Why the Left has lost credibility.
 

This is a rather long read from the National Review that I thought stated very well what I feel is wrong with the Democratic Party and the left in general.

I know that not everyone left of center fails to address these things and that sweeping generalizations are always suspect, but I definitely felt agreement, especially when the author talks about Hollywood elitism.

(And note that if all you can do is criticize the source and not address the points, please don't bother.)
---------------------------------------------------

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson...0412170839.asp

December 17, 2004, 8:39 a.m.

Cracked Icons
Why the Left has lost credibility.

by Victor Davis Hanson

There is much talk of post-election reorganization and rethinking among demoralized liberals, especially in matters of foreign policy. They could start by accepting that the demise of many of their cherished beliefs and institutions was not the fault of others. More often, the problems are fundamental flaws in their own thinking — such as the ends of good intentions justifying the means of expediency and untruth, and forced equality being a higher moral good than individual liberty and freedom. Whether we call such notions “political correctness” or “progressivism,” the practice of privileging race, class, and gender over basic ethical considerations has earned the moralists of the Left not merely hypocrisy, but virtual incoherence.


Democratic leaders are never going to be trusted in matters of foreign policy unless they can convince Americans that they once more believe in American exceptionalism and are the proper co-custodians of values such as freedom and individual liberty. If in the 1950s rightists were criticized as cynical Cold Warriors who never met a right-wing thug they wouldn’t support, as long as he mouthed a few anti-Soviet platitudes, then in the last two decades almost any thug from Latin America to the Middle East who professed concern for “the people” — from Castro and the Noriega Brothers to Yasser Arafat and the Iranian mullahs — was likely to earn a pass from the American and European cultural elite and media. To regain credibility, the Left must start to apply the same standard of moral outrage to a number of its favorite causes that it does to the United States government, the corporations, and the Christian Right. Here are a few places to start.

1. There really isn’t a phenomenon like “Islamophobia” — at least no more than there was a “Germanophobia” in hating Hitler or “Russophobia” in detesting Stalinism. Any unfairness or rudeness that accrues from the “security profiling” of Middle Eastern young males is dwarfed by efforts of Islamic fascists themselves — here in the U.S., in the U.K., the Netherlands, France, Turkey, and Israel — to murder Westerners and blow up civilians. The real danger to thousands of innocents is not an occasional evangelical zealot or uncouth politician spouting off about Islam, but the deliberately orchestrated and very sick anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism that floods the airways worldwide, emanating from Iran, Lebanon, and Syria, to be sure, but also from our erstwhile “allies” in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.

So both here and abroad, the Western public believes that there is a double standard in the moral judgment of our left-leaning media, universities, and politicians — that we are not to supposed to ask how Christians are treated in Muslim societies, only how free Islamists in Western mosques are to damn their hosts; or that we are to think beheading, suicide murdering, and car bombing moral equivalents to the sexual humiliation and roguery of Abu Ghraib — apparently because the former involves post-colonial victims and the latter privileged, exploitive Americans. Most sane people, however, privately disagree, and distinguish between a civilian’s head rolling on the ground and a snap shot of an American guard pointing at the genitalia of her terrorist ward.

Moreover, few of any note in the Arab Middle East speak out against the racial hatred of Jews. Almost no major Islamic religious figure castigates extreme Muslim clerics for their Dark-age misogyny, anti-Semitism, and venom against the West; and no Arab government admonishes its citizenry to look to itself for solutions rather than falling prey to conspiracy theories and ago-old superstitions. It would be as if the a state-subsidized Ku Klux Klan or the American Nazi party were to be tolerated for purportedly voicing the frustrations of poor working-class whites who “suffered” under a number of supposed grievances.

What is preached in the madrassas on the West Bank, in Pakistan, and throughout the Gulf is no different from the Nazi doctrine of racial hatred. What has changed, of course, is that unlike our grandfathers, we have lost the courage to speak out against it. In one of the strangest political transformations of our age, the fascist Islamic Right has grafted its cause onto that of the Left’s boutique “multiculturalism,” hoping to earn a pass for its hate by posing as the “other” and reaping the benefits of liberal guilt due to purported victimization. By any empirical standard, what various Palestinian cliques have done on the West Bank — suicide murdering, lynching without trial of their own people, teaching small children to hate and kill Jews — should have earned them all Hitlerian sobriquets rather than U.N. praise.

2. “Imperialism” and “hegemony” explain nothing about recent American intervention abroad — not when dictators such as Noriega, Milosevic, the Taliban, and Saddam Hussein were taken out by the U.S. military. There are no shahs and Your Excellencies in their places, but rather consensual governments whose only sin was that they came on the heels of American arms rather than U.N. collective snoozing. There really was no secret Afghan pipeline behind toppling the Taliban, nor a French-like oil concession to be had for the United States from the new Iraqi interim government. Many of Michael Moore’s heroic “Minutemen” of the Sunni Triangle are hired killers — hooded fascists in the pay of ex-Baathists and Saddamites, along with Islamic terrorists and jihadists who hate the very idea of democracy in the heart of the Arab world. The collective cursus honorum of these Saddamite holdovers during the last two decades — gassing the Kurds, committing atrocities against the Iranians, looting and pillaging in Kuwait, launching missiles into Israel and Saudi Arabia, slaughtering Shiites and again Kurds, and assassinating Western and U.N. aid workers — rank right up there with the work of the SS and KGB.

