For my readers of the self-described “left of center” sect – this is an important piece for you to read. I offer it with the best of intentions.
During the Cold War, one could always suspect that democratic socialists lusted in their hearts for Leninism, and might have given themselves over had the balance of power shifted eastward. This was at least a plausible explanation for their opposition to virtually any measure of Western defense, and their perpetual horror of anti-Communism. But no force, it would seem, should be capable of transforming even a lifetime of socialist ardor into sympathy for absolutist mullahs, 10th-century tribal warriors, decapitators, and circumcisors of women.
It would make no sense. And yet as the immense plumes of smoke and dust still were rising in strength from the ruins of the World Trade Center, and not a single shot had been fired or a single soldier sacrificed in what was to become the War on Terrorism, the worldwide Left mobilized instantaneously to assert that such a war�the particulars and extent of which it could not know�would be unjust.
It is true that since then many opponents and proponents of the war, despite being not even decimally aware of pertinent facts or relations, have managed to enlarge their unexamined notions into either complex and disconnected conspiracy theories involving oil, or manic crusader-atavistic visions of remaking the Arab and Muslim worlds, and that the dust from these ignorant armies as they debate with the finesse of English football hooligans rises into a plume of its own. But, like a mammoth perfectly preserved in ice and uncomplicated by subsequent infections, the Left’s purely reflexive impulses immediately following September 11 are worthy of attention.
[…]
It was as if the thousands of crushed and incinerated men, women, and children�those who threw themselves into a quarter-mile abyss rather than have the flesh seared off their bones as they stood in the wind at glassless walls, the small children who died in terror after watching hysterical fanatics slit the throats of screaming stewardesses, and so on, for there are almost three thousand stories�simply did not exist. How does one explain such an egregious absence of sympathy (much less assertions that “they” deserved it, or that it was a work of art) among endlessly self-proclaiming empathetics whose stock in trade is to milk compassion even from the Rock of Gibraltar? This is a real rather than a rhetorical question, because it is significant of a great division.
This is not an invitation to debate the premise – it’s an opportunity for you to see yourselves as we do – and to understand why we fight tooth and nail to resist your ideology.
Very well put.
Actually the extreme socialist left in the West simply hated our societies more than they liked (or even seriously knew anything about) Communist societies. That hatred just continues. Instead of “pas d’ennemis � gauche” one now has simply “pas d’ennemis externes”.
It’s all about societal self-loathing. With no regard for what effect that selfish and personal emotion may have on the society in which one lives.
Mark
Ottawa
That’s all fine and dandy Kate, but Bush lied, McCarthy was meanspirited and J. Edgar Hoover wore dresses.
heh heh!
A refresher course on the evil that we fight.
(WARNING: LINK CONTAINS GRAPHIC VIDEO OF OUR ENEMIES IN ACTION).
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=18250_Dozens_of_Evil_Jihad_Videos#comments
pls cross post to The Tyee . . will make their socialist myopic minds blow
When I hear that a substantial percentage of my fellow countrymen view President Bush as more dangerous than bin Laden, I can’t help but feel, well, confused. The link with the link I posted (yes, a few friends are trying to take down the ummah site….) are pure evil. I’ll have a beer with one of our southern neighbors anyday, including W. The enabling leftists and their misunderstood terrorist friends can go to hell. I question the sanity of our world when I see videos like that. I question the media when I realize how much they shield us from in the name of political correctness. There, my rant is done.
I still have some concerns about J. Edgar. Perhaps he would have been more fulfilled in contemporary Canada.
Mark
Ottawa
Eskimo: Bush didn’t lie but McCarthy was right without knowing why he was. A true demagogue and a liar. I have read “Joseph McCarthy: Reexaming the Life and Legacy of America’s Most Hated Senator”, by Arthur Herman (2000).
See: “The Venona Story”:
http://www.nsa.gov/publications/publi00039.cfm
Mark
Ottawa
10 to 20 years ago, Mark Helprin was one of my favourite writers. He still is for his works of fiction that I re-read…the Ellis Island stories and the novel, A Winter’s Tale…which is near perfect.
