Wednesday, October 06, 2004

The liberal case for GW

Michael Totten perfectly illustrates a point I hit on in an earlier post, in his article "The Liberal Case for Bush" on Tech Central Station.

I had written "Nevertheless, I am always interested to hear supposed “liberals” talk about how we shouldn’t be spreading democracy, openness and tolerance to the Middle East." It amazes me how the self-described liberals of academia can be so fervently against the liberal Iraq war. I just want to point at them and say, "you sir, are no liberal."

One of the main reasons that many so-called liberals say they are against the immensely liberal endeavor of bringing freedom to the Middle East is that it will make other countries hate us and destabilize the region. Of course the people already hate us, and destabilization of tyrannies is a good thing, not a bad thing. Michael Totten writes in his conclusion to his excellent article:
And let us be against stability. For now anyway. The Middle Eastern political slum is a diabolical thing that has killed millions of people already. Some were killed in trenches, some in their homes. Some were killed in battle, others in mass graves, industrial shredders, and dungeons. Some were killed in secret, others on video. Some were killed in New York. Others were killed in Jerusalem and Buenos Aires, in Bali and Bombay. In Nairobi and Istanbul and Madrid, in Pennsylvania and Washington.

And these people died during a state of "stability." After reading Paul Berman's "Terror and Liberalism" and watching the conversion of many self-described liberals to support of Bush, such as Roger L. Simon, Charles Johnson, and Christopher Hitchens (and Hitch was formerly of the Howard Zinn/Andrew Cockburn school of Leftism), it is clear that the liberal mantle is one that has passed on to the right, while the "liberals" of today are reactionary and, in fact, profoundly illiberal.


Post a Comment

<< Home