Reformers like Allawi and Yawar of Iraq are not “puppets” but far better advocates of democratic reform than anyone else in the Arab world. Nor does “no blood for oil” mean anything when an increasingly small percentage of American-imported petroleum comes from the Gulf, and when an oil-hungry China — without much deference to liberal sensibilities — is driving up the world price, eyeing every well it can for future exploitation without regard for political or environmental niceties.

3. It won’t do any longer to attribute American outrage over the U.N. to a vast right-wing conspiracy led by red-state senators and Fox News. All the standing ovations for Kofi Annan cannot hide the truth that the Oil-for-Food scandal exceeds Enron. Indeed, Ken Lay’s malfeasance never involved the deaths of thousands, while cronies siphoned off food and supplies from a starving populace. The U.S. military does not tolerate mass rape and plunder among its troops, as is true of the U.N. peacekeepers throughout Africa. There can be no serious U.N. moral sense as long as illiberal regimes — a Syria, Iran, or Cuba — vote in the General Assembly and the Security Council stymies solutions out of concern for an autocratic China that swallowed Tibet. Millions were slaughtered in Cambodia, Rwanda, and Darfur while New York bureaucrats either condemned Israel or damned anyone who censured their own inaction and corruption. Rather than faulting those who fault the U.N., leftists should lament the betrayal of the spirit of the liberal U.N. Charter by regimes that are neither democratic nor liberal but who seek legitimacy solely on their ability to win concessions and sympathy from guilt-ridden Westerners.

4. So it is also time to take a hard look at the heroes and villains of Hollywood, liberal Democrats, and the Euro elites. Many are as obsessed with damning the senile dictator of Chile as they are with excusing the unelected President for Life Fidel Castro. But let us be frank. A murderous Pinochet probably killed fewer of his own than did a mass-murdering Castro, and left Chile in better shape than contemporary Cuba is in. And the former is long gone, while the latter is still long in power.

Similarly, Nobel Prizes increasingly go to either unsavory or unhinged characters. Yasser Arafat was a known killer and terrorist, not a global peacemaker. Wangari Maathai’s public statements about AIDS are puerile and ipso facto would have eliminated any Westerner from consideration for anything. Rigoberta Menchu Tum herself was a half-truth, her story mostly a creation of a westernized academic publishing elite. Jimmy Carter’s 2002 award was not predicated on his past work on housing for the poor, but his critically timed and calculated opposition to George W. Bush’s effort to topple Saddam Hussein — as was confirmed by the receptive Nobel Committee itself. Recent winners Kofi Annan and Kim Dae-jung are now better known for having their own sons involved in influence-peddling and bribery while they oversaw bureaucrats who trafficked in millions with unsavory murderers like Kim Jong-Il and Saddam Hussein. In short, such an august prize has come a long way from Mother Teresa and Martin Luther King Jr. — and precisely because it has privileged leftist rhetoric over real morality.

If the moralizing Left wants to be taken seriously, it is going have to become serious about its own moral issues, since that is the professed currency of contemporary liberalism. Otherwise, the spiritual leaders who lecture us all on social justice, poverty, and truth will remain the money-speculator George Soros, the Reverend Jesse Jackson of dubious personal and professional ethics, and the mythographer Michael Moore. And we all know where that leads…

"Many of Michael Moore’s heroic “Minutemen” of the Sunni Triangle are hired killers — hooded fascists in the pay of ex-Baathists and Saddamites, along with Islamic terrorists and jihadists who hate the very idea of democracy in the heart of the Arab world."

"Reformers like Allawi and Yawar of Iraq are not “puppets” but far better advocates of democratic reform than anyone else in the Arab world."

I love the way he talks about hired killers and then in the next paragraph refers glowingly to Allawi; A man who was a hit man for Saddam Hussein. Don't tell me that the installation of Allawi has any real legitimacy, or that he is any better than the Governors of British colonial past.

Republicans-Democrats. Democrats-Republicans. Put them in a bag and shake them all up and you can't tell the difference. There is probably nothing wrong with the Democratic party, at least not in the sense that caused them to loose the election.

People like Victor Davis Hanson and others that think deeply about the issues have already made their minds up. The national election is won or lost by the likeability of the candidate to those voters that don't pay such close attention to the issues.

A guy with the southern charm of say Bill Clinton would have probably won.

By the way, I agree with much of what the article points out as well.

I love how the conservatives try to claim MLK as one of their own in recent years yet they opposed his every move while he lived. Why no mention of his womanizing?

The only reference to MLK I saw was in the context of past Peace Prize winners to current winners, so I don't understand what your comment has to do with the points of the original post.

Are you and Hanson seriously claiming that MLK didn't engage in leftist rhetoric?

Again, I re-read the article and didn't see a "glowing" recommendation, but an acknowledgment that Allawi is a reformer and a better man for the job than many.

He certainly has an interesting past and there are accusations that he worked for the Iraqi secret police in England, but considering that Saddam tried to have him murdered indicates that they weren't buddies.

Also, since when has an installed "colonial governor" criticized the installers? Allawi certainly has had harsh words for us. But then again, the whole imperal/colonism idea is absurd when you look at then and now and compare the facts.

I don't see that it is relevant to the discussion. MLK's peace work stands on it's own without my liking everything the man believed in.