For a long time now I can’t read him without wondering wtf happened to him. Now, as it has been said about him, he manifests a classic symptom of clinical depression — fears that bear little relation to facts.
His criticisms of Bush for not taking out Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and the Palestinian Authority as well as Sadaam do seem over the top to even most right wing or republican blogs.
You are right Mike Schmidt…he is now lost to the land of LGF. His new fiction doesn’t get anywhere the the praise he used to get.
I believe that the legitmate War on Terrorism, that our troops fight in Afganistan, has been harmed and deferred by the Iraq war.
The Left want to live as The Eloi
Completely inconscient of the Morloc
Left Brainless
Right click and select “open in new window”
Steve, in case you haven’t noticed, the War on Terrorism is not only about Afghanistan, although that is one critical battle. It ranges from Iraq, parts of North Africa, Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Phillipines, (France? 🙂 and many other countries with significant Muslim populations. There is no alternative other than success for the Coalition in Iraq; cutting and running is not an alternative, nor is returning Saddam to power. Whatever your views of the Iraq conflict (legitimate or not), it in the interests of every Western country that the Coalition succeeds. Because when there is a power vacuum, the knife wielding head choppers will move in and no one wants the Iraqis to endure that particular bit of nastiness.
So, even though I posted a link to LGF, does not diminish the seriousness or authenticity of those videos. They are real and this is who we fight. These murderous animals are in Iraq and in Afghanistan and …. I don’t think the CBC (or ANY media outlet) would ever air such a video. So, this instance, LGF is providing a necessary public service: education.
Those videos demonsrate in a way that words can’t the moral emptiness of the left.
Kate:
Didja notice Michelle Malkin’s mention of you on her latest blog entry? It’s in the entry where she compares Martin to Castro… how apropos…
I experienced the emptiness of communism first hand in East Germany courtesy of the infamous border guards and Stasi secret police.
For the delightful experiencing the workers paradise you got to pay 15DM per day visited; whilst they took the safety off of their machine pistols and you were staring down the barrels as they were cocked and ready to fire.
I told them to go ahead and shoot; if they wanted to create an international incident.
If they wanted to keep their job, they should point the damn guns at the ground; which they promptly did. The year 1977.
Also if you wanted to talk politics you had to walk down by the Elbe river in Dresden as the “wall have ears.”
It is the same sort of BS today. If you don’t parrot the politically correct clap trap of today you are “uncanadian, dinosaur, blah blah blah.”
Heavens we can’t have the plebians actually thinking for themselves. When you do, the usual response for the powers that be is to “clock” the individual who dares question authority.
Same old shit, different century.
Perhaps you would best ask some of us who consider ourselves on the Left what our opinions are before seeing fit to post diatribes about what you think our beliefs are.
To paraphrase somebody you might have heard of:
Until this moment I have been forced to listen while right-wing politicians and their new media echo chamber alike have told me “what liberals think”. In all that time they never once asked.
This is just the voice of an ordinary liberal yelling back – “You don’t speak for me.”
Steve, nothing happened to Helprin. You simply assumed that a writer with his ability just had to be a leftist. He never was, and isn’t now.
Had you paid attention to the underlying themes, you’d have figured it out. 😉
“This is not an invitation to debate the premise – it’s an opportunity for you to see yourselves as we do….”
Ah, so you see us through the filter of a false premise, the falsity of which you refuse to consider.
All is explained.
Jaymeister, I suggest you read that again.
Nobody needs to ask “what your opinions are”. We could spend the next 2 years supplying notable quotes and conspiracy theories from prominent “opinion leaders” on the left that would make a UFO abductee blush.
“Opinions” translate – into behaviors and consequences that can be evaluated without any additional input from the left on the matter.
You don’t get to argue premise in this instance, Wonderdog. It’s about the division between left and right, written from someone from the right. In that, you must simply respect that it is his perspective and he’s entitled to it.
I note none of you have even attempted to address the question posed in the last paragraph I exerpted. Telling, that.
Well said, Kate. That is precisely why Helprin has always been ostracized by the cuddly cozy East Coast “literati”.
