House of Eratosthenes

Maybe it’s their cozy history with union thuggery, or perhaps they’ve lately become a little too friendly with Europe. But since the September 11 attacks, it’s come one notch shy of a new dictionary definition: When those on “The Left” engage in political debate, the “debate” invariably stops being an exchange of ideas, and swings around into an exercise in telling people what to do.

Sadly, this remains the case — perhaps even reaches a zenith — when the conversation turns toward Iraq. On this subject, the Left is cornered by people like me, who think it was the right thing to do, and far too late; and, by people who believe it was a hideous mistake, but see the wisdom that now that we’re in there, retreat even in future-timeline form would be a major disaster. Against both of us, I’m entirely unclear on what True Believes on the Left have in mind for a vision. I’m not sure they know either. But boy howdy, they sure know how to look into the sands of the past and lecture anyone who will listen on things that should not have been done.

And their plan is iron-clad for figuring out who is a hypocrite, as if that’s what we need to do in these troubled times: A hypocrite is someone who 1) disagrees with them, oh boy, there’s a shocker; and 2) isn’t actually on the front line in Iraq, fighting the Good Fight. In other words, me. And Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Rourke, Coulter, Elder, Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc. etc. etc.

It is perhaps lost on no one, although seldom pointed out anywhere, that if you qualify for #1 then #2 is a given. If you believe, as I do, that the Left is a bunch of bitter, whiny crybabies who can’t get over the fact they lost an election, and a bunch of dullards who simply figure out their Hollywood icons don’t like war and therefore they shouldn’t either, you have a God-given freedom-of-speech right to say so — right up until you enlist. Then you have to hunker down and do your job. If you believe passionately in your points-of-view, you are obliged to leave the commentary to someone else who isn’t enlisted. Ah, but The Left likes to tell people what to do, and lives in a fantasy world where everybody complies unquestioningly — therefore — anyone pro-war, should enlist, and shut up. And when you say they “should” what you mean is they will.

They want zero dissent. That is what they must have, because they can’t cope with dissent. Coping with dissent, it seems, is everyone else’s job.

I’m not sure who circulated this talking point for them. It can’t be someone with too much smarts, because it doesn’t work. It just plain doesn’t. For one thing, free speech isn’t really free speech for anybody unless it is enjoyed by everybody. Another problem is, enlisting is a lot like looking for a job — just because you’ve declared yourself to be on the market, doesn’t automatically guarantee someone is willing to take you. Among the people like me who understand why it was necessary to go into Iraq, are a lot of people who acquired this wisdom over the years noticing the far-flung effects of terrorist appeasement. By and large, we’re pretty old. The Left wants their new rule to apply universally, not just to certain people, so do they think there aren’t any octagenarians and nanogenarians in favor of the war? Do they think there’s no one on emphezema who requires an oxygen tank? No paraplegics?

The point is, when The Left notices that those who disagree, aren’t serving, and announces the discovery of hypocrisy, they show their own ignorance. People who disagree, aren’t serving by definition, because when you serve you give up your freedom-of-speech rights about things like this. People who do that, are heroes. And while they go off and fight with bullets, the terrorists they fight plan to retaliate in the theater of ideas. The terrorists have said so!

Who is left to engage in that theater of ideas? The anti-war left would have it be just them. Nobody else. Their army would march across the battlefield, unopposed, participating in something resembling more of a parade than any kind of conflict. Freed from the burdensome task of having to explain their ideas, they would simply demoralize everybody else until we pressured our leaders into a retreat. The troops would then fly home, the task incomplete, and then sit by the fireplace with the rest of us, waiting to see what happens.

Then, I would have to guess, and I expect no one would directly disagree, the prognosis is that we go back to the days of a terrorist “nuisance.” We’ll argue about Social Security while embassies are bombed. We’ll hash out the details in some well-intentioned and possibly effective welfare reform bill, while ships are blown up. We’ll scream at each other over union rules and cost-of-living adjustments, while planes are hijacked. Every five or ten years, we’ll send our President out to the Rose Garden to shake hands and drink Mint Julip with a terrorist and announce the end of terrorism. And every once in a while when things go really, really well for the terrorists, we’ll have several thousands of people dead in a smoking crater where a landmark once stood. Then it will be front page news, we’ll “come together as Americans, with no Republicans or Democrats” and two months later we’ll go back to yelling at each other over relatively trivial bullshit, while poor Osama wonders what in the hell he has to do to get our attention again.

In short, terrorism would be treated like a really bad weather phenomenon, with no one responsible.

Except when we feel like blaming Republicans. Hey, brilliant plan!

Here’s a much better one, anti-war leftists. I, and millions like me, will intellectually oppose you. Someone has to. HAS TO. And we’re not over there, where you want us to be. What’s worse, is we know why you want us there, and it has nothing to do with hypocrisy. Deal with it.

[…] Back when I provided an answer to it, I had already started to see this repudiated by my most hardcore left-wing friends and I thought it was on the DailyKOS trash heap, or headed there. To the credit of The Left, that is what they do with some of their silliest arguments. They’re like…candy wrappers. Or condoms. Useful for a designated time, for a designated purpose, and once that purpose is fulfilled all you want to do is get rid of it. […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 09/21/2007 @ 07:37

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Why Aren’t You There?Saturday, October 29th, 2005

Why Aren’t You There?
Saturday, October 29th, 2005