MLK's "real morality" is inseperable from his "leftist rhetoric." All of his "peace work" (marching) was done in support and coordination with his leftist rhetoric. How Hanson is able to differentiate between them is beyond me.

And I would submit that his 'leftist rhetoric' as you put it would have spoken out against the double standard of the current left that Hanson pointed out, which I think was part of the point.

Or are you arguing that the right has no "real morality" by benefit of being to the right?

Did the point get missed Loco, how MLK was actually a man of peace, and yet Yassir Arafat, a terrorist, was able to get an award dedicated to peace?

I don't think this is too small a point to make: 'leftist rhetoric' of the sixties results in MLK getting the Peace Prize whereas 'leftist rhetoric' of the nineties results in Arafat getting the Prize.

This is bullshit and everyone knows it. Any time one side tries to offer its opinion on whats wrong with the other side, it just condescendingly projects all of its anger at the other's opinions. Which clearly happens here.

The left never fucking does this, at least as far as I know. I hope nobody on the left tries to, because it is a stupid activity for anyone to engage in, of either side. The right always seems delighted to pull this bullshit. When I want to know what the National Review thinks, I'll turn on Fox News and pick up my copy of Mein Kampf (thats a joke people). But seriously, I don't care what those wingnuts think, nor does anyone on the left.

Just like Lebell had noted, and asked, all you did was attack the source rather then the points made.

Also your point that the left never does this is just laughable, and at best wrong.

guy44,

After some consideration, I will let your post stand, BUT!

The only anger I've seen so far has been in your post. If you want to address the points or disagree, fine, but I consider your post to be fairly rude and borderline as far as forum rules are concerned.

And I'll post links to all the posts about Bush and the Right that I've seen over the last few months saying what is wrong with them because I've certainly seen them. As to this particular article, you have not addressed a single point before dismissing it out of hand.

It does seem to me, were I a practical political strategist on the left, that I would owe it to the future and viability of my various constituencies to consider just these questions as are raised in the thread starter.

Nah. The best way to combat stupidity is to let stupidity destroy itself.

I have only so far skimmed the article, but portions of it that I read are full of assumptions and heavy-handed distortions. If this is to be considered a valuable critique of the "left", I can only chuckle. It seems the underlying point of the article is that the "left" is somehow hypocritical. As if the "right" is not, and as if it is just this hypocrisy on the part of the "left" that produced the election result. That is nonsense. flstf is correct: the election is based on likability. Substance is ignored and if it is not, it is distorted into lies. The theoretical elimination of hypocrisy by either "side" is not going to change any of that. Particularly when one side is pointing to the other and exclaiming "You're a hypocrite!" It serves no purpose other than to continue to same old rhetoric.

I'm almost suprised you, ARTelevision, would encourage such an article. But then again, I'm not.

Well then, in every other field of competitive endeavor, losing brings with it some sportsmanly acknowledgement of the well-executed tactics of the opposition as well as some critique of the losing side's execution. But hey, if that's not in the cards, then so be it.

In every (most) other fields of competitive endeavor, the people involved have integrity.

But here, we're talking about politicians and professional political pundits - so integrity is not on the table.

Or -

The contest never ends, so there is never a chance for congratulations/analysis of fault. Nov. 3rd was day 1 of the next battle in the everlasting fight for power.

This article is nothing more than a weapon being used to attack the enemy.

I'll attack a point. "There is no islamaphobia in america"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141915,00.html

Maybe there is something to that Rekna. Not saying restricting civil liberties is the answer, but there is definitly something to notion that Islam is becoming a problem in the world at large.

good post lebell. i'm don't encourage those cheesy internet challenges where one side posts something and challenges the other side to refute them (not that you offered such a thing, just saying i won't add one to the discussion)... but i must say that the responses so far haven't dismantled the article's points in the least.

That is sad, you don't know what Islam is about if you believe that it is the problem. I know many muslims that are wonderful people and are just as good as the best Christians. The problem is with extreamists of any kind. Extreamists who are intollerent of other people are the source of the problem, people who say you are with us or against us.

Islam has existed for 1400 years - it in its first 400 years cared little of the outside world and rarely came in contact with it.

It has existed as a major religion but the problem of radicals is true in every society since the dawn of organized societies (and even before).

And I am not surprised America would have a large population of people who have an "islamaphobia" - given that America is heavily Christian, and given the history of antagonization between the two (its almost a tradition honestly), it is not surprising.

I don't know what Islam is about?

Let's look at it this way, best case scenario the religion, one of the worlds biggest as well as fastest growing, has been hijacked by radicals.

Look at Sharian rule. Sudan, a country ran by religious leaders, as we all know who are running genocide on the Christians and animists of the south. Worlds largest and most active slave trade. Millions of casulties.

Saudia Arabia. A country ran by the most radical and violent brand of Islam, Wahabism. A country that is one of the biggest supporters of terrorism ala Palestine. A country were it's 22 million citizens are forcefully indoctrinated with one major tenet, death, death to Israel, death to America, death to the West. A country that along with Egypt has given birth to the most current state of Islamofacism. A country that exports it's brand of Islam, wahabism, as one of the biggest growing schools of Muslim thought in the West.

Iran. A revolution of the people put these despot Mullahs in power. No free elections, and wow another striking coincidence, another exporter of state funded and backed terrorism. A country that illegally is trying to acquire nuclear arms, upon resolution of their congress, to chants of Death to America.

