[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
New World Order Title: Liberal Battleflag opponent endorses Neocon Wars We’ve pointed out in the past how much in common liberals have with the Neocons. Both worship the central government as a tool for social reengineering at home and abroad in the name of universal values, of which America is the shining example and chief enforcer. So it’s no surprise that liberal Charlotte Observer editor Ed Williams recently hey-me-too’ed the Neocon agenda of world revolution. In an op-ed entitled, “If America can plant freedom, it will grow,” Williams paints the same picture of militarism in Norman Rockwell tones that Bush & Co. have used so effectively to sell their program of global interventionism. Subscribing to the same underlying (and, apparently unknown to them, contradictory) notions of “American exceptionalism” and universalism as the Neocons, Williams also displays the same eye-popping arrogance and self-importance: Freedom expanded greatly over the first two centuries of our nation’s existence. Though we’d prefer that other nations learn from our experience, we should remember that our 21st-century standards of freedom and tolerance have developed slowly through evolution, not swiftly through revelation. Right – if the world isn’t smart enough to copy our noble example – and what could be more noble of an example than ours? – then it’s our obligation to patiently guide it toward the light that we constantly shine. Yes, it’s a tough job, but some armed busy-body’s got to do it. And only we extremist, America-hating, unenlightened types dare question just how free we really are. In the name of the “freedom” doled out by an interventionist government, we surrender more than a third of our income to support a regime that denies us our right to use our private property as we please in the name of “Civil Rights.” Our businesses must conform to egalitarian standards of racial balance, one of the niftiest schemes for expanding bureaucratic control ever devised. Our schools, supposedly within the jurisdiction of the States, have been bused, standardized, and regimented by the Federal government to the point where education takes a back seat to indoctrination, and often, pure day-to-day survival. With the precedent of expanding government power in the name of a “higher power” than the Constitution established, it was a simple matter to enact other laws that bypassed the constraints on government power the Founders were careful to enact. In the name of national security, the government may search your home and business, and monitor your conversations, without a warrant. It may declare you a non-citizen without proof, and jail you and torture you at its pleasure. This is freedom? Williams invokes the progress that minorities have made, thanks to the expansion of government power. He neglects to mention, as all liberals do, that the Civil Rights revolution is directly linked to the rise of black illiteracy, illegitimacy, and crime. But then, the collateral damage done by intervention at home and abroad is always excused by the nobility of the intentions, not the reality of the effects. And of course, the conservative argument that different peoples have different histories and cultures is a mere nuisance that’s flicked away like an annoying insect: The notion that Islam is incapable of permitting what Western democrats consider decent, civilized government reveals a vast ignorance of history. In fact, the corruption, oppression and intolerance found in some Muslim nations is not a product of Islam but of other influences—including, in the Middle East, practices introduced under the Nazis and later Soviet-style Communists. Umm … I don’t claim to be anything other than an amateur when it comes to history, but darned if I can identify the period when either the Nazis or Soviets ruled the Middle East. Why would anyone think Muslims don’t want a system of government that values human rights and operates with the consent of the governed? The blinders of universalism shield its wearers from so many embarrassing facts. One of them is that even a warm, fuzzy term such as “human rights” does not mean the same from culture to culture. Here’s an example. In Charlotte a few years ago, a Muslim boy was ordered to attend group therapy after he learned the hard way that you can’t treat females the same way in America as you can in the Middle East. His parents objected on the grounds that he’d be exposed to even more deviant behavior in such therapy, and defied the court order. The boy’s parents were arrested. The woman, however, refused to wear the jump suit issued to all prisoners, seeing how the outfit did not include a Moslem head scarf. Local Moslems protested. One of the protestors, a young woman whose head was properly wrapped in a scarf, held a sign that read, “What about my rights?” Indeed. The Charlotte jailers treated their Moslem customers the same way they treat all others, so they thought the Moslems had been treated properly. But different cultures have different ideas of what others expect from them, and what they can expect from others. For all their talk about diversity, universalists of all stripes actually loathe genuine diversity when it means deviation from their precious doctrines – which is why both liberals, such as Mr. Williams, and the Neocons despise the South and its symbols. And make no mistake about it – universalism requires force. Despite Williams’ assurance that “We cannot force other nations to adopt our brand of democracy,” he endorses the notion that American goodness is so abundant and well-intentioned that it can put the stamp of legitimacy on a carrot and stick foreign policy: But we can encourage free elections and the rule of law. We can criticize other nations for oppression and punish them for atrocities. We can applaud and reward them as they move toward freedom, tolerance and justice. Right – just as Lyndon Johnson punished the North Vietnamese with carpet bombing while offering bribes if they’d just come to their senses and comply with US demands. Just as Bush and Rumsfeld are today bloodying Afghanistan and Iraq while tempting their leaders with attractive incentives to join Team America. Like McNamara, the Bushies cannot comprehend what prevents their subjects from responding the way they’re supposed to. Call it human nature – call it the spirit of rebellion. Whatever it’s called, there’s a powerful impulse within every people to reject outside control. Now there’s a universal rule we can agree to.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|