Omar, an Iraqi web logger, recounts his experience in the antiterrorism, anti-tyranny march recently held in a major city of the world. (*)
Baghdad.
Omar concludes by saying, “Our victory in this challenge is a victory for all the honest, good and free people on earth.”
It’s a message the Western Left needs to hear.
Democrats have been hammering away at the Bush Administration’s Iraq policy, the Patriot Act, and other aspects of the War on Terrorism for well over a year now. Just this week, The Republican National Committee began running an ad that says the Democrats are, to paraphrase, attacking Bush because Bush is attacking the terrorists. To this, the Democrats are crying foul, calling it a repulsive ad.
Bill Herbert senses hypocrisy. (*) Indeed, it feels like all the Dems have done for the past year is unleash invective against Bush’s Iraq policy. What kind of response did they expect?
At the very least, arguably, the Iraq campaign is part of the War on Terror. Thus, in Iraq, the President’s policy is to attack terrorists, arguably. Howard Dean and the rest are attacking President Bush for his Iraq campaign and for other harsh measures against terrorists, like the Patriot Act. It is at least arguable that Democrats like Howard Dean are attacking Bush for attacking the terrorists. That is all the ad claims.
Moreover, isn’t the whole paleoliberal strategy to play defense against the terrorists? The Bush strategy in contrast is to go on the offensive against our known enemies. It would be more accurate but less pithy to say: “The Democrats are attacking the President for attacking the terrorists, and saying that the President should only play defense and never offense against our known enemies.”
I can’t find the ad online. (†)
Howard Dean is playing this cynically. He has raised over $600,000 since Friday to “defend” himself against Bush’s attacks. (‡) In his fundraising effort, Dean is saying that Bush was questioning the Democrats’ patriotism. The ad apparently says, however, that the Dems were attacking Bush for attacking the terrorists. Nice trick to deceive people and then rake in their cash.
The Dems would be better off staying above the fray by keeping foreign policy bipartisan. Constructive criticism is presidential. Whining and crying is not.
Like I’ve said before, if you are for the War on Terrorism, except the Patriot Act, except Iraq, except the CIA drone attack on the terrorists in Yemen, except Iran, except Syria, except for supporting Israel, except for Guantanamo, the question becomes: what part of the War on Terrorism are you for? Maybe you were for it for a while, during the Afghanistan campaign. Now, maybe you’re against it. Just be honest.
The Democrats lambast Bush for not getting more allies on board. That’s a good start, but it doesn’t go far enough. They should also lambast France and Germany for poisoning the US’s attempt to get more allies aboard.
Howard Dean is poised to take over the Democratic Party. It’s not looking good for 2004.
Ted Rall now endorses Howard Dean for President. (*) (†)
Ted Rall is the coldblooded malignancy responsible for literary atrocities such as the mocking of 9/11 widows and the cheering on of our terrorist foes. (‡)
Who Knew? has more. (§)
Updated: 26 November 2003. Title changed. Major changes. Thank you to reader HackmcHackery.
Robert Bass does a nice job of attacking the philosophy of Ayn Rand and libertarianism, saying it is derived from egoism. (*)
Michele of A Small Victory asks:
Why do people on the far left - most notably the Indymedia and DU [Democratic Underground] crowd - always direct their anger at Bush when there is a terrorist attack somewhere[?]
(*) As I’ve stated before, one of the explanations that fits the best is that there is an active collaboration between some terrorist groups and some hard Left groups. The terrorists provide the muscle, and the Left explains away the terrorism and otherwise handles the information warfare angle of the struggle in the Western theater of conflict. There are two basic forms such a collaboration could take.
First, the two groups could have liaisons or some degree of coordination between their leadership groups. This would constitute coordination or conspiracy. Of course, no evidence of this is known to exist.
Second, and more easily swallowable, some left-wingers may perceive a political advantage in acting as if they were the infowar counterpart of the terrorist groups.
In either case, their actions further the other’s cause. This is the dreaded term “synergy.”
