REASONS FOR PRINCIPLED LIBERALS TO SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT

[Chancellor Palpatine]

For months, we've listened to the rising terror in the voices of the antiwar left, as decent, principled Americans of the political middle got down to business and prepared for taking harsh measures to do the right thing, the smart thing. No longer willing to accept the status quo of meek acceptance of tinhorn bullying, mainline Republicans and not a few Democrats agreed that something needed to happen in order to assure that the civilization most emulated by Western style economics and democracy is not threatened by absolute dictators. They are supporting the existence and ultimate expansion of a regime which is destined to become even further radicalized under Islam with the passage of time if left unchecked.

Amazingly, many left liberals refuse to support this action. This means that they are rejecting the following:

- Free elections

- Full equal rights under the law for women, including contraceptive services

- Legal and economic rights for ethnic minorities

- A legal system which penalizes torture, and which doesn't imprison or execute people for dissent

- A sane defense establishment that doesn't have acquisitive designs on the territory of neighbors.

Sadly, 40 years ago, liberals who loved their country would support these aims, but those numbers seem to be diminishing these days. Spread these around, get them to thinking.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

ping

[an amused spectator]

Excellent post bump.

[wimpycat]

They only want these things in principle or in theory, but not in reality. For them, the idea is the thing, not the application.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

I guess it is a lot more fun to gripe.

[wimpycat]

Of course; as long as you're griping, you don't have to offer practical solutions...you know, solutions that work.

[Stage Fright]

Nice job. I agree with you that this issue is not neatly dividing people in terms of philosophy (right/left) or party (Democrat/Republican). Not only that, nearly everyone seems favorably disposed to the idea of taking away Saddam's toys and showing him the door. The disagreements seem to concern precisely how to accomplish these ends.

I have no idea how these ends will be accomplished, but they will be accomplished. Of that I'm sure.

[Abcdefg]

Principled liberals? That's a good one. Do you know any?

[KC Burke]

They only want these things in principle or in theory, but not in reality. For them, the idea is the thing, not the application.

Ten extra points on your Term Paper Grade.

[JZoback]

PRINCIPLED LIBERALS

Is there such a thing?

[risk]

Because I'd vote for Bush. The important thing is this: Is a candidate completely serious about prosecuting the war on theocratic terrorism to the fullest extent? Only Bush is. --Christopher Hitchens

I agree that the "liberal" vs. "conservative" division is breaking down in our society. The left, when it protested the Viet Nam war, had something selfish that you could somehow concede: kids didn't want to go fight and die in a war of attrition. (The kids and the adults had no idea that the Soviet Union could be defeated in less than a lifetime, let alone a couple of centuries. Reagan had the faith to believe, and he did!) This is a war for our individual safety, and it won't stop in Iraq.

We've been attacked, and we've drawn a line in the sand. Nations are either with us in the war on terror, or against us. If they can manage to get out of the way (France, Russia, China), so be it. But Iraq and other bellicose nations are right in the cross hairs.

So where is the left now? They were willing to send guerrillas to Spain to fight in the Lincoln Brigades. Why aren't they lining up to join Abdullah Ocalan to fight Iraqi oppression with the Kurdish rebels? (I'm counting on them not to, since this would probably just cause our troops more trouble.) And of course they're AWOL.

I think Christopher Hitchens has a number of interesting points to make about the right in this country. He's basically coming from the left and a formerly Socialist background, but deep down inside, he wants less government. In practice, Reaganomics led to bigger deficits and larger budgets for some parts of our government. But in actuality, Reagan reinstilled values of smaller government with less intervention in people's lives. In more ways than one, this is what the 1960s movement was all about.

You can listen to a recording of Hitchens debate Mark Danner at the Commonwealth Club on 1/28/2003 here. Hitchens clearly argues that from a liberal perspective, ther e is no alternative to removing Saddam Hussein from power. And here's an interesting Hitchens article of his about the second amendment. It takes a careful read to get his position, but it's in there. He's not your average granola eater!

I myself am grappling on where to turn politically. The Democrats want to help the environment, but they're losing power. They want to retain freedom of reproductive choice for women, but they can't pass a constitutional amendment. They want to protect our rights (as the ACLU would describe them) but they don't seem to understand that we would have no rights if a nuke kills us.

