Sunday, January 30

World

Ideological Braindeath

It's perfectly possible for two reasonable, intelligent, well-informed people to disagree. That's because people are different, and find themselves in different situations, so they have differing values. A woman with children values stability and safety, because she wants a good environment for her kids to grow up in. A young man might value opportunity more highly than stability; he is willing to take risks because he has much to gain and little to lose. The goal of society is to find a way to reach a compromise where individual needs are met as well as possible. In a healthy society each individual must give a little, but stands to gain a lot more - that's why humans have always lived in social groups.

But the fact that reasonable people can disagree does not mean that people who disagree with you are necessarily reasonable. This is borne out all too clearly by the protestations of the left against President Bush. They usually run something like this:

You say "Bush speaks of the United States' mission as ending tyranny on the planet (and he really means it!). " Yes, and we all are shuddering about the potential consequences of that intent. You mistake his simplistic worldview and duplicity for idealism and enthusiasm. He surrounds himself with "yes-men" (and women) demanding loyalty instead of working for the greater good. I thought the Reagan years were bad, these years have been Orwellian.

You make it sound that we hate Bush because of his "Forrest Gump" mentality. No, it's because his agenda and particular Orwellian vocabulary have mezmorized so many millions into this "Team America: F***, Yeah!" attitude. People in opposition to Bush's actions are perhaps reacting to the average American's disinterest in global affairs and how the U.S. government interacts with the Middle East, Russia, China, Latin America, etc etc. So when these countries/areas have issues with the US, all these sheep we call citizens do is scratch their heads and go "Waddit we do, sheez? Stupid foreign weasels, they're just jealous of my 54 in Television and yellow Hummer..."

Bush and co take advantage of this simplistic, inward looking attitude to force an immoral and power-hungry agenda, and that's where we draw the line. Maybe we should take a page from Heinlein and define citizens as those people that can look beyond their own selfish, narrow needs and consider the health of society writ large. Everyone else, you're just civilians that shouldn't vote if you can't be bothered to consider life outside your suburb.

Or this:
But you're wrong on why people hate Bush. It isn't some post-modern disbelief in idealism or freedom or democracy. It's that many people just didn't and don't think Bush was or is sincere when he talks about idealism and freedom and democracy. Remember, for many months a huge majority of America - over 90% - coalesced around Bush because of his response in Afghanistan and in zeal in fighting Al Qaeda and Islamofascism. I was one of them. But when he started talking about Iraq a lot of people said, "Iraq?" Why Iraq? Why not finish the job fighting Al Qaeda and marshalling this massive support we have around the world to stamp out Islamic terrorism where it undoubtedly exists, like in supposedly friendly regimes like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? Sure, Iraq was no friend of ours, but it never seemed to be a mortal threat. And it was when the great justifications for placing Iraq at the center of the next phase of the fight against Islamic terrorism began to fall apart - no WMD, no operational ties to Al Qaeda, just as the Administration's post-war plans turned out to be so hopelessly optimistic as to puzzle any sincere supporter of the Iraq invasion, many many good-hearted, patriotic, idealistic freedom-loving Americans started to ask, "What the hell is going on?" But instead of any recognition that some of the planning was off Bush planted his feet in the ground. His commitment to democracy seemed so much more about personal honor, political power and sheer stubbornness than a real, humane sense of the historic challenge of the mission. Liberals gave up on Bush after 9/11 not because he was an idealist, but because he clearly wasn't.
Let's review the situation from the point of view of a sane person:
The Taliban was bad. They oppressed women, supported terrorism, and gave sanctuary to Osama bin Laden (who is also bad). Plus they blew up those giant Buddha statues.

President Bush got rid of them, and now Afghanistan is a democracy - with women not only voting but getting elected. This is good.

Saddam Hussein was bad. He ruled Iraq as a tyrant, ruthlessly crushing any opposition. He had people pulled off the streets to be tortured or murdered on his slightest whim; he employed men to rape his female prisoners. He also had appalling taste in art.

