home > archive > 2003 > this article
Do liberals think about what they think about?
By Paul Walfield
Seriously. In the March 10, 2003 issue of Newsweek, Anna Quindlen argues in her article entitled, "Waiting, One Hand Behind," that President Bush has reduced what was once a noble and democratic nation to "come perilously close to lowering the rhetorical standards of a democratic nation to the level of despotic hyperbole."
Ms. Quindlen reached that conclusion because; she still hasn't been able to figure out why we are claiming that it is necessary to go to war with Iraq. Speaking about herself and her father she says, "We are waiting, both of us, for some good reason for a great nation-because it is that, despite all its shortcomings-to make the real argument, the irrefutable argument, the aha! argument for invading Iraq."
However, she adds, "Saddam Hussein is a murderous dictator. Check. Saddam has made a mockery of the inspections process. Check. He either has developed or is inclined to develop weapons of mass destruction. Check. No world leader has ever so clearly asked to be punished by the world community."
Ok, she has a handle on the evil that is Saddam. She understands that he has violated the UN resolutions, including 1441 which calls for military action in the event he makes "a mockery of the inspection process," and she knows that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. She also has to know, she really does, that America went to war against Saddam back in 1991 and he really doesn't like the US.
So, if Anna knows about Saddam, she in fact agrees with what President Bush has been saying about the despot for a year now. So what is the problem? Why does she and her dad not understand why nearly 3 out of 4 Americans in the latest poll, want to eliminate the threat Saddam poses using military force? Well., because.
That's it. No good reason to be found at all. Anna just seems to adhere to the notion that she will not be dissuaded, not even by her own understanding and knowledge of the facts, to change her opinion of what is best for herself and her dad.
What does that say about liberals?
Anna has decided that while everything that the President has said about Saddam is true, that does not matter because, "George W. Bush appears to be a man who takes slights seriously and responds pugnaciously, a guy who holds a grudge." For Anna, Saddam is bad man, but so is George Bush. Saddam is bad because he gasses and murders his own people, tortures and rapes his enemies and has associated with terrorists, and if given the chance he will supply weapons of mass destruction to suicide bombers. However, we should do nothing because President Bush, Anna believes, "responds pugnaciously."
Think about that. Our President responds to evil by wanting to fight it. That is reason enough for the left to oppose his Administration.
To prove her point, Anna has an example that she says explains the moral equivalency of President Bush to the evil ones, quoting President Bush "'There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, WANTED: DEAD OR ALIVE,'" Anna adds that was what our President "Said of Osama bin Laden after the terrorist attacks. Wyatt Earp in the White House."
In other words, after September 11th and over three thousand Americans were murdered by Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization, Anna believes that President Bush is as evil as the terrorists because he wanted to take out the terrorists that want to murder Americans and destroy our way of life.
Anna believes Saddam is a vile individual, but cannot be forcibly removed. Saddam may cause terror and horror for all his populace and neighbors, and maybe even the United States, but using violence to stop violence is never the answer for Anna and her ilk. As she points out, "A professor of mine once said, 'Democracy fights its battles with one hand tied behind its back.'" In other words, even if we went to a war she approved of, she needs to make sure there are just as many dead Americans as there are enemy dead.
Anna wants to believe she lives in a country that is above the evils that threaten it. Anna wonders about world affairs and the place where America fits and where she fits too, "The danger in having enormous power is that the ambition to use it for good can so often be subverted by the temptation to use it for dominance. The leader who occupies the high ground, or the bully wearing blinders: I am waiting to see to which nation I belong."
For Anna and her left of center friends, America's determination to remain a superpower by fighting against the evils that threaten American sovereignty is not self defense; it is an act of aggression, an act of "dominance."
It is not that these people do not see the threats to American power and stability, they welcome them. These people are no longer trying to maintain a sense of nationalism, rather as citizens of the world; American independence, American willingness to fight is the evil the world, their world faces.
The evil America faces comes from the terrorists and evil regimes that harbor, supply and support terrorists. It also comes from those who claim that fighting the terrorists and malevolent regimes, is not to be undertaken on moral grounds.
There can be no greater support for your enemy then to fight along their side. Someone can be against a war and voice that opinion without getting in the way and still be thought of as an American. On the other hand, if you are against a war, and you do your utmost to stop your own country from fighting against an evil that seeks its destruction, you are not an American.
is a freelance writer and member of the State Bar of California with an undergraduate
degree in Psychology and post-graduate study in behavioral and analytical psychology.
He resided for a number of years in the small town of Houlton, Maine and is now
a California attorney. Paul can be contacted at email@example.com.
Get weekly updates about new issues of ESR!
© 1996-2013, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.