Pakistan. Although it is an authoritarian Military dictatorship, is a country run by radicals. Material support of terrorism is common place here whether it is in Kashmir, domestic were churches are bombed, or through support for Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the Pushtun regions.

This is no longer a coincidence. It's out there in black and white, there is a clash of civilizations. I would like to believe that it is only by radicals, but the people of Islam aren't giving me much to work with as far as hope goes.

In it's first 400 years cared little for the outside world? The Battle of Tours would tend to prove that statement completely wrong.

I love how your examples of the worst cases of islam involve a couple of our greatest allies.

Let's just put all the muslims in concentration camps. Let's actually outlaw Islam and attack all the countries in the world until Islam is dead.

You obviously have made your decision on Islam based on a vocal minority.

First off, the examples aren't worst case, they are common place. And I'm the first to admit that the US is definitly in bed with the wrong people.

And I have made my decision, I don't believe it to be based on the vocal minority. The silent majority hasn't given me anything to work with, and as the saying goes, all evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

Slaves have existed in human society for thousands of years, long before even Islam was founded. Genocide has been a part of society for a long time as well. Remember Christians persecuted by Romans? Muslims have ruled over North Africa for over 1400 years and this genocide is new in that scope.
Good to see the U.S. supports them though. But the generalizations are funny - leave Minnesota and go visit Saudi Arabia please. Or take some courses in history on that area and its people - oh and good job continuing the use of the term Islamofacism. Fascinating how one poster can influence us with a made-up term and never post again for nearly a year and its still in use.

Won't disagree here - they've been a long problem. But part of their problem is the people who put those religious extremists in power was because they led the fight against the Shah of Iran - a western leader. What was their cry? Kick the foreigners out. One thing leads to another..

Terrorist or guerillas? The fighting over Kashmir has long occured after the British left their colonies there. It has long been a hotly debated territory - a nation that doens't use its military officially to fight may defenitely fund freedom fighters.

Did you agree with the U.S. funding weapons / sending aid to anti-communist forces during the Cold War? If yes then you can see what Pakistan is doing - sending forces to aid people fighting their enemy without officially getting involved. How this has to do with Muslims is beyond me when India has been involved there as well.

The same could be said by Muslims on Christians - indeed, if you flip it backwards, it would be "I would like to believe that it is only by radicals, but the people of Christianity aren't giving me much to work with as far as hope goes" Hell even people can say that today who aren't Muslim and are Christian themselves and don't agree with their thoughts.

What has the average white Christian in America done to fix other people's views? Probably not much. The same can be said of our view of the of the average Muslim

Wrong.

The Battle of Tours stopped the Muslim invasion of Europe, that is true - that was their westernmost expansion.

However the notion that it was a large encirclment of Europe is false.

Indeed, once the the first Islamic Empire (the Umayyad Caliphate) reached its highest peak, it had little if any communication with the outside world.

The Muslims were the MINORITY in the first 500 years - indeed, Nestorian Christians, pagans, Zoroastrians were often the majority of people. Arab Muslims were the ruling elite though.

Look at texts of that time in the Middle East - scholars and scribes rarely if ever mentioned the outside world. The caliphs rarely had any dealings with the outside world or bothered with it.

And the fact that the article you quote (with no link I might add) talks about ending Christianity makes me laugh.

Muslims were the most tolerant of other religions of people. They NEVER forced conversion on anyone.

Their backlash against Christians came from the Mongol invasions but I wont go into that unless you want me to.

They have existed, but that point is both ridiculous and moot. The current slave trade is sanctioned and allowed by the Sharian rulers. But I suppose since this genocide is new in scope, that over 2 million people have died as a result of this, that it is ok.

Why would I want to leave my home to go to a land where I would get thrown in Jail, with the possiblity of corperal punishment for being Christian?

As far as your ridiculous comments about Christians not giving anything to work with, what does that have to do with anything? I don't recall there being a "jihad" called out from Christianity calling for death to the East and all the non-believers. I don't recall there being acts of terrorism perpetuated by Christians, or in the name of christianity almost daily, can't say the samething for Islam.

First I think you are drastically understating the scope and magnitude of the Battle. It is regarded by historians as one of the most important battles in the history of man. Furthermore the point I was making was that the battle took place within a hundred years of the inception of Islam.

I never put one word saying it was okay. But thanks for putting that into my mouth. But what do you say to other genocides in the rest of Africa? Rwanda? When the Niger river flowed red with decapitated bodies, Muslim rulers weren't the thing - hell, in many African nations, Islam isn't even the preferential religion.

Hm, and yet you claim to know much of Islam when you believe you simply being there will throw you in jail.

I suppose all our businessmen should get the fuck out right now.. oh wait, they're in jail.

Crusades anyone?

When Crusaders took Jerusalem, they killed Muslim inhabitants. When the Mongols took Baghdad, the Nestorian Christians and Shi'a Muslims were spared (due in part to many Mongols being Nestorian Christians and collaboratoin from Shi'a) while the Sunni population was massacred over a period of days.

That still doesn't prove that the Muslims set out with the notion of destroying Christianity - indeed that article gives absolutely no evidence for that and instead just puts it out as a fact. That is incorrect in the first place and there has been no evidence in text or scrolls of that period that say "hey, go kill them all." No, there isn't.

