Friday - April 06, 2007

More on why the left opposes war and hates the United States

The Democrats argue that they support the troops.  They argue that they are patriotic.  Yet, most Americans, in their guts, instinctively know something isn't right.  In the last couple of posts, I have tried to show how the modern American left and as a result, their home, the modern Democratic Party, have abandoned the American political philosophy found in the Constitution and the Declaration.  Instead, the left has adopted as its philosophy, Marxian propaganda that was meant to undermine the will of the West during the Cold War.

In an article by the poster child of the left, Noam Chomsky, I'll try to point out the anti-American  and Marxian assumptions that he puts forward.  And in the end, he is simply espousing the positions taken by the Democratic Party.  Chomsky's words are in red and my analysis is in blue.

The debate over Iranian interference in Iraq proceeds without ridicule on the assumption that the United States owns the world. We did not, for example, engage in a similar debate in the 1980s about whether the U.S. was interfering in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan, and I doubt that Pravda, probably recognizing the absurdity of the situation, sank to outrage about that fact (which American officials and our media, in any case, made no effort to conceal). Perhaps the official Nazi press also featured solemn debates about whether the Allies were interfering in sovereign Vichy France, though if so, sane people would then have collapsed in ridicule.

This view comes directly from the Soviet argument that every Western nation and every action it takes is illegitimate because of past imperialist policies.  Chomsky buys into this lie and therefore views his own nation as evil.  What rational person builds their political philosophy on communist propaganda meant to undermine the West during the Cold War?  Additionally, note the moral equivalence in argument about Soviet controlled Afghanistan.  Only a person who does not view their culture as moral, as good, as decent, only a person who has bought into the communist propaganda that fueled the counter-culture of the 1960s could argue that American and Soviet motives were equivalent in nature.

In this case, however, even ridicule -- notably absent -- would not suffice, because the charges against Iran are part of a drumbeat of pronouncements meant to mobilize support for escalation in Iraq and for an attack on Iran, the "source of the problem." The world is aghast at the possibility. Even in neighboring Sunni states, no friends of Iran, majorities, when asked, favor a nuclear-armed Iran over any military action against that country. From what limited information we have, it appears that significant parts of the U.S. military and intelligence communities are opposed to such an attack, along with almost the entire world, even more so than when the Bush administration and Tony Blair's Britain invaded Iraq, defying enormous popular opposition worldwide.

Once again, notice how left ascribes "evil" intentions the U.S., never giving it the benefit of the doubt.  Years of buying into the communist doctrine that the West is illegitimate has destroyed their love of country.    Additionally, Mr. Chomsky, if all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you follow?  Or should I rephrase that?  If all of your ideologically agreed brethren were polled and they all wanted to jump off the nearest bridge, would you follow?  You are citing opinion polls from nations that oppress their Christian minorities.  You are citing and agreeing with opinion polls from nations that oppress women.  Obviously you don't see anything wrong with that, but you should.

"The Iran Effect"

The results of an attack on Iran could be horrendous. After all, according to a recent study of "the Iraq effect" by terrorism specialists Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, using government and Rand Corporation data, the Iraq invasion has already led to a seven-fold increase in terror. The "Iran effect" would probably be far more severe and long-lasting. British military historian Corelli Barnett speaks for many when he warns that "an attack on Iran would effectively launch World War III."

Let me understand your argument here.  You can't respond to terror because they might fight back?  That is like saying, Britain shouldn't have declared war against Nazi Germany, because, for instance, violence increased during the London Blitz.  Once again, steeped in communist ideology, adopted by the drugged addled leftists of the sixties, you have bought into the argument that Western reaction is illegitimate because, basically, we caused all of the root problems in the first place.  A rational person would call this a surrender and die policy.  As far as World War III, do you have a magic crystal ball, or do you consult the Oracle of Stalingrad?