Talented beyond belief, sensitive and perceptive beyond his years, more intelligent than he has a right to be, AND right wing. My my, what’s the world coming to?
Honestly Kate I never even thought or assumed about his politics when I first read him…he was or has a gift that I still enjoy. It wasn’t till his Dole speech (95 or 96) that I had a clue what made sense to him.
I’ve been reading Philip Roth’s “The plot against America” (novel in which Charles Lindberg wins the 36 election and as a nazi sympathiser does not take the states into a war against Germany and so Europe and England fall and the 3rd reich reaches into N. America) and I’m not sure what his politics are. i’m not sure I want to know or if in fiction it matters.
1. “This is not an invitation to debate the premise – it’s an opportunity for you to see yourselves as we do….”
Kate, you have a perfectly good site on your own without having to emulate Free Republic.
2. How can we even start to address a question if it is based on a false premise? The assumption is that I have no sympathy for those who perished on 9/11 – an assumption that couldn’t be further from the truth. Yes, there is a percentage of people on the extreme left (and extreme right, for that matter), who oppose any kind of military action in response. I can’t speak for them any more than you can speak for the fascist whackos. But most mainstream liberals aren’t pacifists. I fully supported the action in Afghanistan, and I’m proud to have our Canadian forces there. You and I disagree about the usefulness of the whole Iraq operation. That’s it. There’s a global war on terror, and just because my idea of how it could best be fought differs from yours, there’s no need to villify me. And to do so while misrepresenting what I stand for is irresponsible.
All history is a form of fiction, Steve, written by the “winners”.
Since Helprin’s stories are typically based upon, or flow out of, historical events and the underlying themes are powerful and consistent with his crystal clear core beliefs, I don’t understand how you can truly enjoy his collected works (or that of any author for that matter) without sharing or at least appreciating his unique viewpoint. As Kate said, he hasn’t changed one iota over the years.
Jaymeister:
Your point is well taken. No one can or should “speak for you”. However, having said that I strongly disagree with your assertion that “…most mainstream liberals aren’t pacifists.”
How exactly do you define a pacifist?
It’s the age of disinformation. Those that excel at the art of believable untruths do it for primarily for one reason only…so they can be our masters. “They’ll tell you black is white and the moon is just the sun at night…the world is full of Kings and Queens who blind your hearts and steal your dreams”.
Who are those Kings and Queens and why do they want to control us? Who would coerce our nation with sweet and bitter lies that cause people to line up in droves at the ballot box to give up individual freedom for the socialist’s empty promise of what’s behind door No.1? Even the venerable Monty Hall couldn’t fake’em out like these shiesters in getting people to give up their most precious possession…themselves…for the booby prize.
Justice Gomery and Auditor General Sheila Fraser might have a good idea as to who “they” are specifically but in general, they are the socialists…the ones who want us to put ourselves and our families last. The why is obvious…if they don’t control you they can’t steal from you and yours.
I define pacifist as somebody who opposes war as a general principle. Is your definition any different? I don’t know anybody outside the most extreme radicals who would oppose all wars for all reasons.
Clear…you and Kate may be right that either I assumed or shared his beliefs. I want to think about it. For me that is a lot of years to miss something. Maybe if I am much older than you two, I read him before I knew him as a colunmist or op-ed writer. Maybe you knew his beliefs before you read his early fiction.
But also what I meant in wtf happened to him, is to read him the last ten years is just sad. How did he calcify? He was magic and now he loves the metaphor. The strength of his talent now seems gone to me.
I’m an old lefty, even after working for years with violent people in very strange places, so maybe like Bush he didn’t mislead me, I just mis-followed him?
Well, some on the left think that way: “When I saw the Twin Towers come down, I said YES! America MUST fall.” That delivered to me by an Australian academic after an evening of trying to be a reasonable American who could listen to criticism of his country. It got my attention. 🙂
Fast forward a century or so, and there will be the descendents of today’s Left standing before cenotaphs in solemn ceremony, expressing gratitude for those who made the ultimate sacrifice for their freedom. Freedom from being given the choice of death or Islam. No need to debate the intent of the Islamic terrorists – they have made their intentions as plain and visible as can be.