President Bush got rid of him, and tomorrow the Iraqis go to the polls to elect their new government. This is good.

So thanks to President Bush and America, and their allies Britain and Australia (and quite a few other countries), 50 million people are now free.

But, says the left, but, this is actually a bad thing because he is not an idealist. Without that idealism, he is forced to take on the world as it actually is, so his bringing freedom to 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq counts for nothing.

The logic of this position is difficult to untangle, but this is how it looks to me:

Axiom: America bad.
Axiom: Conservatives bad.

Postulate: Anything done by bad people is necessarily also bad.

Therefore: If President Bush speaks in idealistic terms, he must be lying.
If he frees entire countries from tyranny, it must be from base motives, and he deserves only scorn.
If people in the government support him, they are only in it for money and power.
If voters support him, they are stupid.

Against the strident opposition of the Left, America has fought two wars of liberation since 2001. The only contribution of the Left to this effort has been negative: to slow things down, to make every effort more difficult, to give hope to insurgents and terrorists.

Said Michael Moore:

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win.
Said al-Zarqawi*:
We have declared a bitter war against democracy and all those who seek to enact it.

Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion, and that is against the rule of God.

Americans to promote this lie that is called democracy ... You have to be careful of the enemy's plots that involve applying democracy in your country and confront these plots, because they only want to do so to ... give the rejectionists the rule of Iraq. And after fighting the Baathists ... and the Sunnis, they will spread their insidious beliefs, and Baghdad and all the Sunni areas will become Shiite. Even now, the signs of infidelity and polytheism are on the rise.

Oh, people of Iraq, where is your honor? Have you accepted oppression of the crusader harlots ... and the rejectionist pigs?

For all these issues, we declared war against, and whoever helps promote this and all those candidates, as well as the voters, are also part of this, and are considered enemies of God.

This was pretty much obvious to anyone paying attention to events. The insurgency is made up of two main elements: former Ba'athist thugs seeking a return to the good old days of rape and pillage, and Islamofascists seeking to crush yet another country under their 7th century theocratic regime. Both are obviously and of necessity anti-democratic movements, because people will not vote to be oppressed.

We - America, Britain, Australia, Poland, and more - we, personified if you need that by President Bush, we are fighting in Iraq and in Afghanistan to create, restore, and preserve freedom. Our enemies are fighting in the name of oppression, so long as they are the oppressors. It really isn't hard to work out.

But the Left will never give any credit to President Bush for this; he is a bad man (see axioms 1 and 2) so the war of liberation in Iraq is a bad thing.

He freed the people of Afghanistan, who are now rebuilding their country under a democratic government with universal suffrage.

Only because Halliburton wanted to build a gas pipeline!

There is no gas pipeline.

He freed the people of Iraq.

We only invaded Iraq because of the WMDs!

It was never only about WMDs.

But it was really just a lie so he could steal their oil!

The oil hasn't been stolen. Instead, enormous amounts of money have been spent to help rebuild the country.

Give him time, he'll steal it.

The elections are tomorrow.

Oppression! Forcing democracy on an unwilling people!

Back when all this mess started, I was arguing the point with some friends online. They were against the war, not trusting America's motives. I pointed out that removing the respective regimes (the Taliban, Saddam) was unquestionably good; the real question was what they were replaced with. Rather than opposing the war, they should be focusing on promoting democracy.

Needless to say, I got no takers.

And still the shrill cries arise from the swamps. Months after a successful election in Afghanistan, and with voting in Iraq just hours away, they still make their complaint. The war is bad - even if it brings peace, prosperity, and freedom to the liberated people - because President Bush is bad. If good things come from bad motives, then they are really bad things.**

The invasion of Iraq was wrong, was always wrong, was based on greed and lies, has done nothing but harm, and we should leave now. America cannot be trusted, not now, not ever, and our enemies [Remember, the ones murdering election workers?] are upstanding and noble.

