Since I am usually behind schedule in posting news-related stuff, I had better make my observations about the Iraqi elections now, before it becomes old news. First of all, I think it great for them to have elections, experience democracy (or as close as they can get to it), etc. But what has struck me about it is the way that so many right-wing commenters are using it as an opportunity to bash the left.
Now, before you say that I am doing the same thing in reverse, let me explain. I visit both right- and left-wing blogs, to try to achieve a balanced perspective on opinion. What I have noticed is that the right-wing blogs I visit are saying the the Iraqi elections are somehow a terrible blow to the American left, a defeat for the democrats, for John Kerry, and for liberals. HUH!?
That is ridiculous. First of all, the left has been calling for the end of tyrannical dictatorships for decades; in fact, we did so even while Ronald Reagan and George Bush were giving arms to Iraq and Iran in the first place (hey, isn't doing that "giving aid and comfort to the enemy?"). The left is "all about" democracy and elections (don't get us started about the painful irony of the Bush government's endorsement of free elections everywhere but here). Or perhaps these tightie-righties are referring to the way the American left, along with many countries around the world, opposed the Iraqi war in the first place. They will totally disagree with this statement: I say elections do not justify the war. Oh sure, they always pull out that old chestnut that "the world is better off without Saddam Hussein." Well, it remains to be seen if the election results in 1) a religious theocracy no more friendly to the U.S. than Iran; 2) a puppet dictatorship controlled by the Bush regime; or 3) a friendly government that will cooperate with the rest of the world independently of undue influence from the outside. Of course, that third option would not pass Bush's "global test".
Here is something for the left-bashers to consider: to be a conservative in Iraq is to be a Hussein loyalist. To desire democracy and free elections in Iraq is to be a liberal. Crazy world, isn't it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
This is a fact. What is good for America right now is bad for the Democrats. It is sad but the survival of your party is dependant upon America failing. The Democrats are more concerned with making Bush look bad than they are about anybody's human rights. Did you see how sad Kerry looked yesterday on Meet the Press? It was embarrassing. Here is another irony. Bush's reforms of social security, taxes, and torts make him a modern progressive.
[oops, edited for clarity]
Thanks for stopping by, tennesseejed. Actually, I'm not necessarily a democrat, although I believe in the ideals they stand for, so I root for 'em. For now, consider myself a liberal independent, but I voted democrat in 2004 to try to oust Bush.
I didn't see Kerry on Meet the Press. I would say that he looks sad even after two cups of strong coffee and a vicodin. Me and a lot of others feel we got burned by Kerry, so I won't defend him today!
I don't see Bush's reforms as progressive. Change in itself is not always progress, it can be regressive, too. I think the changes his administration wants to enact would take us back to a Dickensian, early industrial-age-style society of class polarization, exploitation, and a wealthy elite feeding like vampires off the rest of us.
Besides, social security, among other things, would be quite solvent without the staggering debt they created.
And, whenever Bush mentions tort reform I think of how he sued to stop the votes from being counted in 2000, and then went on to villify "trial lawyers"!
Thanks, Romablog. I am more hopeful than ever about the Democrats, since the loss of '04 was a reminder that they (we) need to remain true to the democratic ideals you mentioned. I am also pleased to see the DNC choose Howard Dean to head the party - yeah! I think I can safely start saying "we" again when I refer to the Democrats 8^)
Don't count your chickens before they're hatched with the Dean chairmanship.
Roemer spokesman Ruben Pulido said the former Sept. 11 commissioner is staying in the race because Democrats need an effective spokesman on national security issues who will welcome more voters into the party.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=548&u=/ap/20050201/ap_on_el_ge/democrats_chair_14&printer=1
More of the same "we've gotta be more like them to win" crap from the DNC, I'm a'feared
Yeah, I may have spoken too soon, perhaps it is wishful thinking. I respect the idea of going with an alternative party, but I would rather see reforms happen within the democratic party because it's already established. Otherwise, it'll be a long row to how before the Greens or whoever is able to challenge the fascists - er, I mean republicans.
As for Dean heading the DNC, I also say yea, yippie, woohoo! I appreciate the fact that you all are principled liberals. Of course, I am a right winger, but I like you guys. Believe it or not, I consider you all to be patriotic.
Thanks. And I hope you realize that if my statements come across as harsh, it is the passion of that patriotism that makes it so. I also believe it is possible for someone whose opinion is opposite of mine to be patriotic also (I'll chalk that up to liberal tolerance :) ). But as you've probably guessed, I do not believe the neocons are patriots, because their political values are based upon selfish greed. A true patriot's political values are based upon the good of the country.
Post a Comment