For example, the simultaneity of the Turkey bombings and the raucous antiwar protests is evidence of something. At worst, it would be evidence of the first type of collaboration, because the terrorists and some of the protesters could conceivably have coordinated the bombings and demonstrations. It would be less chilling if it were merely a coincidence.
Much of the Left engages in this self-hating, wretched, misdirected anger, but most of these people are not possibly collaborating. To the extent that their unconstructive, hateful criticism and bile are harmful to the ability of our civilization to defend itself, however, most of these people are acting as dupes for the terrorists.
Brain Fertilizer is helping to put the puzzle of the Left and militant Islamism together. (*) The writer, Nathan, suggests that Al Qaeda is a left-wing organization.
Yet, in Islamic countries Al Qaeda would be a right-wing organization, because they want to pull those countries back to the past.
It is more profitable to say that Al Qaeda and the hard core Left have many ideological similarities, and share many goals. Nathan identifies several of the similarities. The goal they chiefly share is the destruction of Western Civilization.
There are two more data points that indicate that some elements of the hard Left and Islamic militants are possibly engaging in an alliance. The FBI counterterrorism unit is looking closer at antiwar protests. (*) The ACLU says the obvious. These protests seem innocuous. Of course, at no time should the government take away the civil rights of any protester. It is wise, however, to be on the lookout for trouble from these demonstrations. As the Times reports, it may be that terrorists use a protest as a distraction to police while they engage in an attack in another part of the city.
Additionally, the Al Qaeda bombing in Istanbul of the British consulate seemed to be timed to coincide with the Bush London visit, and the London antiwar demonstration. (†) Al Qaeda is exploiting the protesters, using them as dupes. What is more problematic is the possibility that a few protesters could be working hand in glove with Al Qaeda. The protesters handle the message, Al Qaeda provides the muscle.
It will also be of interest to examine the possibility of links between certain media organizations and terrorist groups like Al Qaeda.
I’ve been right before on a related controversial issue. Last year, I took note that Al Qaeda’s bombings in the Autumn of 2002 appeared to indicate a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. (‡) That link has now been borne out as true. Al Qaeda units are actively fighting coalition forces in Iraq. Furthermore, we know more thanks to the secret memo, (§) and other evidence. (**)
This angle continues to develop over time. (††)
This is America talking.
We know there were many Continental Europeans among the crowd in the heart of London when you pulled down the papier-mâché statue of our president today. (*)
We are not tricked into thinking that our close ally, the UK, the country that offered you the privilege of staying as a guest for the weekend, has abandoned us or will abandon us.
We will never abandon our friends. One of our closest friends is Britain.
We are not tricked into thinking you represent most Europeans, either. We will never abandon our friends.
You can knock down our towers and you can pull down that statue, but you shall never topple our determination, our drive, our free will, our destiny.
Dictators build giant statues of themselves and force their subjects to pay them respect.
We do not build giant statues of our presidents, except for a few giant statues of our greatest presidents who are long dead. We do not force anyone to pay them respect.
If you ever took over a country, you would immediately build giant statues of yourselves and force normal people to pay them respect.
There is no equivalence between the Iraqi people, sometimes with the help of a few Americans, pulling down hundreds of statues and defacing thousands of murals of their persecutor, and you pulling down a papier-mâché statue that you made of our president.
Try coming to our country and doing that.
A recent scientific poll found that 71.5% of Iraqis want American troops to stay in their country for a while, compared to 42% last June. (†)
Whatever you are doing, it isn’t working.
We know you are not liberal. We know you are not on our side. We know you are the enemy within the real Europe. You expose more of your true nature every day.
We turn away from you, and press on with the matters at hand.
Photo credit: AP Photo/PA, Sean Dempsey.
