels, where they could watch HBO's live telecast of a concert by the Rolling Stones, three of whom are older than the president.

Mick Jagger once said he could not imagine being 45 and still singing ''Satisfaction.'' He will soon turn 60, and so, it sometimes seems, will the unsatisfactory rhetoric of today's left.

There were some new rhetorical wrinkles in the anti-war demonstrations, such as: ''Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer, Ein News Channel--Fox News.'' (Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather and Peter Jennings have a combined audience of about 31.5 million each night. Brit Hume's ''Special Report'' on Fox has about 1.2 million.) But some chants were variations of oldies but goodies: ''Hey, Bush, kiss my ass/We won't fight for the price of gas.'' (Today's U.S. average price of a gallon of regular is $1.45. The 1953 price, adjusted for inflation, was $1.95.)

A Washington Post photograph of one of last Saturday's demonstrators showed an Illinois woman with ''No Nukes'' written on a face contorted by the rigors of struggling to prevent a war aimed at preventing Iraq from acquiring . . .

In a process without precedent, America has been, for more than a year, walking slowly--never mind nonsensical headlines about the ''rush to war''--toward an optional war. Optional, that is, in the sense that although it is a defensible choice, it is a choice. War has not been unambiguously thrust upon us, as in 1861 by secession, or in 1917 by unrestricted submarine warfare, or in 1941 by surprise attack, or by aggression across international borders as in June 1950 or August 1990. Yet the left cannot mount a critique that rises above rock lyrics and name-calling.

Perhaps that is because a serious critique would arise from conservative sensibilities, including respect for the law of unintended consequences, and the fact that a government's ability to control events anywhere is severely limited because a community, a nation and the world are like mobiles--jiggle something here, and lots of things are set in motion over there.

But the left also is inarticulate because nowadays it is little other than an amalgam of baby boomer nostalgia and moral vanity. Nostalgia, that is, for the days, almost four decades ago, when its political vocabulary and moral vanity were formed.

Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, announcing his opposition to the president's nomination of Judge Charles Pickering of Mississippi to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said the Bush administration is trying to turn courts into ''the sword that destroys''--yes, destroys--''basic civil rights.'' Schumer, who shares the New York stage with Sen. Hillary Clinton, must make up in shrillness what he lacks in star power, so he should not be considered guilty of sincerity in suggesting that the Bill of Rights and the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act are in peril.

Schumer was 14 in 1964; hankering for the excitements of one's youth is only human. Besides, Schumer may be one of those baby boomers who believes that their existence, in all its perfection, is the great and final goal toward which the universe has been striving since the Big Bang. Still, it should not be too much to expect that senators could make their arguments without resorting to synthetic hysteria.

Two Sundays ago the New York Times' long lead editorial was an exercise in hyperventilation titled ''The War Against Women.'' It argued--actually, it asserted; the Times no longer argues, it hectors--that the right to legal abortions is in ''dire peril.'' The Times was understandably opaque about just how this frequently exercised right (at least 1.2 million times last year) to one of America's most common surgical procedures is going to perish.

The Times regarding abortion, Schumer and liberals like him regarding ''basic civil rights'' and the left regarding war with Iraq--all share an unarticulated, perhaps unacknowledged, but nonetheless discernible premise: Domestic freedom and international order are threatened by dark currents pulsing through the incorrigible American masses.

These currents would engulf the world, were they not held at bay by small platoons of the virtuous--the ''peace movement,'' the courts and certain editorialists. These platoons are carrying the flame from the days of segregation and Vietnam, when the going was bad and only they--or so they recall--were good.

[Chi-townChief]

Haven't seen this one posted yet.

[Noumenon]

The Left refuses to argue, huh? Fine by me.

There's no point in engaging with those whose final 'arguments' amount to the gun and the gulag. I didn't start this fight, but I'm going to finish it. And I won't be alone.

[Paul Atreides]

Besides, Schumer may be one of those baby boomers who believes that their existence, in all its perfection, is the great and final goal toward which the universe has been striving since the Big Bang.

That us such a great line. And, so very true.

[Burkeman1]

Yet the left cannot mount a critique that rises above rock lyrics and name-calling.

Perhaps that is because a serious critique would arise from conservative sensibilities, including respect for the law of unintended consequences, and the fact that a government's ability to control events anywhere is severely limited because a community, a nation and the world are like mobiles--jiggle something here, and lots of things are set in motion over there.

True. For conservatives opposed to the war with Iraq it is impossible to stand with the left in any sort of serious coalition of common purpose since their anti war "arguments" are absurd bromides amd their motivation is out of hatred for either America or Bush personally.

The only serious arguments against the war come from the right.

[Brian Allen]

<< There's no point in engaging with those whose final 'arguments' amount to the gun and the gulag. I didn't start this fight, but I'm going to finish it. And I won't be alone. >>

You are not.

[EGPWS]

Yet the left cannot mount a critique that rises above rock lyrics and name-calling.

What else can they use? It would be political suicide for them to tell the truth and say "we will do ANYTHING including ruining the country to destroy the Republicans agenda to maintain our power base because that's all that is important to us" wouldn't it?