What are the plans of the increasingly desperate clique that narrowly holds political power in the U.S.? We cannot know. Such state planning is, of course, kept secret in the interests of "security." Review of the declassified record reveals that there is considerable merit in that claim -- though only if we understand "security" to mean the security of the Bush administration against their domestic enemy, the population in whose name they act.

That "desperate clique" that you refer to, was voted into office in 2004 by a majority of the votes cast (unlike, say Bill Clinton who only received 43% of the popular vote in 1992) by the American people.  Of course, it wasn't an opinion poll, which seems to create instant legitimacy for you.

Even if the White House clique is not planning war, naval deployments, support for secessionist movements and acts of terror within Iran, and other provocations could easily lead to an accidental war. Congressional resolutions would not provide much of a barrier. They invariably permit "national security" exemptions, opening holes wide enough for the several aircraft-carrier battle groups soon to be in the Persian Gulf to pass through -- as long as an unscrupulous leadership issues proclamations of doom (as Condoleezza Rice did with those "mushroom clouds" over American cities back in 2002). And the concocting of the sorts of incidents that "justify" such attacks is a familiar practice. Even the worst monsters feel the need for such justification and adopt the device: Hitler's defense of innocent Germany from the "wild terror" of the Poles in 1939, after they had rejected his wise and generous proposals for peace, is but one example.

Here we go again with the moral equivalence.  Only a person, who has bought into the communist inspired idea that Western civilization is illegitimate, could compare America with Nazi Germany.  Lest we forget, George Bush isn't the only president whose rationale for war turned out to be incorrect, as the Gulf of Tonkin comes to  mind.  The problem with the left and you, is that you believe that there are no "truths", only competing agendas.

The most effective barrier to a White House decision to launch a war is the kind of organized popular opposition that frightened the political-military leadership enough in 1968 that they were reluctant to send more troops to Vietnam -- fearing, we learned from the Pentagon Papers, that they might need them for civil-disorder control.

This is the opposition that Chomsky admires.  American haters, Jew haters, conspiracy freaks, and communist holdouts.

Doubtless Iran's government merits harsh condemnation, including for its recent actions that have inflamed the crisis. It is, however, useful to ask how we would act if Iran had invaded and occupied Canada and Mexico and was arresting U.S. government representatives there on the grounds that they were resisting the Iranian occupation (called "liberation," of course). Imagine as well that Iran was deploying massive naval forces in the Caribbean and issuing credible threats to launch a wave of attacks against a vast range of sites -- nuclear and otherwise -- in the United States, if the U.S. government did not immediately terminate all its nuclear energy programs (and, naturally, dismantle all its nuclear weapons). Suppose that all of this happened after Iran had overthrown the government of the U.S. and installed a vicious tyrant (as the US did to Iran in 1953), then later supported a Russian invasion of the U.S. that killed millions of people (just as the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran in 1980, killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians, a figure comparable to millions of Americans). Would we watch quietly?

I really like how he starts with Iran deserves condemnation, but....  Once again, we see the call of the left, moral equivalence.  Iranian actions are no different than American actions.  Why, because the American left has bought into the old communist argument that there is no morality and that Western actions are tainted by the original sin of imperialism.  Let us not forget that Iran oppresses its women, oppresses its religious minorities, supports such fine organizations as Hezbollah, and its current president has called for the destruction of Israel.  That would be four million people to you and me.  He can ascribe all of the reasons why, as a nation, Iran is behaving as it does, but it doesn't alter the fact that in terms of morality, it is aptly categorized as a partner in the Axis of Evil.

It is easy to understand an observation by one of Israel's leading military historians, Martin van Creveld. After the U.S. invaded Iraq, knowing it to be defenseless, he noted, "Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy."

Surely no sane person wants Iran (or any nation) to develop nuclear weapons. A reasonable resolution of the present crisis would permit Iran to develop nuclear energy, in accord with its rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but not nuclear weapons. Is that outcome feasible? It would be, given one condition: that the U.S. and Iran were functioning democratic societies in which public opinion had a significant impact on public policy.