The loss of Paul Wellstone, Sheila Wellstone, their daughter Marcia, and five others is still sharply felt. (*) (†) (‡) (§) (**) (††) (‡‡)
The crash occurred last year. A small private plane carrying the Wellstones on a campaign trip crashed in northern Minnesota. The NTSB has released its report of the accident, attributing it to pilot error. (§§)
There are many avoidable fatal crashes in civil aviation every year. Pilot error can often be mitigated by good design of aircraft. (***) Unfortunately, the civilian aerospace industry in the United States is mired in problems, and is on its death bed. What is needed is a national aerospace policy. (†††) A national aerospace policy might not have prevented the Wellstone crash, but it would lead to innovations in civil aviation, and would save many lives in the process.
In response to a question asking about the Iraqis suffering under Saddam Hussein, Gore Vidal replied, according to Prague Blog, “Don’t you think that’s their problem? That’s not your problem and that’s not my problem.” (*)
I can’t help but be reminded of the story of the good Samaritan. (†) Apparently, some progressives believe that idea is obsolete.
Terry Pinder considers the term paleoliberal and finds it wanting, as it paints with too broad a brush. (*)
He also links to an EJ Dionne column that notes that the foreign policy of today’s “liberals” is more conservative than President Bush’s. (†) What could be more paleoliberal than a conservative liberal?
To begin to avoid paleoliberalism, progressives should not only call for the participation of institutions like the United Nations in Iraq, they should also call for the reform of those institutions, as Dionne suggests.
If no one takes up the banner of paleoliberalism then it will not be a recognized name for any political movement. Yet, it will be an accurate description of the inflexible, stodgy types that dominate left-wing politics today.
Paleoliberalism is a paradox in itself. How could liberalism be stuck in the past? Nevertheless, many of today’s establishment figures on the Left are stuck in the 20th century in their thinking and in their practice. What we saw on 9/11 was that the old way was not working any longer. Bush’s foreign policy may not be ideal, but at least it is starting to put American hegemony in service of liberal democracy, as it should be.
There is a grassroots effort to draft Hillary Rodham Clinton for President. (*) They have an online petition. (†)
My impression of her is that she would fight the War on Terrorism fervently. (‡) She supported the Iraq resolution. Her post-war remarks have been moderate, I believe. She represents New York state, and has a rapport with New York City. Furthermore, the wild card is that Chelsea Clinton was a few blocks away from the WTC at the time of the 9/11 attacks. That might mean something or not. Finally, HRC is a strong person who does not easily back down. She has spine.
Update: Michael J. Totten links. (§)
A large group of influential opinionmakers, mostly on the left side of the political spectrum, are out of touch with the country. No one knows how to distinguish them from left-wingers who are still in touch. The out-of-touch liberals just don’t get it. They are, however, underappreciated. No one knows quite who they are or quite what they stand for. What they desperately need is a name. The term paleoliberalism is appropriate, as it contrasts with the hated “neoliberalism.”
The word “paleo-” used in English is a learned borrowing from Greek “palaio” meaning “old.”
A.S. Sundar, etymologist. (*)
The word paleoconservative usually refers to the hard right-wing. (†) The Pat Buchanan type of conservative, who opposes foreign entanglements, is most often associated with paleoconservatism. (‡) It is fitting, then, that the isolationists on the hard left would share their prefix.
Paleoliberalism is liberalism that is inflexible, old, and stubborn. (§) Paleoliberalism is yesterday’s banners and chants arrayed against today’s issues. In essence, it is illiberal. It’s like an old, worn out pair of shoes with gaping cracks in the soles and a terrible stink. They’re all right as long as you don’t look down.
Paleoliberals are for the War on Terrorism, but with exceptions. Over time, with the exceptions including everything from Iraq to Iran to Syria to the Patriot Act, there appears to be little in the War on Terrorism that they are actually for.
Paleoliberals do not see anything wrong with cheering or applauding or booing at a memorial service, as long as the funereal setting of the memorial service is for a fallen Senator with whom they agreed.
Paleoliberals are for gay marriage, not because gay marriage would help gay people or the institution of marriage, but because they believe marriage is not particularly important.