[szweig]

Roe v. Wade is bad law. Not talking about the pros or cons of abortion here...it is just bad law. If it were rescinded tomorrow the abortion would revert to the states - where it was before Roe v. Wade. And where it should reside. There were states that allowed abortion pre Roe. And there will be states that permit it after Roe goes away. It is just another example of the Left, knowing that they can't get their way through the legislative channels (ie Congress),prompting SCOTUS to pervert the Constitution by finding hitherto unknown "right"( of privacy and abortion.) It is an unethical end run around the way the Gubmint was set up. It does not bode well for the nation...SSZ

[TheMole]

I favor the invasion of Iraq and the sooner the better, but I'm willing to listen to serious arguments against. As you say, the only serious arguments are indeed on the "right". Say, do you remember the the war against the Serbians? You know, when Bill Sinkmaster Clinton was President and the US, Britain, some European countries and Canada bombed Yugoslavia for months? Where was the antiwar Sixties left then?

[EGPWS]

Well said szweig! :)

[Burkeman1]

Absolutely nowhere- that's where. It ain't about hatred of war- or opposing war in general as if they were pacifist quakers. It is about hating Bush. That is all it is about. In fact- that is about the only thing that one hears at these rallies- no arguments against the war- just invective against Bush.

[timydnuc]

Roe v. Wade is not a law!

The decision is "president" set by a ruling of the court. A president is a ruling of that particular court, at that particular time. A law, is a written entity. No where in the constitution do you find a "law" about abortion on demand. The president can be overturned if the court changes it's mind. That's why we have the constitution, it allows such things. That's why the left hates that document so much.

The left screams that Roe v. Wade is a 'law'. That is farther from the truth than Friday is from Monday. This is the left's biggest lie. Don't fall for it!

[wizardoz]

The decision is "president" set by a ruling of the court

You mean a "precedent"? That which preceeds?

[Jerez2]

"Besides, Schumer may be one of those baby boomers who believes that their existence, in all its perfection, is the great and final goal toward which the universe has been striving since the Big Bang."

This line reminds me of the old Jefferson Airplane song, "Crown of Creation." As in, we are it!

This is a pretty good article, but I think Will is wrong about one thing. If ever a war was thrust upon us, this one is. Much more so than 1914, 1941, 1950 or 1963. This one started with an attack on our shores -- on the Continental United States. We cannot ignore Saddam the Supplier, any more than we can ignore Al Quaeda the Delivery System.

[Southack]

"It ain't about hatred of war- or opposing war in general as if they were pacifist quakers. It is about hating Bush. That is all it is about. In fact- that is about the only thing that one hears at these rallies- no arguments against the war- just invective against Bush."

They didn't protest when Cuban troops were committing war crimes against Black Africans in Angola.

They didn't protest when North Korea fired a missile over Japan.

They didn't protest when Clinton, Chirac, and Scroeder attacked Serbia (heck, they didn't even demand "inspectors" for the alleged "mass graves" and they didn't even ask for UN approval).

They didn't protest when Al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Centers and Pentagon.

They didn't protest when Anthrax was unleashed on us by our enemies.

But they DID protest our attacks on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. They ARE protesting against our potential attack on Iraq, and they are ranting non-stop about how they hate President Bush.

Moreover, the organizers of the protestors (International ACT - ANSWER) are open, overt, admitted, unreconstructed Communists.

So no, the Left can't handle honest debate because it would reveal them to be the traitors that they are.

In fact at this point in time, they have little left to toss at us besides more of the same tired old agitprop that we've been hearing from the Left since 1961.

So there is simply NO WAY that Tom, Dan, or Peter are going to permit anyone on the Right to counter their daily spin. Their ideology is too bankrupt to allow such open combat.

Nor will the New York Times permit a Conservative to write "the other side" to balance each of their Editorial rants. Their spiel simply loses in any reasonable side-by-side comparison of Left versus Right ideas.

Not to overly dwell on the point, but the Left hasn't even had a new idea in more than a decade (good thing they call themselves "progressives", eh).

Thus, like the title to this thread, the Left does indeed howl; likewise, the Left refuses to argue or debate.

[Nick Danger]

like the title to this thread, the Left does indeed howl; likewise, the Left refuses to argue or debate.

Except to spew lies. And it seems to be getting worse.

I guess there are some sober heads on the left who recognize this, and want to go off and start some think tanks to come up with some new policy ideas, but how damning a critique is that of academia... which the left owns? Hundreds of universities, all that faculty, and not one serious, new policy idea that has made it onto the stage.

They keep trying to recycle socialized medicine and present that as something new, but no one is buying it. Clinton took a run at it and it cost the Democratic Party a Congressional majority they'd held for 40 years. It was on the ballot in Oregon last November, and went down 85 to 15 per cent. There's nothing there for them but more defeat.

The only serious new policy proposal that one can identify with elements of the Democratic Party is "reparations." That's a total non-starter, more at a trick for sowing divisiveness, but there it is... their one new policy idea.

I think they are going to spend 40 years in the desert, just as the Republicans did. They are just used up and burned out.

[Dog Gone]

I vacillate between being furious with the left and simply bored with them.

They don't have any new ideas, and the old ones aren't too good, either. They certainly can't argue them very well anymore.

I get quite agitated at their tactics; take the New Jersey Senate illegality, for example. They'll cheat every time they think they can get away with it, and sometimes when they can't.

But debating things on the merits? That doesn't happen much anymore. It's simply name-calling and cheating.

It would be funny if it weren't successful a lot of the time.

[rdb3]

True. For conservatives opposed to the war with Iraq it is impossible to stand with the left in any sort of serious coalition of common purpose since their anti war "arguments" are absurd bromides amd their motivation is out of hatred for either America or Bush personally.

Sure. The net difference between the two?

Zero.

No matter how it is spun, the exact same goals are actually shared by the far-Left and far-Right.

Superbowl XXXVII: Tampa Bay 27 -- Oakland 23; You heard it here first.

Birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.