Kate,
This is the same sort of straw man argument (point of view) I’ve come to expect from the right.
Violent extremists (both in the muslim world and the west) love to set up a false dichotomy where the only options are all-out war or complete appeasement.
The appropriate response to the attack on the WTC was to get Bin Laden and bring those responsible to justice. There were many ways to do that, and Bush simply chose the worst way, judging from the results.
SDA:
“…and to understand why we fight tooth and nail to resist your ideology.”
As this woman says: ” …I am firmly here, without fear,… touched with happiness.” Sandra De los Santos.
Welcome to freedom and democracy. >>>>
Cuban Woman Who Traveled To Fla. In DHL Crate Receives Asylum
POSTED: 1:26 pm EST November 15, 2005
MIAMI — A Cuban woman who stowed away inside a wooden crate flown by a cargo plane from the Bahamas to Miami will be allowed to stay permanently in the United States.
Sandra De los Santos received political asylum Monday, nearly 15 months after a crew unloading the filing-cabinet sized DHL crate discovered her at Miami International Airport.
“Now I really feel that I am firmly here, without fear,” De los Santos, 25, said after her hearing in Miami immigration court. “I am still nervous, but today I consider myself touched with happiness.” >>>>>>>>>
http://www.local6.com/news/5330948/detail.html
Steve, the results are not in yet. They may not be for years. They are counting on the west to grow fatigued and give up. What is the alternative you consider viable? Negotiate with them? Put the pressure on Israel? Think that will stop them? Are you sure?
Shaken: “the results are not it yet.”
Isn’t that the point being raised here? This is an issue that is ARGUABLE. You and I differ on how the war should be executed. That doesn’t mean that I’m in favour of the downfall of Western civilization. Not everybody who refuses to join the Amen corner is your enemy.
“most on the left aren’t pacifists”
No, they are blind ideologues. Why do they oppose the Iraq war? Becuase Bush did it. They hate him, and everything he does.
Where were the outcries when Nato was dropping bombs on Bosnia/serbia from 20,000 in quantities not seen since the second world war (oh and BTW there was no UN resolution on that one). Did the then silent left think those bombs (which were far less accurate than the more modern ones used in Iraq II) were delicately falling from the skies like gentle snowflakes?
“President Bush, is on his Asian tour now. He’ll visit Japan, China, South Korea, Mongolia. Once again, he’s skipping Vietnam.” –David Letterman
For those who think Bush is fighting the war in “the worst possible way” have you not noticed the series of elections in Iraq? HAve you not noticed the masses in Jordan screaming “Death to Zarqawi!”? Have you not noticed that America has only lost
Where were the leftist/feminists crying out in celebration at the single greates female emancipation in history (Taliban were as oppressive to women as any in the history of civilization.) They were silent (actually many marched against the war). Why? Bush led the Afghan war.
I’m glad you brought up Bosnia/Serbia, Jeff. Note what Sen. Richard Lugar said: “This is President Clinton’s war, and when he falls flat on his face, that’s his problem.”
Once again, you are displaying projection.
“there’s no need to villify me.”
Absolutely right on Jaymeister….You just did it yourself.
Someone is going to have to explain something to me.Democratic presidents got the US into the second World War,Korea,Vietnam and the scrap in Bosnia.Republican presidents stayed out of Vietnam(Eisenhaur said we cant win in SE Asia,I’m going golfing.),then getting out of Vietnam(Nixon,for which the dems then impeached him instead of making him a national hero)and vilifying Reagan for defeating the Soviet Union(calling it an evil empire which after the wall came down everyone saw that it was)without firing a shot and for this they are the bad guys?John F Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of American youngsters and the spraying of millions of gallons of agent orange in a losing cause but are held in high esteem.Please explain.I can’t.
Spike:
WWII was obviously a necessary war, although opposed by conservative isolationists. Korean War was fine in the beginning until Truman tried to overreach, and he ended up tossed out by his own party. Vietnam was a colossal mistake, and LBJ was tossed out by his own party. Nixon was forced to resign (he wasn’t yet impeached) over Watergate, not Vietnam. Bosnia – not universally approved by the left, nor was Clinton himself. JFK is now a neo-con hero somehow. Reagan – not enough space here for a full discussion.