The Battle of Tours is a big thing for Western Christians of course but has been controversial - historians have never had a concensus in anyway of saying that it is significant. Indeed, its a hot topic and both Christian and Muslim scholars have taken both sides.

The battle took place within a hundred years of the inception of Islam - so what? Islam itself had to fight to survive. Muhammad and his followers at Medina had to face the armies of Mecca but eventually won out. His death started the Ridda wars where traitorous clans fought with Abu Bakr (the first caliph).

Indeed, there were MANY fitnas (civil wars) in the first 400 years of Islam - more fighting was done among foes, tribes, and territories in the Caliphate (Umayyad to Abassid) than attacks on Christian lands. The rewards in booty simply were greater than costs.

I fail to see any bearing or context that military campaigns dating back a milenia have on our current situation. I like how you try to implement it though as a means of discrediting Christianity, which again has no bearing on this particular discussion.

Getting back to the thread, what do I say in regards to other African genocides? Well I think the original article did an adequate enough job to show the hypocrisy that is the UN. I personally would have no qualms going into Rwanda, or Somalia (oh another country greatly related to Sudan/Al Qaeda/OBL and Islamic terrorism) or Sudan and cracking some skulls.

For the record I never wished to incinuate that Muslims at Tours had set out to destroy Christianity. But the fact remains had they won out, the world would be a drastically different place and neither myself nor you nor anyone here would exist.

Hmm why sudden abandon a position? You began it, I put the facts, and now you want to talk about something else? You began to bring in Islam into this, not me.

This is better suited for another thread anyways so that is that before thread is hijacked.

So long as you are willing to pay the price and possible problems in the future, be my guest. The U.S. hasn't tried to go involve itself in those issues when it has other problems...

Of course every country will clammor for the "good" position but implementing what they do, of course, isn't always there.

No, acutally I would, because my roots are traced to some province in China probably :D

And I dont think you are - im just stating what the article stated. That they were set out to destroy Christianity which I find absolutely ludicrous given that the evidence points otherwise.

As for the world being a different place.. history doesn't prevent alternatives unfortunately so I cannot predict what the world would be like and I dont think you can either. If another general rose up later and drove them out, we could live in the same world, we could still be different. Who knows what would've happened because it simply hasn't.

The line "A Moslem army, in a crusading search for land and the end of Christianity..." makes me cringe which is what I'm pointing out. Sorry if it sounded like I was going after you, it was more the article and that you didn't provide a link to your source, which makes me question the motive of its writer.

http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/file...ArabEmpire.jpg

That's a map of Muslim Expansion up until 750. At the end of 661, they had taken the lands of Egypt, Syria, and Persia, controlling major trade routes to establish themselves as an economic power in the land. To say they weren't "interested" in the outside world is rather factually inaccurate. You can't control a major portion of the Silk Road and not be interested in the outside world. Also, the Muslims were continually obsessed with sacking Byzantium after the Crusades had ended and finally did conquer it sometime in the late Fifteenth Century (I can't remember the exact date). To say that the Muslims were just kinda sitting there when the bad ol' Christians who eat babies came along and tried to destroy their lives and the Muslims heroically made a stand and sent the Christians packing is again factually inaccurate. Yes, there were atrocities committed, but they were committed on BOTH sides, because the nature of warfare then was brutal and savage. They threw diseased cows at each other for cryin' out loud! The only thing that makes the Crusades such an anomaly is the fact that Pope Urban II usurped the power of the state when he called for the protection of the Holy Lands. The Byzantine Empire was seriously considering invading lands held by the Muslims in clode proximity to their own lands. The Merovingians were thinking the same thing (or was it the Carolingians at the time.... let's see here, Martel was in power at the Battle of Tours, so it was the Merovingians).

Mojo if you are Christian you may want to pay more attention to what Jesus said in Matthew 5: 43-48

The article is spot on. I think there will be a paradigm shift in the way the Left will need to view foreign policy from now on. The illusions of 9/10 are gone, and have proven a detriment to winning a presidential election. Instead of instilling terror, the terrorists have succeeding only in angering and emboldening the Americans. The Left has nowhere to hide now; they must also pick up their swords and join the fight if they ever want to wield power in a post 9/11 America.

Once this is realized, the Left will have the potential to dominate the American political scene. Bush's unilateralism, his 'with us or against us' doctrine will be seen as a detriment to the Right, and the Left will be perfectly positioned to create a world alliance against global terrorism, IF the Right chooses to maintain a unilateral approach. Out of political necessity, the Left will be reborn, with a spine. Thanks to the terrorists, the American Left could formulate the new post 9/11 intellectual effort in uniting - not just America - but the world, against fundamentalism.

This is all assuming that the Left is capable of learning from their mistakes.

I strongly disagree with the thing about having no “Islamophobia” ...in the article it talks about germanophobic and such...the thing is we were curtailing a groups civil liberties....the japanese internment is a good example...we forced them to sell their stuff and move to crappy half built towns because we believed that they were "traitors" A lot of anti-asian feelings surfaced around this time too and people did not limit themselves to the Japanese.

as for rusophobia...what would you call Mcarthyism and the HUAC hearings were all about?

This has happened in the past and to prevent such a thing from happening again constant vigilance is needed.

Also, why does he make the comparison to how christians are treated abroad...Yes it isn't nice, yes it should be stopped, but that should have no bearing on how we treat muslims in America. He keeps trying to paint all of islam with the small minority of crazies in my opinion. The ones I have known have been religous and peaceful people.