Do you get what Chomsky is saying in this last paragraph?  He says that neither the U.S., nor Iran are functioning democratic societies.  Once again, Chomsky and the left he represents have bought into the old Soviet communist propaganda that an elite runs the U.S., oppressing the masses.  Do you believe that?  How sad and dark it must be to go through life believing in conspiracy theories.  So all of the state initiatives, voted on by millions of Americans, that changed things from minimum wage to smoking are not signs of democracy?  The fact that both houses of our government changed hands, that isn't a sign of a people in control?  What constitutes a democracy for Mr. Chomsky?  

Actually Mr. C, the U.S. is a republic.  A true democracy works well in a city state of only a thousand people, but a nation of 300 million requires are representative government.  Oh, and by the way, why does the left want to see Iran, built upon Islam, which views Christians and Jew as less than human, with nuclear weapons?  See, once again, if you have no standards by which to determine good and bad, then opposing Iranian nuclear aspirations doesn't make sense.

As it happens, this solution has overwhelming support among Iranians and Americans, who generally are in agreement on nuclear issues. The Iranian-American consensus includes the complete elimination of nuclear weapons everywhere (82% of Americans); if that cannot yet be achieved because of elite opposition, then at least a "nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East that would include both Islamic countries and Israel" (71% of Americans). Seventy-five percent of Americans prefer building better relations with Iran to threats of force. In brief, if public opinion were to have a significant influence on state policy in the U.S. and Iran, resolution of the crisis might be at hand, along with much more far-reaching solutions to the global nuclear conundrum.

This is a perfect example of the un-American, communist inspired political philosophy of the left.  I'm pretty sure in the abstract, anyone answering a poll would say that ridding the world of nuclear weapons is a good thing.  It is another question whether it is the smart thing to do.  What the defeatist left would have you believe, is that if only the evil Americans would disarm, then the world would be peaceful.  This belief only makes sense if you view America as the source of evil in the world.  

So America should abandon its nuclear weapons while nations like Russia and China (both responsible for millions upon millions of deaths in the 20th century) still have them?  No rational person and no American patriot can take that position.  Also, note his argument that Israel should abandon its nuclear deterrent.  Once again, the left loves to portray Israel and the Jews as the source of evil in the world (if anyone wants to draw analogies to Nazi Germany, the left's irrational hatred of Jews would be the place).  Israel would be foolish to do so, considering the number of times it has been attacked by its Arab neighbors.  

For Chomsky and the left, they cannot ascribe morality to Western nations.  They cannot believe that some nations are good and others bad.  Everyone's morality is equal.  Do you see this in everyday life?  Of course not!  Some people are good.  They might own guns, but never use them or use them only in self defense.  In real life, these are the responsible, virtuous, and good people, who by merit of a belief in the morality given to us by the Judeo-Christian belief system, are able to control their actions.  On the other hand, we all know that other people, devoid of morality and self-control, use guns to murder, steal, and rape.  Yet Chomsky and the left would have you believe that nations cannot be moral, rational, and exhibit self-control or more importantly, that nations can be criminal, evil, and intent on doing others harm.

Promoting Democracy -- at Home

These facts suggest a possible way to prevent the current crisis from exploding, perhaps even into some version of World War III. That awesome threat might be averted by pursuing a familiar proposal: democracy promotion -- this time at home, where it is badly needed. Democracy promotion at home is certainly feasible and, although we cannot carry out such a project directly in Iran, we could act to improve the prospects of the courageous reformers and oppositionists who are seeking to achieve just that. Among such figures who are, or should be, well-known, would be Saeed Hajjarian, Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi, and Akbar Ganji, as well as those who, as usual, remain nameless, among them labor activists about whom we hear very little; those who publish the Iranian Workers Bulletin may be a case in point.

