If you had any lingering doubts that “liberals” aren’t to be trusted with our nation’s security, this article from The New Republic Online by Steven Groopman should eliminate them, once and for all:
I watched the [State of the Union] speech at an event sponsored by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, perhaps the most high-profile liberal advocacy organization in the country. A panel of pundits—which included radio commentator Sam Seder as well as several liberal bloggers—were there to “decode, debunk, and deride” Bush’s speech in real time on Air America.
A packed house of 100 or so viewers huddled around a few plasma screen TVs to watch the address. Early on, when Bush invoked September 11, the audience let out a loud groan and snickered. Seconds later, the president mentioned “weapons of mass destruction” for the first time. A bell rang, and the audience laughed; then Bush said the words “freedom” and “terror” and bells rang again, followed by more laughter. This ritual was repeated throughout the speech whenever Bush uttered any of these words or phrases.
This made me wonder: Why the visceral reaction to these particular formulations? The speech contained plenty of lines worthy of ridicule, and Bush certainly uses his share of dishonest conservative catchphrases (“activist judges” for instance). But spreading freedom around the world is—or should be—a paramount goal of liberalism. Meanwhile, terrorism remains a real threat to America, and a source of continuing death and destruction the world over. As for “weapons of mass destruction”: A fanatical regime in Iran with a history of sponsoring terrorism and a stated desire to see Israel “wiped off the map” is well on its way to having such weapons. This is not an invention of the Republican imagination; it is reality. Why, then, laugh at Bush’s warning that “Dictatorships shelter terrorists, and feed resentment and radicalism, and seek”—get ready for that bell to ring—”weapons of mass destruction”?
To be sure, there is a compelling argument that Bush overuses these words, or uses them to justify unwise policies. “Terror” and “weapons of mass destruction” can be invoked effectively and cynically to raise levels of public fear and alarm. And certainly Bush has, in practice, proven less than fully committed to his stated desire to spread freedom and democracy throughout the world. But if liberals disagree with Bush’s means, they can still remain sympathetic to his ends. Even the most vociferous critic of the Iraq war, or the most zealous opponent of domestic wiretapping, should agree that preventing terror, denying nuclear weapons to dictatorships, and opposing tyranny are worthy goals.
And yet when Bush spoke of “writing a new chapter in the story of self-government,” spectators burst into laughter. When he said, “Ultimately, the only way to defeat the terrorists is to defeat their dark vision of hatred and fear by offering the hopeful alternative of political freedom and peaceful change,” I heard a mix of bell ringing and belly laughs. Why is the goal of promoting “political freedom” worthy of such derision?
The point is bigger than just one gathering at a liberal organization. In the years since September 11, many liberals seem to have concluded that you’re not really opposing Bush’s means unless you also scorn his stated ends. That’s too bad. Liberals have no chance of winning the national security debate if they dismiss its premises. I think most liberals recognize this, but some are so disgusted with the current administration that they feel compelled to oppose—and to mock—anything with Bush’s name on it. And any Democrats, like Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, who oppose the Bush administration yet decline to scoff at the notion that America ought to stand for the spread of human freedom are liable to be labeled weak, neoconservative, or traitorous to their own cause.
This only stifles the possibility of a serious liberal alternative to Bush’s policies. As long as Democrats are required by their base to ridicule Bush’s ends rather than his means, they will have lost the debate over foreign policy before it even starts. Indeed, despite the unpopularity of the Iraq war, recent polling shows that Americans still trust Republicans more than Democrats on national security.
September 11 changed American foreign policy by raising issues like terror, weapons of mass destruction, and foreign tyranny to a level of a heightened importance. When Democratic bloggers and activists mock Bush for privileging these issues, it may please some liberals. But the person it pleases most is Karl Rove.
The week before Bush’s address, this liberal advocacy group, in its “Talking Points,” said this:
National Security is sure to figure greatly into the President’s State of the Union speech next week, in which he will no doubt take credit for successes in Iraq and on the national security front. However, the fact is, four years after 9/11, the administration has failed to adequately protect the homeland, Osama bin Laden is still on the loose, al Qaeda is expanding globally, violence rages in Iraq and the America military is stretched to the breaking point.
What would they do to solve these problems? They didn’t say.
“...he will no doubt take credit for successes in Iraq and on the national security front…” He got the blame, didn’t he, when things looked really bad? So, why shouldn’t he take credit for successes? Does it mean Talking Points concede that there are successes in Iraq?
“However, the fact is, four years after 9/11, the administration has failed to adequately protect the homeland,...” Has the homeland been attacked again? What evidence does Talking Points have that the homeland is not adequately protected?