My sincere thanks to those who actually took the time to address the points of the article.

I agree that there is a certain amount of Islamophobia in the United States at this point and I would further say that it does motivate people to attempt to pass laws and rules that are blatantly unconstitutional.

Heh, realized I spent my entire post on Islamic, Byzantine, and Merovingian/Carolingian Empire history.... (sorry guys, I took my Western Civ Final today, I was in that sort of mood). Anyways, I think it goes without saying that I agree with a lot of what the article has to say, (National Review is on my favorites list). I do disagree with the "there's no islamophobia..." thing, that's not true, because there's always going to be a fear of things we don't understand, and there are people that over-react. The fact does remain that the left has been losing ground since 1994 (not that I'm complaining, I actually work to continue that :thumbsup:, yeah, that's right, official card carrying member of the vast right wing conspiracy) anywho... I am completely baffled by the Democrats insistence to go with a major left wing guy when most of America is centrist. The Democrats were BRILLIANT when they nominated Bill Clinton, I mean, I disagree with the guy and what he did, but he made serious inroads in Republican strongholds and I'm not so party blind as to say something wasn't a great political move when it was. I would actually like to meet Bill Clinton to pick his brain about winning elections and such, because he's got it figured out, and he's a brilliant politician, I am in awe of his political prowess. He made you feel like he cared about YOU, he had compassion one on one and was able to connect with you, which is some of what Dubya has. Just look at some of the photos of him with 9/11 Victims Family Members, you can see the passion in his face and you can probably even discern a tear. He got choked up when he was talking about the soldiers in his convention speech. Choosing an aloof candidate is not the way to win, I thought this was learned with Bob Dole, Al Gore, Walter Mondale, Gerald Ford, etc. The Democrats just don't seem to have the ability to nominate someone who can at least act like they care (yeah, they've got Obama, but he is unelectable, there are still too many people who will vote against him because he's black, I wouldn't, but not because he's black, but because I disagree with his social policies, then again, I'm one of the few Americans who actually LIKES politics and pays attention). Anyways, until the Democrats can find someone who has a pulse they won't win an election where a lot of things like the economy are non-factors for most Americans.

I've actually heard disappointingly little post-election talk of reorganization from the Left, absolutely nothing regarding rethinking matters of foreign policy. I have seen a great deal of advice from rightwing sources, such as this very article, attempting to sabotage future political endevour from the Democrats. As if the Right actually has a vested interest in making the Left more successful, please.
Here Hanson is setting himself up as a priest figure ready to hear a tear-drenched mea culpa from soon to be reformed Leftists. His accusations here range from the vague "forced equality" to the utterly meaningless "expediency." "Good intentions" are not an "end." The one organization which has done more than any other to ensure individual liberty and freedom in civil America is the ACLU. The ACLU is a non-partisan organization but it's supporters are overwhelmingly leftist.
Hanson fails to mention a single example of a "basic ethical consideration" that has been brushed aside by the left. This is most likely because the phrase is vague, holding no meaning. Hypocrisy requires an expressed belief, something Hanson has not accurately defined from the left, and a failure to act on that belief, again something Hanson doesn't provide examples of. I would accept "virtual incoherence" from a political body any day over the actual incoherance of Hanson's prose.
"Exceptionalism" is another term with such a wide range of possible meaning that it becomes meaningless without further definition. It could apply to the uniqueness which every nation posesses or a Falwellesque belief in the holy righteousness of America bestowed by a higher power. Every nation has the right to believe they are God's chosen people, none of them are. Again Hanson claims the left has abandoned "freedom and individual liberty" without any examples. I'm guessing by "freedom and individual liberty" he's not referring to the right of a woman to abort her pregnancy, the freedom to grow one's own medical marijuana, the freedom to speak out against Republican leaders, or the freedom to marry someone of the same gender.
Were 50s rightists accused of this? Or is Hanson just providing this exaggerated untruth to cover up the stench of the unmitigated bullshit he is about to spew?
This is stated as cause and effect logic (If--Then) which it clearly is not. So the statement is rhetorically false, what about the substance of the statment? Yes there are Castro sympathizers on the left just as there are Hitler apologists on the right (I've spoken to more than one). I've never heard or read anything from a leftist source that would indicate sympathy for Iranian mullahs. I have no idea who Hanson is referring to by "the Noriega Brothers," google returns a mixed bag of hits--mostly music related. Surely he couldn't be making reference to the CIA-GHWBush lovechild Manuel Noriega could he? Arafat did condone terrorist tatics both before and after he was invited to Camp David for peace talks, the ultimate failure of which cannot solely be placed on his shoulders. To say that any of these people earned something as vague as a "pass" from the unquestionably leftist "American and European cultural elite and media" is patentedly false.
What about Oliver Stone's fauning biopic on Castro, surely something like that would be universally embraced by the left who long ago gave Castro a "pass." You wouldn't expect such a film to be lambasted by leftist Salon, attacked by leftist reviewers, or indefinitely postponed by HBO. It seems that the Left does tend to apply the same critical standards to it's supposed pet causes, but Hanson chooses to remain ignorant of that fact.

Have you had enough or shall I continue?

talk about a threadjack. The only people posting about the article are the ones who agree. The only ones that spoke up against could only trash the sources of the points, not the points themselves. What happened to all of you left-fielders that disagree with it? I know there's a lot of you, are where are you??