We can best improve the prospects for democracy promotion in Iran by sharply reversing state policy here so that it reflects popular opinion. That would entail ceasing to make the regular threats that are a gift to Iranian hardliners. These are bitterly condemned by Iranians truly concerned with democracy promotion (unlike those "supporters" who flaunt democracy slogans in the West and are lauded as grand "idealists" despite their clear record of visceral hatred for democracy).

So one can't declare Iran's support of terrorism a bad thing for fear it might make evil people evil?  One can only come to such a conclusion if they have abandoned any concept of morality, of right and wrong.  So Marxian.  So wrong.  If you want to learn about democracy Mr. Chomsky, may I suggest a book by John Locke.

Democracy promotion in the United States could have far broader consequences. In Iraq, for instance, a firm timetable for withdrawal would be initiated at once, or very soon, in accord with the will of the overwhelming majority of Iraqis and a significant majority of Americans. Federal budget priorities would be virtually reversed. Where spending is rising, as in military supplemental bills to conduct the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would sharply decline. Where spending is steady or declining (health, education, job training, the promotion of energy conservation and renewable energy sources, veterans benefits, funding for the UN and UN peacekeeping operations, and so on), it would sharply increase. Bush's tax cuts for people with incomes over $200,000 a year would be immediately rescinded.

This entire paragraph could be the Democratic platform.  Too bad it is so Marxian.  As far as military spending goes, take a look at this graph, as it shows that as a percentage of GDP, military expenses are hardly out of line.  One could only believe this, if for instance, one saw no threats to the U.S., because the only threat to world peace is the United States---and well Israel also.  Also, notice how leftists just can't stand individuals controlling how their hard earned incomes are spent?  Just as the communists, our left thinks that the state is more efficient than individuals.  Well Mr. Chomsky, can you point out exactly which five year plan in either the Soviet Union or China achieved that efficieny?

The U.S. would have adopted a national health-care system long ago, rejecting the privatized system that sports twice the per-capita costs found in similar societies and some of the worst outcomes in the industrial world. It would have rejected what is widely regarded by those who pay attention as a "fiscal train wreck" in-the-making. The U.S. would have ratified the Kyoto Protocol to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions and undertaken still stronger measures to protect the environment. It would allow the UN to take the lead in international crises, including in Iraq. After all, according to opinion polls, since shortly after the 2003 invasion, a large majority of Americans have wanted the UN to take charge of political transformation, economic reconstruction, and civil order in that land.

Apparently Chomsky has never waited for a procedure in Britain or Canada.  Maybe he should watch this video and reconsider his communist inspired notion that government can distribute health care more efficiency than the private sector.  

Global warming is the new religion of the left.  Gore makes a movie and global warming is fact.  Couldn't be the sun and the increase in solar activity?  Nope, just the evil West destroying the world.  Guess that is why two of the biggest polluters, India and China were exempted by Kyoto provisions, because oppressed people's pollution pollutes less than the pollution of the evil imperialists in the U.S.  Finally, as any Marxian inspired philosophy would suggest, he wants to transfer American sovereignty to the U.N.   Because as we know, the left believes that the Syrians, Libyans, Chinese, Cubans, North Koreans, Russians, Zimbabweans, Saudis, and so on are just as moral and responsible and decent as us.  Let's have Robert Mugabe determine foreign policy and human rights!

If public opinion mattered, the U.S. would accept UN Charter restrictions on the use of force, contrary to a bipartisan consensus that this country, alone, has the right to resort to violence in response to potential threats, real or imagined, including threats to our access to markets and resources. The U.S. (along with others) would abandon the Security Council veto and accept majority opinion even when in opposition to it. The UN would be allowed to regulate arms sales; while the U.S. would cut back on such sales and urge other countries to do so, which would be a major contribution to reducing large-scale violence in the world. Terror would be dealt with through diplomatic and economic measures, not force, in accord with the judgment of most specialists on the topic but again in diametric opposition to present-day policy.