Paleoliberals rightly decry legislation to outlaw “partial birth abortion,” and also rightly decry the false rhetoric that has obscured what is in that legislation. They shy away from presenting the public with the actual scientific facts, preferring to trust in popular ignorance and the court system.
Paleoliberals rightly believe that education and social services are underfunded in the US, and suggest that fully funding them is the only solution required.
Paleoliberals want Trent Lott run out of office for a “gotcha” moment, and want Howard Dean elected in spite of his Confederate flag “gotcha.”
Paleoliberals want to allow any number of illegal immigrants to come to the United States without being inconvenienced by law enforcement, and want no part in reforming the immigration services so that legal immigrants will be treated courteously and respectful of their need for convenience as they enter the country.
Paleoliberals want to give everyone in America free health care, and want no questions on how that might reduce quality of service or innovations in new medical techniques, research, or treatments.
Paleoliberals demand that NATO, the UN, “our friend” France, and perhaps also the EU take over for our responsibilities in Iraq, and dodge the thought that all of them attempted to stop the US–led coalition from liberating Iraq in the first place.
Paleoliberals demand that the US deal harshly with Saudi Arabia, and try to avoid mentioning that the US would not even be in a strategic position to possibly deal harshly with Saudi Arabia if we still required the use of Saudi airfields for the southern no-fly zone with which to erect the preferred paleoliberal strategy, the containment of Saddam Hussein.
Paleoliberals believe that Harry Truman has a greater claim to winning the Cold War than does Ronald Reagan.
Paleoliberals are not distressed that outgoing California governor Gray Davis has hired shredding contractors for his official papers rather than transportation contractors to cart them to a historical archive. The appearance of corruption is okay so long as he’s one of them.
Paleoliberals are against anti-Semitism and for anti-Zionism.
Paleoliberals really, deeply believe that George W. Bush is stupid, no matter how many times he outsmarts them. Not exactly a positive self-image.
Paleoliberals give conservatives no credit for their policy ideas, even for the policy ideas that have proven track records, such as welfare reform and the “broken windows” theory of community policing.
Paleoliberals do not think that any of the following are particularly important: leadership, courage, honor, religion, civilization, culture, tradition, responsibility, the English language, or history.
Paleoliberals rightly deny that on the basis of the impeachment articles Bill Clinton should not have been impeached, and go on to criticize Clinton more heavily for the political price he incurred for “their side” than for his misdeeds.
Paleoliberals deeply believe that the media as a whole has a sharply conservative bias. Either the BBC or NPR are the best alternative, but even the BBC and NPR are somehow tilted to the right-wing.
Paleoliberals embrace the spirit of free thinking and openmindedness, except when their own beliefs are challenged.
Paleoliberals are for all kinds of diversity on college campuses—racial, ethnic, sexual orientation, national origin, religious—just not political diversity.
Paleoliberals disbelieve in the existence of evil. They firmly believe that if the two sides in a war would just take a moment to understand one another, there would be peace. There is no possibility that the 9/11 terrorists, for example, were in fact “evil.”
Paleoliberals think that the symbol is more important than the substance. Thus, it doesn’t matter what actually happens in Iraq. What really matters is what it represents.
Paleoliberals will vote for the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, no matter who it is.
Paleoliberals insist that they are as patriotic as anyone else, not in spite of their desire to change American society from top to bottom, but because of that desire.
Update: Thank you to Michael J. Totten for the link. (**) Much appreciated. There is interesting commentary available on his site.
(more…)
Unfortunately, the antiwar line on Iraq has become the liberal Democratic Party line.
Liberal Democrats say that the US military is the most powerful and effective military in the world, and we should keep it that way.
Liberal Democrats say that the military situation in Iraq is very difficult.
Liberal Democrats say that the US military should partially pull out of Iraq in favor of international peacekeepers. This varies from complete withdrawal to partial withdrawal.