A fine example of the “straw man” argument. It probably comes as a shock that not all “lefties” are Communits, or conspiracy freaks. It’s like saying David Duke is representative of the American right.
You on the left, blinded by your ideology.
There comes a time when a decision must be made. Do we fight or do we give in? No better reference than Ronald Reagan and his “evil empire” speech. How dare that be said. Reagan’s “Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall” speech , how dare he say that. The leader that called the bluff on the Soviet Union and directly freed millions from servitude.
Afghanistan and Iraq are the same war. How many people have been freed by this war? How many people have been inspired in other countries?
Bah, you on the left are blind. If only you were mute too.
enough
Jaymeister: “As you say, WWII was obviously a necessary war.” The point is that the Allies desperately tried to avoid it by avoiding facing the obvious. Had they acted sooner, it is most likely that total war could have been avoided and a great many lives saved.
Some of us think there is a parallel situation in the world today.
Spike/Jeff,
The best explanation I’ve got for lefties ignoring brilliantly clear advances for individual freedom and women rights in places like Afganistan and Iraq is that those advances did not come from the socialist movement and therefore must not be acknowledged.
They know they can’t criticize the Republicans on those fronts so they don’t even try. It’s far easier for them to pretend that nothing good has happened so they can keep a focus on making political hay from far less consequential negatives. The left is after power and in order to get it sooner they have to convince as many as possible that the current way is the wrong way…and that their way is the only alternative.
As alluded to in my previous post…the left’s road to power is the fine art of disinformation. It has little to do with idealogy and more to do with the thirst for power and control.
Greenmamba:
We disagree on the point about parallels, at least with respect to Iraq. That’s fine. Better to actually have dialogue about that than simply degrade those who disagree with you and hang out online where your ideas get uncritical affirmation, IMHO. That’s why I’m here.
Martin B.: I have no delusions about acquiring power. I’m just an average citizen. Try again.
“You and I differ on how the war should be executed.”
Jaymeister, how would you have executed the war?
well,jaymeister,Truman,Kennedy and Johnson were not tossed out by their party.Truman did’nt run,Kennedy was shot and Johnson was turfed by the voters.Get your facts straight.The Reason dems are a war party is the big union support in war industry.Reagan was vilified for no other reason than firing the air traffic controllers and breaking the back of their union and ending the cold war and the loss of jobs in the armament industry.
To lighten up a bit here and aside from war stories … I see one difference between left and right as such.
Those on the right want to get their money from others.
Those on the left want the government to do it for them.
I give money to business and I get stuff or service
I give money to government and I get more government.
I hate that.
Those on the right want to keep our money .
Those on the left want to take our money.
Spike: Get my facts straight?
Truman never even got to the voters because he wasn’t going to get the nomination of his own party. Same with Johnson, although he had to face Democratic voters in the primaries. Neither of them faced the general electorate – Democrats did them in. And all I said about Kennedy is that the Neo-cons are claiming him as their role model. The only thing JFK and GWB have in common is that they both stole elections. As for union support of war, you don’t think big business has any vested interest in war? You better read up on your Eisenhower again.
Kathryn: I don’t claim to be a political/military/diplomatic expert, but this is what I thought at the time: First, finish the job in Afghanistan. That in itself could have sent enough of the “we mean business” message to the countries supporting terrorism. Then, tell Saudi Arabia in no uncertain terms that you aren’t going to put up with their BS anymore – of course, acknowledging that 15 of the 9/11 highjackers were from there. Keep Iraq under the microscope, including the return of inspections, so they can’t pull any shenanigans. Then, much of the diplomatic strategy that has followed could be the same. Cut your deals with Pakistan and Libya (which was done) and others. Iraq and other nations would have become more and more isolated. They would either have to capitulate, or do something stupid that would unite the world community against them.
Am I 100% certain this would have worked? Of course not. But I never take the war option off the table. It should have been a last resort. A case has never been made that the invasion of Iraq had to be initiated immediately at the time that it was.