I was waiting for a post like this to come along, and I had this great rant about the UN, but then my session timed out when I tried to post it and it was lost, but it was a threadjack as well, so I guess I'll save my rant for later, the time will come. great article labell.

ahh--you beat me to it locobot, way to step up. I'll read your post later...time for bed.

Let me start off by saying that it is just a little silly to treat a nebulous and diverse group such as "the left" as one entity. Right off we veer into lala land where the millions of people that subscribe to the same "non-rightist" philosophy are all mass murder apologists.

This is an article first and foremost about the p.r. problems surrounding the group ascribed the ideals associated with lefthood. If you doubt that, just notice that in order to contrast the left from the right, the author must make a distinction between harmfull despots(castro) and benign despots(pinochet, "c'mon he's senile, let's pity him"), between small potatoes financial scandal(enron) and big-time scandal(un oil for food). The gist seems to be that there is nothing wrong with allying yourself with despots, nor supporting scandalous figures, the problem is when you support the wrong ones. The left, as far as inconsistent nebulous entities go, support the wrong evil people.

Let me be clear, i don't care about the "left" any more than i care about the "center" or the "right". As far as i'm concerned such terms are very vague descriptors employed by many a pundit seeking to engage in intellectual dishonesty.

the article at the beginning of the thread operates at the usual tiny wattage of a national review op ed piece:

why would anyone on the left allow these people to frame the political situation, frame the understanding of that situation?

even if this "analysis" was at some remote level correct--which it is not--from premise to conclusion, there is no there there--these are the last people who are in a position to suggest anything constructive about the left---to the 49% of the americna population that the n.r.. would understand as "left" because they voted for kerry. i do not understand what purpose it serves to pretend that the national review is other than it is: a mediocre rightwing rag whose readership is consistent with its politics--so the first problem is that the article is not directed at "the left" it is not and cannot be addressed to "the left"--it is addressed to conservatives. you have to accept the articles frame of reference for it to be other than laughable, and that frame of reference is conservative.

it seems that the right-dominated medai apparatus--you know the one that serves a necessary function for conservatvies as a source of persecution---has taken to repeating the statement--which is nothing more than a statement--that the last election demonstrated some kin of "credibility problem" for the left. i assumed from the outset these claims meant nothing, and reading the article at the start of the thread changed nothing.
what credibility problemj, really?
the national review supports an administration that has, to name only the most obvious example, lied to a country about reasons for war, about the nature fo that war once under way----for example--what on earth puts any such magazine (or person) in a position to talk about credibility problems? how is credibility even an issue under the bush regime?

the question of "morality"--which of course conservatives like to pretend they alone and exlcusively define (perhaps with a little input from that voice in your head)--- i am not convinced that "the result" of the last election "proves" anything about the relative importance of this register of discourse in politics. of course the folk at the national review would think otherwsie, since developing such a language for rightwing ends has been their stock in trade for years. the main thing the article leqve out--at it is not in the least surpriring that it would do this--is the way in which the bush administration instrumentalized its "war on terror"--from the sliding color paranoia index, to the incessant declarations about "threats of attack" ad mauseum--which is at the discursive level far more important than christian funamentalist terminology in general, this ludicrous discourse of "morality" in particular.

there is an interersting political fight ongoing about the dominant discourse: the national review is not analyzing it---it is a participant in it

why should anyone take seriously an analysis of the last election that says nothing at all about the ways conservatvie christians have organized into a kind of rightwing machine politics? that's right, this is not an analysis....

the point about "islamophobia"
such argument as there is above comes down to "we're the national review. we're racists. we are proud of it." to justify what admits of no justification, you get the usual torrent of cliches. nothing interesting, nothing important in this argument--nothing new.

it seems like here, as in most places, the national review is just making stuff up.
it starts off with a tough sell--that allawi is not a puppet of the americands--hard to imagine anyone writing that without laughing--and them moves directly into neoconservative delerium. the author is not talking about the actually existing debacle in the actually existing iraq: he is simply channelling wolfowitz. nonsense, all of it.

the bit about the un is without substance or scale. it is, sadly, too typical of the kind of pseudo-analysis that passes for thinking in conservative circles---the apologia for racism, the hallucinations about iraq, the john birch society rant about the un--pretty sad stuff, folks.

and you imagine that credibility problems affect the Left?
look in a mirror.

I am writing this before I have finished reading the thread, but PLEASE do not edit or remove the post you refer to.

It's a very educational example, and needs no explanation to deliver its unintended, but very clear message.

Leftist rhetoric:

"I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

This statement is anathema to today's Democrats.

Note my signature below.

I thought it was a nice article. Personally if someone releases an article about what may be wrong with my beliefs I would be okay with it. It's not like they are trying to change your opinion, just trying to help. If you get offended by information, it's probably only because you are easily swayed or you just aren't that comfortable with your posistion.

In my life the best discussion among opposites starts like

"That's an interesting point of view, but this is how I feel about this...."

rather then

"FUCK YOU RIGHTY(OR LEFTY) YOU DON'T KNOW HOW I FEEL?....blah blah blah"

I simply asked...do you know how you feel also then?

I'm not sure how I feel about what he's written. One thing that's always somewhat troubled me is how the "right" has effectively used the "elite" moniker as a derisive description of anyone on the left who is intelligent and educated enough to disagree with the ideology and policies of conservatism.

