Bush threatens the Left`s Intellectual Edifice - 500 Beiträge pro Seite

[spicault]

The Liberal Hangover
Why they hate Bush so.

By Adam Wolfson

At a recent news conference in London a reporter asked President Bush, "Why do they hate you, Mr. President? Why do they hate you in such numbers?" It`s a rather embarrassing question to ask anyone, never mind the leader of the free world, and Bush in his reply shed no new light on this peculiar political phenomenon. Every president has his detractors, of course. If he did not there would be reason to wonder whether he was doing his job. But Bush hatred does seem to be sui generis.

Bill Clinton was surely disliked by many conservatives, but even taking into consideration his impeachment, their dislike for him was, in certain respects, restrained. No anti-Clinton political movement or candidate ever emerged, only Dole`s ironic detachment of the 1996 election. Hillary Clinton is certainly despised by the Right for her far-left sensibilities, but that`s largely not the case with her husband, whose policies were relatively moderate and whose rhetoric was nearly always middle of the road. It is true that Ronald Reagan was greatly disliked by the Left, even hated. But it was an antipathy dripping with condescension, and condescension does not easily work itself into the white-hot lather of a Howard Dean — only the patronizing sneer of a Walter Mondale.

So what is it about George W. Bush that drives the Left utterly mad? Liberals have given many justifications for their righteous anger: He "stole" the 2000 election; he`s too Texan, too Christian, just too dumb; he struts and talks like a yokel. Others complain bitterly of his "far-right" policies: His support for a ban on partial-birth abortion, his opposition to human cloning and gay marriage, and his tax cuts and faith-based initiatives. And, of course, there`s the war in Iraq — always the war in Iraq.

These explanations no doubt have something to do with why the Left despises Bush. But there is more to their hatred than is generally understood — something more fundamental is at work. Almost all modern liberal thought begins with the bedrock assumption that humans are basically good. Within this moral horizon something such as terrorism cannot really exist, except as a manifestation of injustice, or unfairness, or lack of decent social services. Whether knowingly or not Bush has directly challenged this core liberal belief — and for this he is not easily forgiven.

The president has in fact acknowledged liberals` desire "to put that day [of September 11] behind us, as if waking from a dark dream." But if "the hope that danger has passed is comforting," it is also, Bush has admonished, "false." September 11 was no dream; it was, in his view, a portent of what may come. And so Bush has repeatedly urged his audiences to see that "the evil is in plain sight," and that the democracies must learn to "face these threats with open eyes."

But what should be clear and obvious is made obscure by liberal ideology. If we are to face the evil in plain sight, we must first properly fit words to facts. Bush calls the terrorists "killers" and "evildoers," and speaks of an "axis of evil." He affirms the need for the "violent restraint of violent men," and argues that military strength is necessary to keep at bay "a chaotic world ruled by force." He describes life under Hussein`s rule in Iraq as a "Baathist hell." We live, the president warns, in "a time of danger."

These are not mere words to Bush, but have given shape to his singular foreign policy. The president went to war in Iraq rather than trust the good faith of Hussein or the diligence of U.N. arms inspectors; he refuses to recognize Arafat as a legitimate leader of the Palestinian people; he has made clear that a lasting peace can come to the Middle East only through democratic reform. The very touchstone of his thinking is the moral and political distinction between democracy and tyranny.

Such analysis does not go down well with liberals. The utopian Left believes that the wolf can be made to dwell with the lamb. Their preferred method of dealing with wolfish dictators is to "dialogue" with them. Surely, they say, dictators want (well, more or less,) what we want: peace and good will towards all men. It is this sort of blindness that allowed Arafat to win the Nobel Peace prize. It is this sort of wishful thinking that led liberals to believe that Hussein could be contained by U.N. resolutions alone. The Left almost as a matter of ideology shuns all such unpleasant realities. The Clinton administration, after all, proposed calling rogue states — nations who starve and torture their own citizens and threaten their neighbors — "states of concern." Bush simply calls them "evil."

The Left vilifies Bush because he insists on calling a spade a spade, and in so doing threatens to bring down their entire intellectual edifice. Even after the horrors of the 20th century, the Left has yet to recover from its Rousseau-induced hangover. Liberals still insist on seeing human nature as basically good. Nothing is more offensive to such a mentality, not Hussein`s torture chambers, not al Qaeda`s wanton killing of innocent life, than one who dares to speak so plainly of "evildoers."


Adam Wolfson is editor of The Public Interest.

[spicault]

They yearn for the good old days of genteel anti-Semitism

By Barbara Amiel
(Filed: 01/12/2003)


"I can`t wait for this war to end," a European aristocrat is said to have remarked during the Second World War, "so a gentleman can be an anti-Semite again."

The war ended. Adolf, the house-painter from Braunau am Inn, died. And some gentlemen became anti-Semites once more.

Modern anti-Semitism sits well with this anecdote. Just as the aristocrat recoiled at Hitler, so the anti-Semitism of the British media, Westminster, Oxbridge and the salon circuit would not dream of advocating the murderous policies of the Third Reich. History repeats itself as it spreads the virus once more among the credulous, but history is mysterious. It never repeats in precisely the same way.