Analysis: If the US military is the most powerful and effective force in the world, and the US military is facing a difficult time in Iraq, why should we reduce the number of US troops in Iraq in favor of inferior international forces? What good would that do? Do liberal Democrats actually assume that, if confronted by a more international coalition, and thus inferior fighting troops, the terrorists in Iraq would suddenly throw down their guns and bombs out of humane compassion?
Liberal Democrats say that the US should change course and replace some or all US troops with international forces.
Analysis: Would it not be better to bolster the number of Iraqi security forces in Iraq? Iraqi is, after all, the country of the Iraqi people. The current plan of the US-led coalition is to beef up Iraqi security forces to a point of stability where US forces can begin withdrawal, some years from now.
Antonio Gramsci now has the notice of many conservatives. (*)
Gramsci (”Grom Shee”) was an Italian communist who resisted Mussolini. He was a prolific writer. Some of his principal works have been translated into English and published as Selections from Prison Notebooks. (†)
(Special note: Readers of the book beware. Throughout that book, various sections are introduced by an unnamed author who was not Gramsci. For example, pages 44–51 of the book are not written by Gramsci, but by someone else. This makes the book quite treacherous to read.
Gramsci’s big idea was that communism and socialism would succeed not with a Bolshevik-style revolution or a storming of the Winter Palace, but through a long and arduous process of taking over and transforming the many parts of civil society—from schools to churches to non-profit organizations to governmental agencies—to eliminate capitalism and eventually install full, totalitarian communism. Many left-wingers have knowingly and unknowingly subscribed to this basic project of slowly communizing society from within its institutions.
Now that conservatives have uncovered what is going on, however, the Gramscian project will be challenged.
Update: 18 November 2003. No irony is intended. Furthermore, some have become concerned that I am impugning all left-wingers with this post. I am not. I know for a fact that this strategy does exist among many left-wingers, however. Of course, they could not admit to it in public.
Firas Al-Atraqchi is a militant Islamist openly encouraging the antiwar Left to take bolder action in the fight against its own civilization. (*) This is evidence of what may be a growing collusion between the militant Islamists and the Western Left.
Unfortunately, the Democratic candidates for president all suck. Although John Kerry voted for the Iraq war, he strongly opposed the absolutely mandatory $87 billion needed to sustain our efforts there. Dick Gephardt supported both the war and the additional money, but he wants to give $200 billion to corportations so they can pay for health insurance regardless of whether they are already paying for it. Gephardt may be a good candidate, but he does not yet strike me that way. He has not yet earned my trust. I would support Joseph Lieberman, but, quite frankly, it is simply not the right time for a Jewish President. We are still in the early stages of fighting the war on militant Islamism. Lieberman has not shown how he could be a credible actor on the world stage. Wesley Clark started out strong, but now he appears to be winging it. Trying to blame Bush for 9/11 was a crystal clear sign of Clark’s political unseriousness. John Edwards has the curse of eternal youthfulness. He is a 50 going on 25. Edwards seems obsessed with demolishing the Patriot Act while letting the Iranian regime off the hook. Has he read a newspaper lately? We’re fighting a war.
I would seriously consider voting for Hillary Rodham Clinton. Yes. Her. She would prosecute the War on Terrorism like a hellcat. Her only problem is electability, but the more I think about it, the more I like it.
Run, Hillary, run.
Lately, liberalism has had its reputation smeared in the dirt for rationalizing 9/11 and terrorism generally, and failing to come to the defense of its countries and civilization in time of peril.
For my patriotic and virtuous stands, I have been kicked out and ostracized from various left-wing groups. Yet, I am still left-wing, a progressive. Here is an unorganized list of some beliefs of mine that qualify as progressive.
I could go on.
Brian C. Anderson writes that Fox News, South Park, Dennis Miller, the Drudge Report, the blogs, and conservative book publishing are winning the culture wars for the right wing. (*)
It’s a good article, but Anderson misses one large point. The right wing is winning on economic and foreign policy issues, but it’s losing badly on social issues.