“al Qaeda is expanding globally” and is being killed globally.
“A bell rang, and the audience laughed; then Bush said the words “freedom” and “terror” and bells rang again, followed by more laughter.” from the Groopman article
The Pavlovian quality of so much pseudo-liberal, Leftist group-think often takes on a brute-force, blatantly obvious quality such that only the ideologically self-enamored and self-blinded are unable to see it for what it is. Rare however (at least I assume it’s rare, which may be granting them too much) is the Pavlovian exercise and training itself displayed in such a transparent, unvarnished and even proud manner. Like trained seals, only not so bright and not so amusing.
The real problem is that these people (the far Left which, judging by their spitting upon the likes of Joe Lieberman, is basically the majority of the Democratic party) are not interested in reasonable debate of any kind. They are poisoned, I guess, by the postmodernist nihilisism that strives for chaos and conflict as its goal. I think it was Foucault who said, “Reason is the language of madness.” I can’t think of any other explanation of the libs behavior.
Marc,
Doesn’t the lable “liberal” seem antiquated?
Anyway, that’s just semantics. IC brings up a quote that has bothered me for a while. Repubs and Dems have argued over National Security Policy for a while with the Dems claiming we aren’t any safer, and Repubs saying that we are evidenced by the lack of major attacks since 9/11.
I find that countering bad Democrat logic with this argument is dangerous. I don’t think there is any policy on earth that can withstand a surprise sneak attack from terrorists. It is just too hard, and there is waaay too much liability and senseless risk in claiming zero defects in your long-term policy. Personally, I think if we get out of this thing without another attack I’m going to be pretty surprised, but regardless, I think hanging one hat on this isn’t prudent or very politically schrewd.
HOWEVER, my argument is that the Bush Administration has developed the best long-term strategy for ending the threat of Islamic Fascism. The Dems on the other hand have developed no policy other than to criticize every move the administration has made, and most of it has been done with bald-faced lies and distortions. That is not a policy or is it even productive conversation. If we follow the Dems path, we’ll not only see more attacks, but we’ll also be taken off target from defeating these guys in the long-term.
TF6S,
That’s why I put liberal in quotes. I never thought I’d quote Spiro Agnew, but “nattering nabobs of negativism” might be more appropriate.
Ha!
You get fifty points for not only quoting Spiro Agnew, but fitting it into an appropriate context.
I wholeheartedly agree that Liberals would be wise to carefully distinguish between aims that are common to all Americans (defeating terrorism, promoting Democracy in the Middle East, etc.), and those the means to attain those aims that they legitimately oppose (the war in Iraq, destruction of civil liberties, etc.) In general, I think they try to do that, but sometimes fail.
That having been said, I find the oft-repeated accusation that Liberals “don’t have a plan”, or “don’t offer solutions, only negativity”, to be somewhat off the mark. First and most obviously, because The New Republic does not direct policy, whereas the Republican-controlled Congress and Presidency do. And second, because opposition to a policy is often in and of itself a policy. For example, when Clinton chose NOT to invade Iraq, given the same intelligence as Bush, that was an important policy decision. Doing nothing is indeed a plan of action, and it is sometimes the correct plan of action. There’s nothing wrong with opposing some initiative without offering an alternative when you believe the correct alternative should be to do nothing at all.
LawrenceB,
Firstly, the argument about whether to invade Iraq is over. Regardless of how right or wrong it was, it is now, literally speaking, history (this in-spite of dubious answers Democratic Congressmen and Senators might say now about what they based their vote on, the policy was approved by a majority).
The question now is, what do we do now that we are there.
But my comment was more to do about the general war on terror. I’d like you to clarify your comment in light of that, but if you are advocating that in the war on terror we “do nothing,” I would find that to be a policy of utter and complete folly.
It doesn’t matter if you are The New Republic or a Minority Senator, if you want to connect with people on how and why Bush’s policy is in error, it is wise and prudent to offer some kind of alternative given events that have occurred. It is very simple: Would you commit more troops? Would you focus on different regions? Would you be more or less likely to use international organizations to further your fight against terror? Would you take more of a legal approach, versus all-out war?
Steven Den Beste never needed to hold office within the majority Senate to type tens-of-thousands of words on how he would best approach the subject.
Marc: This is all very telling. As I am sure you could expound upon, the appeasers of the 1930’s did not try so much to deny the existance of the danger as they did embrace ineffective means to deal with it.
This new bunch appears to taken a particular worldview so into their own definition of themselves that they must deny reality in order to justify their own existance.
Included in that denial is the very principles upon which our country – and indeed modern Western civilization – are founded upon.