Moderation in Pursuit of Failure
Is No Virtue
No, really, it isn’t
One thing you can say for MoveOn.org and likeminded
loony-left organizations: they stand on principle. It is a perverted
set of principles, but they are motivated primarily by ideological
purity. The mainstream Democratic Party, including Senators and
Representatives, hew to a different guiding light. They lift a
finger gingerly to the wind, listen for the pulse of the media,
observe the polls, and listen to their constituent mail. And then
they form a principled opinion, which may or may not have anything
to do with their prior opinions, or with reality. Unfortunately,
this sort of mundane political shallowness is not a surprise.
We expect our politicians to be vessels of cynicism, regardless
of political stripe.
What catches one more by surprise is that the discussion over
how to proceed in Iraq is no longer a debate over how best to
succeed. It has become a debate over how to most elegantly
fail. Lord knows there are all sorts of legitimate issues and
questions surrounding how to best succeed in the larger War on
Islamic Terrorism including the Iraq component. The President
and his Administration - as talented a bunch as they are - have
no monopoly on right answers. A healthy debate over goals and
strategies is vital for a democracy. We Americans can be noisy
and clumsy in our debates, but one could normally assume that
virtually all of us started from the same shared assumption: our
goal was to figure out how to succeed. Our goal was winning. Those
who didn’t share this starting point were generally and
accurately defined as “the enemy.”
No more. It is clear that a good sized chunk of the left actively
wants the U.S. to fail. And this is beginning to seep into the
mainstream Democratic worldview as the perpetual mainstream media
assault on the Administration’s efforts has weakened the
public’s patience. This is truly poisonous stuff. Even Rep.
John Murtha’s calls for a troop pullout were not a call
for winning in a different way. He was calling for failing with
as little impact as possible. At least he was honest enough to
be upfront in his assessment that we (The U.S.) were the problem.
The oddest thing about all this is that the Left is actively
pursuing the failure option in the face of overwhelming success.
An honest assessment of what has happened in Iraq shows:
1. A remarkable initial military victory against a large, well
equipped and seemingly very dangerous army,
2. A complex and multi-faceted rebuilding effort that has succeeded
remarkably despite the ongoing presence of a Baathist remnant
insurgency and Al Qaeda terrorism. Despite these obstacles, every
milestone has been met. Every election has been a success. Bombs
continue to go off, and an occasional soldier is killed, but the
fact that these are presented by the media as The Story
is perverse. The Story is that the building blocks of democracy
have been created, and that the Iraqis themselves are beginning
to put shoulder to wheel to move the process forward.
But admitting to success won’t do. The left cannot abide
American success. They have managed to tie together three strands
of thought that equate “virtue” with American failure.
1. Parochial Snobbery. Do not underestimate
the degree to which good old-fashioned snobbery motivates the
left. The modern left tends to consist of verbally-skilled girlie-men.
They reside in academia, in entertainment, in law, and in soft
technologies. They view the right generally, and the Bush Administration
in particular, as a bunch of troglodytes. Texas cowboys, greedy
businessmen, simple soldiers: these are not the sort of people
the Left wants to see succeed with power. To admit that these
sorts of yahoos might be correct, might even succeed, turns the
world on its head. This helps to explain the seemingly contradictory
behavior by those who supported President Clinton’s every
military maneuver yet opposed President Bush’s every move.
To oppose anything the “Repukes” are in favor of is
a sign of social status. Hence, to root for the failure of “his”
policies is a social virtue.
2. Anti-Bush Fever. More than mere snobbery
is behind the specific seething hatred the left reserves for George
W. Bush. I have contended that the dislike for W is more cultural
than political. In terms of the Culture War, it is safe to say
that if President Bush is for it, then the left is against it.
He is truly - to them - a symbol of what is evil about America.
Again, the logic is simple from there. If the President is evil,
then working for the failure of his policies must be virtuous,
no?
3. Vietnam Syndrome. The lesson taken from
Vietnam by a huge swath of the Left is that it is nobler to subvert
the policy of democratically elected governments when one happens
to disagree with them than it is to support governmental action
even when one disagrees with it. This reflexive opposition is
seen on its own terms as a virtuous act. The Left likes to see
this as “Speaking Truth to Power,” but I find it more
akin to throwing temper tantrums. The instinctive urge to “protest”
is part of this instinct. By screaming loudly enough the Leftist
hopes to make sure as many people as possible see just how darned
virtuous he is.
Any 1 of these 3 strands is enough to bias a Leftist towards
the pursuit of failure. But as long as public opinion was seen
to be holding firmly behind the President, the enthusiasm for
advertising that bias was largely confined to the fever swamps
of the left. With the public’s opinion seeming to weaken,
the fever for failure is spreading into the halls of government.
The best of the Democrats - like Murtha - are finding ways to
pursue failure that are clever and moderate sounding. But be clear:
their wish is that America will fail in implementing the President’s
strategy. We often say that the Left offers no alternative vision.
That is true but irrelevant. Putting the President and his ilk
in their place is the alternative vision. That matters more than
victory in Iraq or anywhere else.
|