I also think he assumes that the majority of conservatives are informed enough of the issues he discusses (support of despots, oil for food, etc.) to have an opinion based in reality while leftists are either ignorant of those same issues or are just looking the other way when those they support commit crimes against their own people. The truth, in my humble and mediocre opinion, is that most people of any political persuasion are mostly ignorant of the complexities of most issues.

Both the left and the right hold an informed citizenry in disdain as it does not allow them to reduce these issues into simplistic sound bites. The terms Hollywood elite, media elite, university elite, et al. are exactly that. The oversimplification of complexities designed to insinuate that those opposed to conservatism are just too damn big for their own britches and don't care about the concerns of the everyman the same way the conservatives do.

The reality is that both parties have their "elite" establisments and institutions that hold the lesser citizens in contempt. This article focused on just one side of the see saw. The same could be said of conservatives using corresponding terms. That is, if they had lost.

I also have a problem with him marginalizing Pinochet although I do believe that at this point he seems quite far gone and then laying the blanket statement that liberals excuse Castro....I don't know anyone that excuses Castro nor do I wish to know. And this is from a guy who was labelled a "damn dirty hippie"(later just "damn hippie") by a professor

I think that alot of the problem is that the media puts too much attention on Moore, Jackson, and Soros more then liberals follow them. The conservatives have a field day on these people, and suceed to make these 3 the "image" of the liberal philosophy, merely because they are easy to attack and ridicule.
I propose we put John Lennon up as our "image" :p (note: it's a joke)

Same thing can be said though about righties all following Jerry Falwell(sp) or so on.

It realy is sensationalism that gets the front page unfortunatly and that means both sides suffer. It's kinda like you don't hear about the normal good things, but if there's one murder in a peaceful town it's breaking news.

I honestly believe though the lefts issue maybe alienation within it's own ranks.

if you are actually interested in what might be happening on "the Left" the national review is the last place you would go to find out about it.

is there anything going on it that piece that does not reduce to a recipe for total capitulation?
what they are really saying is that "the Left" should adopt the dysfunctional, myopic discourse of the right.
that is all it says.
there is nothing of interest in terms of strategy, nothing of interest in terms of analysis in it.
i do not understand why it was taken seriously.

And I do not understand how someone could have intentionally voted for Bush - but I have the feeling these two things are related.

It's self righteous comments like this that are the problem with the democratic party.

I think it's obvious, I intentionally voted for Bush because I am sheep who has been Bushwhacked by Bushworld and his Bushcronies, never mention that Kerry was a turn coat moron whose policies both foreign and domestic were no better then Shrubs at best.

It's the Irony-Meter, Sir! It's been turned up to 11!

Quite obviously, there is little love lost...party affiliation is becoming a matter of deep perceptual differences. Why should either party advise the other? We aren't even seeing the same world.

Because my team won :p

Also I never insulted anyone's intelligence i.e. "I don't see how someone could intentionally vote for Bush..." :rolleyes:

I just insulted Kerry, that botox really pissed me off.

Lets play nice please....this was actually a pretty good discussion, perhaps it can be again.

mojo has a point here. While I detest Bush and what his administration stands for, it would be highly arrogant of me to put forth the notion that anyone who sees things differently does so through lack of intelligence. The fact remains that some of those who voted for Bush did so with their eyes - and intellect - wide open. It also goes to say that some not so very bright people voted for Bush as well. But then, the same can be said for voters of Kerry.

The question we need to answer is: do we truly want to move our country forward and try to work towards the betterment of all of us or do we just want to squabble and masturbate to our own ideology? If we do want the betterment for everyone, then we need to be able to understand each other's point of view instead of decrying it as ignorant or evil or treasonous. Just detesting Bush without ever trying to understand why he does what he does - and even allow that he believes he's doing what he believes is best - will never solve any of our problems.

I could shake Jesus hand and appreciate our differences because I know in him there would be a person I respect and would like to know his point of view.

I applaud your beliefs but yet your willingness to rational

I would not mind the democratic party imploding and falling apart. They try to be too far to center most of the time in my opinion. They do not push issues that i think are important and I disagree with them on a couple issues. I do not believe "centralizing" ourself more is going to solve this problem either. We need to stay loyal to our principles.

I think the GOP needs the democratic party though. Without this "ultraliberal" threat I believe already strained relations between different segments of the party will create party infighting that could be just as bad or worse then the fighting between the divides between the democratic party. Alot of Republicans in this area feel rather mutinous because they believe their issues are not represented. (rather moderate republicans)

I beg to differ.

Unless you are referring to someone who intentionally voted for Bush for the express purpose to vote for the worst possible candidate, out of spite for humanity. I considered it myself, but dismissed it in the end. Maybe there were a handful who followed through with it, but they're statistically insignificant.

The problem with this type of thinking is that it leads to condemning all opposing opinions as being rhetoric of the "other side" without looking at any inherent validity. This is part of the problem with American news and media in general: people only seek out opinions that agree with their own and assume anything else is an attack. Sure, the author is probably being a little condecending. But I believe many of those points to be valid, especially the U.N. section. If you are in a burning building, it's really irrelevant if Ann Coulter or Micheal Moore yells "Fire!", what's most important is dealing with the situation.

No it doesn't. Simply because this article is assuredly rhetoric does not mean I condemn all opposing viewpoints as rhetoric.