I'm excited to be a politically aware in a time like this. I can't quite identify with the Republican party yet, but I see them as doing far less damage to American values than the Democrats, at least in terms of national defense and the size of government. We need to help them to see why conservation is important. We need to teach them why unions are a free market concept (for better or worse), and explain to them why regulations about abortion violate privacy, and help them separate in their minds why God is something for each individual, not the nation to honor. But many of the rest of their ideas hold water far better than the Democrats' tired old theories do.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

So where is the left now? They were willing to send guerrillas to Spain to fight in the Lincoln Brigades. Why aren't they lining up to join Abdullah Ocalan to fight Iraqi oppression with the Kurdish rebels? (I'm counting on them not to, since this would probably just cause our troops more trouble.) And of course they're AWOL.

Excellent post, and goes right to the heart of the matter. Your last paragraph might be one of the most interesting I've seen here in a while:

I'm excited to be a politically aware in a time like this. I can't quite identify with the Republican party yet, but I see them as doing far less damage to American values than the Democrats, at least in terms of national defense and the size of government. We need to help them to see why conservation is important. We need to teach them why unions are a free market concept (for better or worse), and explain to them why regulations about abortion violate privacy, and help them separate in their minds why God is something for each individual, not the nation to honor. But many of the rest of their ideas hold water far better than the Democrats' tired old theories do.

[goldstategop]

Today's liberals are really socialists/communists. They want a totalitarian reconstruction of American society which is why they identify with Saddam. He's a kindred spirit.

[geedee]

Principled liberals? That's a good one. Do you know any?

LOL. If ever there was an oxymoron . . .

[risk]

Your last paragraph might be one of the most interesting I've seen here in a while

I know just what you mean. Something exciting is happening all around us, and those of us who were so dedicated to ideas that were considered "on the left" in the 1980s and 1990s see that they are accomplished, done; they're working. And we can also see that while Detente was an important part of reducing risk in the 1970s, it failed utterly after 1990 because the playing field became so much wider. But few of us in the Democratic party recognized it!

But I'm just getting started. Excessive taxes, useless government programs that will never help the middle class, political correctness, weakness in the face of terrorism, lack of resolve in standing up to China and North Korea -- it's all there in the Clinton administration.

It took 9/11 to wake me up and turn me around. I started to realize that no one should ever apologize for what our parents and grandparents have built here in the United States. This is a good nation, with good ambitions, and an excellent historic record (aside from slavery, suffrage, and native Americans -- all of which we had the willingness to correct).

I'm in a position where I'm much more worried about preserving the second amendment and a strong defense than I am about other issues the Democrats are offering. Again, there are problems in the Republican party, but puritans like John Ashcroft worry me far less than theocratic Islamic fascists.

[goldstategop]

Such an animal is about as real as the unicorn.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

It took 9/11 to wake me up and turn me around. I started to realize that no one should ever apologize for what our parents and grandparents have built here in the United States. This is a good nation, with good ambitions, and an excellent historic record (aside from slavery, suffrage, and native Americans -- all of which we had the willingness to correct).

Music to my ears - and while some will blast at you on this forum (and you may even wind up in an argument that gets your ticket punched), you fit well with the mainstream of American political thought.

[wayoverontheright]

Today's liberals are really socialists/communists. They want a totalitarian reconstruction of American society which is why they identify with Saddam. He's a kindred spirit.

Yes, this is a sad, but true statement.

Their anti-capitalist bent puts them in opposition to anything which would serve to advance the cause of capitalism, therefore the knee-jerk opposition to this war.

The leaders of the left are definitely socialist/communist as you say, their larger numbers are simply anti-capitalist, and amazingly, most of them don't realize it.

When Clinton was in power there was no opposition to war, because it was certainly not a regime that one could say "the cause of capitalism" was being advanced whenever they made a move in the international realm. Clinton's goal was to systematically weaken the US, this is what anti-capitalists do.

[risk]

(and you may even wind up in an argument that gets your ticket punched)

Ouch, OK you've got a good point. I don't mean to raise too many hackles, just some perceptions.

[lawdude]

"I guess it is a lot more fun to gripe."

Liberals (sociocommies) always have the "BEST" ideas. As long as the idea is never implemented, they always have the "BEST" idea.

They have been offering the same BS ideas for over 50 years. What has been accomplished? NADA. Those ideas do NOT woork. Never have. Never will. Never!