50 million people are free.

But, says the Left.

No. No buts. No more fucking buts. If I wanted that, I'd read Wonkette.

Tomorrow. The election in Iraq is tomorrow.

(Moonbat quotes courtesy of The Belgravia Dispatch. The uncannily lifelike strawmen are of my own devising.)

* Yes, I am aware that Zarqawi is a Jordanian. If you want to track down an genuine Iraqi-born insurgent and find out his particular reasons for blowing up policemen and election workers, I'd be quite interested in the answers.
** The corollary, that bad results arising from good motives are really good, is too complex (and too stupid) for me to deal with right now.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 06:12 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 1782 words, total size 11 kb.

1 The corollary, that bad results arising from good motives are really good, is too complex (and too stupid) for me to deal with right now. Yes, but all too often used, frequently as "well, his intentions were good"-type arguments.

Posted by: a guy in pajamas at Sunday, January 30 2005 10:53 AM (Xos9H)

2 Have I told you lately that I love you? Susie ♥s Pixy!

Posted by: Susie at Sunday, January 30 2005 04:08 PM (MYr06)

3 "The only contribution of the Left to this effort has been negative: to slow things down, to make every effort more difficult, to give hope to insurgents and terrorists." Christopher Hitchens is a bona fide contributor to the war effort. Is this an argument for or against your thesis? I'm plumping for "for".

Posted by: horatio at Sunday, January 30 2005 08:26 PM (oCVUr)

4 Christopher Hitchens does not equal The Left. I'm talking in sweeping generalisms here. Now go away.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at Sunday, January 30 2005 08:34 PM (+S1Ft)

5 (:

Posted by: horatio at Sunday, January 30 2005 11:12 PM (oCVUr)

6 I once tried to debate with a moonbat about Iraq. He tossed out all those arguments you stated (the oil, no WMDs, etc), and I pointed out his mistaken beliefs in each. Yet he continued to argue these same points, refusing to acknowledge that I had said anything. I finally gave up out of frustration and left with one parting statement: "How are you able to breathe when you are such a f*ing moron?"

Posted by: Rossz at Sunday, January 30 2005 11:48 PM (n5Jbg)

7 Yes. I tend to ask something like "Does it hurt to be that stupid?" in that situation.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at Monday, January 31 2005 01:57 AM (+S1Ft)

8 A lot of them have gotten trapped in the "Mean Green Meme". But I think that for them the following is an axiom: "Intentions are more important than results." (That's fundamentally a teleological point of view.)

Posted by: Steven Den Beste at Monday, January 31 2005 03:02 PM (CJBEv)

9 New reader here, love your blog. Especially this post! I enjoyed the way you quote both sides of the arguments, and drew logical conclusions from the naysayers. Should be required reading on the Left. Hell, it should be required of BOTH sides!

Posted by: reverse_vampyr at Tuesday, February 01 2005 01:35 PM (Ns5kk)

10 Great thoughts. Thanks for sharing. I surfed DU and Eschaton for several hours yesterday and today. The axioms you posted really capture the essence of leftist thought, at least on the Net. It's sad to see nearly all leftist idealism consumed in the fire of Bush hatred.

Posted by: TallDave at Tuesday, February 01 2005 08:07 PM (oDnE7)

11 The Afghan pipeline agreement has been signed.

Posted by: Collin Baber at Monday, April 18 2005 09:24 AM (fufbw)

12 Collin, are you suggesting that America and her allies invaded Afghanistan, removed the Taliban, and set up a democratic government there so that Afghanistan could build a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan? Or are you just making random bleating sounds to indicate your disappointment that two fascist governments are now rotting on the compost heap of history?

Posted by: Pixy Misa at Monday, April 18 2005 11:26 AM (+S1Ft)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Post is locked.
52kb generated in CPU 0.04, elapsed 0.032 seconds.
51 queries taking 0.0146 seconds, 226 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.