One could only transfer American sovereignty to an organization that does not share our basic values if one thought that our values were suspect in the first place.  Oh, and how naive do you have to be to believe that terror could be dealt with by "diplomatic and economic measures" only.  Wow!  Someone hold a seance, and tell Winston Churchill that he should have blockaded Nazi Germany and sent them stern diplomatic notes rather than engaging in an apparently illegal war of aggression.  In all seriousness, the above simply buys into the Soviet propaganda that was meant to paralyze Western foreign policy.  Most sane people would call this surrender in the face of the enemy.  Are leftists just naive or is there a more sinister motive behind their beliefs?

Furthermore, if public opinion influenced policy, the U.S. would have diplomatic relations with Cuba, benefiting the people of both countries (and, incidentally, U.S. agribusiness, energy corporations, and others), instead of standing virtually alone in the world in imposing an embargo (joined only by Israel, the Republic of Palau, and the Marshall Islands). Washington would join the broad international consensus on a two-state settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict, which (with Israel) it has blocked for 30 years -- with scattered and temporary exceptions -- and which it still blocks in word, and more importantly in deed, despite fraudulent claims of its commitment to diplomacy. The U.S. would also equalize aid to Israel and Palestine, cutting off aid to either party that rejected the international consensus.

I have no problem in recognizing Cuba.  But here we go again with the anti-semitism of the left.  Israel is the problem, if only Israel would make concessions, if only Israel would cease to exist.  There are two states.  Israel and the West Bank/Gaza.  See, the left wants Israel to withdraw to borders that would in essence, cause it to be so weak, that it would fail as a state.  And why should we give equal aid to Israel and the Palestinians?  The Palestinians have yet to recognize Israel's right to exist.  The Palestinians send suicide bombers into Israel.  The Palestinians lob missiles into Israel daily.  The Palestinians kidnap and still hold Israeli soldiers.  One could only treat Israel and the Palestinians equally if one had abandoned the concept of good and bad, as has Chomsky and the left have.

Evidence on these matters is reviewed in my book Failed States as well as in The Foreign Policy Disconnect by Benjamin Page (with Marshall Bouton), which also provides extensive evidence that public opinion on foreign (and probably domestic) policy issues tends to be coherent and consistent over long periods. Studies of public opinion have to be regarded with caution, but they are certainly highly suggestive.

Democracy promotion at home, while no panacea, would be a useful step towards helping our own country become a "responsible stakeholder" in the international order (to adopt the term used for adversaries), instead of being an object of fear and dislike throughout much of the world. Apart from being a value in itself, functioning democracy at home holds real promise for dealing constructively with many current problems, international and domestic, including those that literally threaten the survival of our species.

What should we glean from these last paragraphs?  Chomsky doesn't believe that the U.S. is a free nation.  The U.S. is at threat to the world order.  He loves public opinion.  He never mentions right and wrong.  As a rational westerner, I not only want our enemies to fear the United States, I also want our friends to fear us.  The belief that nations are equal in motives is dangerous to our survival and should be heartedly ridiculed for it communist inspiration and its naivety.

Does Chomsky's thesis in this article sound familiar?  It really isn't any different than what Pelosi, Reid, Dean, Boxer, or Murtha espouse.  Is what Chomsky, the left, and the Democrats believe in part of the American political philosophy?  Is defeat, is moral equivalence, is the transfer of sovereignty, is socialism part of the inheritance given to us by the likes of Locke, Machiavelli, Montesquieu, or Harrington?  A rational person would say no.  The left draws from Marx.  Therefore, it isn't a stretch to call the left and its beliefs un-American.  It isn't a mortal sin to question their patriotism.  

As the sons of Locke's liberalism and daughters of Montesquieu's republicanism, we need to expose the modern left's romance with a totalitarian philosophy. (Much of this post was inspired by this Gateway Pundit story).

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Stuck On Stupid, Faultline USA, , and stikNstein... has no mercy, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Author:
Technorati Tags: Chomsky Democrats Communism
Technorati Cosmos:
Technorati Watchlist:
Add this entry to: