Friday, October 28


Unclear On The Concept

Eric asks:
Why aren't the headlines reading "Barely 2000 American soldiers lost in 30 months, Iraqi's ratify Constitution enabled by overthrow of Ba'athist fascism"?
The answer is, because the people writing the headlines learned the wrong lessons from the 20th century. Or the 18th & 19th centuries, for that matter.

Basically, the opponents of the liberation of Iraq in the West* are Transnational Progressives, Tranzis for short. The Tranzis believe that everything that was bad about the 20th century - that is, WWI, WWII and Vietnam, tranzis having a very poor grasp of history - was due to the conflict of nation-states. It was to eliminate this conflict, and ultimately to eliminate the nation-state itself, that the League of Nations, and its successor the United Nations, were formed.

Now, if you are an adherent of this belief, it logically follows that nation-states are bad, and America, the richest and most powerful nation-state of all, is the very worst. And that since the fundamental nature of the nation-state is bad, only bad can arise from the actions thereof.**

So everything America does is bad. But Saddam Hussein was a fascist, and the Tranzis are intrinsically opposed to fascism, because fascism exalts the nation-state above all else. This opposition is fundamental to their ideology.

Of course, the Tranzis have had no success whatsoever in achieving their goals. So naturally America (which is evil) cannot ever achieve those goals, because those goals are good and America (as the premier nation state) cannot do good things.


This means:

1. America is not in Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people. (Because America is evil, and doesn't do such things.)
2. If America says that it is in Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people, it is a lie. (See above.)
3. If America follows a course of action clearly designed to liberate the Iraqi people, it is (a) only from some hidden motive and (b) doomed to failure.
4. If the Iraqis actually become free, for example, voting in huge numbers in clearly free and fair elections, then that is necessarily bad, because democracy is unfair to the people.
5. If Iraq, with America's assistance, becomes a prosperous, safe and generally healthy nation, then prosperity, safety, and health are ipso facto also evil.

So, the underlying source of all the wailing and fury of the left is that the liberation of Iraq has proved them to be wrong. And unless America fails, and fails horribly, they may be forced to admit it. Remember, when the left tried to free the world they ended up killing a hundred million people. So America has to, has to, has to fail.

Because the alternative would be unthinkable.

Steven Den Beste has written on this at length, and explains it better than I do here, but I don't have a link handy.

Update: Steven Den Beste provides a link (though I'm not sure if that was the one I was thinking of) and a handy search URL.

* Ignoring for the moment the Ba'athists and the Islamists, who oppose it for the very sensible reason that they want to be in control.
** Well, the idea that only bad ends can arise from bad means is another logical fallacy, but we'll leave that one alone for now.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 05:20 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 554 words, total size 4 kb.

1 So, if America ultimately succeeds at its goal will that deal a deathblow to this meme, or does someone have to go on a killing rampage at the UN?

Posted by: owlish at Friday, October 28 2005 10:38 AM (rzugH)

2 Transnational Progressivism is a subject I wrote about many times, but you may be thinking of this post in particular.

Posted by: Steven Den Beste at Friday, October 28 2005 11:37 AM (CJBEv)

3 The better things get in the real world, the greater the disconnect from reality, and the nuttier the Tranzis will become. That's what we're seeing today. And that's what's driving the red-green-brown coalition - sidelined by history, the Communists and Fascists and Eco-crazies and associated Nihilists and Anarchists are coming together in one unified, useless force, because they'd rather band together with their bitterest enemies than admit they might have been wrong. (I think that's Blair's Law, as in Tim Blair, but someone else might have proposed it first.)

Posted by: Pixy Misa at Friday, October 28 2005 11:40 AM (QriEg)

4 Heinlein once proposed putting all the book critics in a room with no way out, with typewriters with no ribbons, and food dishes with no food. Maybe a larger version of the same for the Tranzi's? Of course I know that's the deal. But I just couldn't help myself, I had to ask the question. Even if it was mostly rhetorical. Okay, back to that room the Tranzi's can't get out of ....

Posted by: Eric at Saturday, October 29 2005 03:16 AM (Oc3Xt)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
50kb generated in CPU 0.0162, elapsed 0.1087 seconds.
56 queries taking 0.0988 seconds, 341 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.