Friday, July 07, 2006


Posted by Jabawacefti

Victor Davis Hanson on the current political climate.

Ouch. The big Russian doesn't feel that now, but that's gonna hurt in the morning.


At 6:26 PM, Blogger codemorse said...

Soooooo good to have you back, my friend.

Comments, questions, and general tomfoolery:

In general, I'm sort of underwhelmed by this type of article. It's well-written, but its point (The Leftists remain clueless. Someday they will regain power. WILL THEY PROTECT YOU?) doesn't seem worth all the words.

Yes, there are democrats (and republicans, and independents) that are nuts. There are dems in this world who honestly believe that all we have to do is distribute flowers globally and hug, and everything will be okay.

There are republicans who believe that we should "turn the middle-east into a parking lot."

And, well, our country doesn't care what the independents think, why should I? :)

The issue that most of the liberals I know have is with the lead-up to the war (based upon falsehoods, whether knowingly or un, and backed up with scant hard fact) and the handling of its aftermath (or mishandling, as the case may be).

There's a lot of anger at what's percieved to be the wholesale denigration of liberal opinion, especially when those who criticized the war beforehand were shown to have been right on issues as wide-ranging as preparedness to the existence of WMD's.

That said, my thought is basically that this sort of article is fun to read, but doesn't seem to serve a purpose beyond stoking the fires of those who already think the libs are soft on terror. Shouldn't the point be to find common ground for Left and Right alike? So that a shared enemy (one that's Islamic, for sure, but also asian, and European, and even American) is more efficiently fought?

What do you think?

And two specific points:

First, before 9/11 the Western hard right-wing allowed radical Islam a pass — and then afterwards the Left did worse.

Worse than 9/11?

How is that possible? If we're going to assign specious blame for giving radical Islam a "pass," then lets do it properly, no?

By Davis' own admission in the above quote, the Right's pass on radical Islam (what does that mean, exactly?) led to 9/11. The Left's "pass?" What has that led to?

Apparently most Leftists thought the dearth of women in the clubhouse at the Masters Tournament at Augusta National was far worse than the Arab world’s honor killings, burqas, and coerced female circumcision.

Says who? Speaking only for myself and the other "lefties" I know, we were working with Amnesty International and other relief organizations in High School, College and beyond to put a stop to precisely the sorts of barbaric practices Mr. Hanson cites here. And from having worked with those organizations, I can tell you that they aren't staffed by a lot of conservatives. They tend to be a little crunchier. Liberal, if you will.

With some mischief; I very much wonder whether Hanson would feel comfortable rephrasing the above sentence to read "Apparently most Leftists thought the dearth of blacks in the clubhouse at the Masters Tournament at Augusta National..."?

At 10:49 AM, Blogger Jabawacefti said...

In answering your questions:

Regarding comparative fault for the right and left being soft on terror, be careful to understand what he is saying.

He is not saying, nor do I think he believes (nor is it the case) that the right being soft on Islamic extremism led to 9/11. What he is saying is that the right was willing to excuse the ills of Islamic extremism for the purposes of fighting what they considered the greater evil, Communism. Make no mistake, Communism was arguably the greater evil, but Hanson is merely pointing out that the right was willing to ignore the ills of a group that we would later learn would be arguably more dangerous than Communism.

Nor do I think he could fail to acknowledge that the failures to confront Al Qaeda from the eight years of the Clinton Presidency leading directly up to 9/11 had some impact on 9/11. That would be somewhat cheap though, which is why he doesn't say it. That is also why he doesn't say that the right's failure to confront Islamic extremism "led" to 9/11. That is a leap that you appeared to make, and one not reasonably found in his article.

The problem he has (and I have) is that it was not entirely clear at the time that Islamic extremists would move from fighting the Godless Communists to fighting the Godless Capitalists. After 9/11, few could reasonably plead ignorance to that fact. Which is why he considers the comparative "fault" of the left to "worse."


Post a Comment

<< Home