In the Middle East, where countries such as Egypt or Saudi Arabia regurgitate the Protocols of Zion and the Damascus Blood libel, one understands the agenda. Behind their anti-Semitism is the elimination of the Jewish state of Israel. More baffling is a BBC programme earnestly explaining that Egypt`s newspaper cartoons showing a series of evil-looking and exaggeratedly hook-nosed Jews manipulating America "may seem bizarre, racist and anachronistic to outsiders" but are really only "symbolic" of a desire to support the Palestinians and are based on "no historical hatred of Jews as a race".

What can one make of such a programme? The choice of interviewees are a New York Jew converted to Islam and teaching at the Cairo University, and some nameless "young Egyptians" in coffee shops. They "hate Israelis" but regard "the Jews as our cousins". The programme seems to have no grasp of what it is to be an unbeliever and a Jew in an Islamic theocracy: better under the Mameluke sultans than under the Crusaders or Nasser, but second-class citizens nevertheless, always in fear of anti-Semitic violence. Is such an interviewing technique selective to the point of being anti-Semitic or is it just historically illiterate?

Up-to-date anti-Semitism awards the British cartoon-of-the-year prize to an illustration from the Independent that could happily have graced the pages of Der Sturmer: a vicious caricature of the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, naked, eating a Palestinian infant. One cannot imagine a British newspaper running a similar caricature of Yasser Arafat or, indeed, his supporter, European Commission president Romano Prodi, even though their money funds some of today`s most murderous terrorists.

Does any of this matter? Perhaps not. The solution is not to fire BBC journalists or send out the race relations gang to censor the Independent. This low-level anti-Semitism breaks no bones; while it may embolden the thugs who do, in today`s Britain it probably only feeds an atmosphere which, at worst, will lead to civil exclusion for British Jews. Visible Jews will be less likely to get university places or be top candidates for jobs. Salon anti-Semitism stops there; it does not envision Auschwitz.

Many people, journalists in particular, protest that they are not anti-Semitic only anti-Sharon or anti-Zionist. Possibly. Sometimes it is difficult to draw the line between anti-Semitism and genuine political differences. Some anti-Zionists are just anti-Zionists. If, however, you apply different standards to the state of Israel than to any other country, or if you distort its actions and close your eyes to its enemies` faults in order to demonise Israel, then your motives stop being credible. Israel is the existing homeland of the Jewish people and cannot be viewed in total isolation from them. It is possible to believe that its creation was a mistake without being anti-Semitic, but advocating policies knowing they would lead to its destruction veers into anti-Semitic territory.

Then there are the boycotts. If organising boycotts against all Israeli professors and products is not anti-Semitic, it is so close that it must be either terminal stupidity or an incomprehension and lack of any ethical standards. I don`t know which is worse. Would the professors at London University or Oxford who organise and support such boycotts prefer to be known as people of total moral confusion - close to moral insanity - or anti-Semites? Take your pick.

The EU commissioned a study on anti-Semitism in Europe and on getting its results have suppressed it. Not that surprising. Lots of organisations commission studies that produce results they don`t want to hear and then ban them. Tobacco companies have allegedly done it with studies on tar.

Governments have certainly done it with studies showing that second-hand smoke is not particularly dangerous. A casual observer could have told the EU that any study of contemporary European anti-Semitism would probably show, as this study apparently does, that it is related to (1) an influx of Muslim immigrants (2) the propaganda of the Left and (3) the emboldenment by the first two of the far Right, who think it is now respectable to join the chorus. But such conclusions don`t fit the EU`s pro-Palestinian bias.

Furthermore, while it`s safe to keep Muslim Turkey out of the EU, because as Giscard d`Estaing said snobbishly, they are not really Europeans, stirring up immigrant Muslims already inside the EU could be inconvenient. The Jews have attracted dislike for millennia, probably because during much of that time they maintained a separate existence without a country of their own. Most people trying to survive without a national address have disappeared through slaughter or assimilation - which is why the Jews concluded a homeland would be a good thing. But there is a price for this non-disappearance, especially when its members are high achievers.

Last week, after a Jewish school was burnt, France`s Chief Rabbi advised his parishioners to wear a baseball cap or hat when outside instead of the identifying yarmulke. Well, yes. If only Jews would stop being so Jewish, the problem of anti-Semitism might go away. If they didn`t have synagogues or prayer curls, or if they denounced Israel, they would not be so grating. They could, naturally, describe themselves as Jews, perhaps mention their Jewish ancestry as a matter of pride - or as a tool in political discussion.

Today in Geneva, a group of Israeli Jews and Palestinians are signing a peace agreement, "the Geneva accord" which, if implemented, would probably, if unintentionally, lead to one goal of anti-Semites - the ending of the Jewish state. All the signatories are private individuals representing no one. Leading the Israelis is Yossi Beilin, a politician repudiated by voters. Neither side could deliver acceptance of its terms by its fellow citizens. No responsible Israeli government could sign this document, which takes no account of security and present realities. It is said that Yasser Arafat is happy with it: one rather suspects he is smiling at the Accords and not on them. Why, then, would any loyal Israeli be involved in this peace plan? Why would such eminent people as Kofi Annan and Colin Powell encourage it?

Possibly, because in the 21st century, after several millennia of the problem, many people are exasperated with the "Jewish question". Even more to the point, some Jews themselves are exhausted with being Jews.

Daily Telegraph

[Wrdlbrmpfd]

Interessiert sowieso koa Sau.

Wärst lieber in Neuseeland bliebn, hättst dort den "Herr der Ringe" anschaugn könna.

Mit dem Gschwafl vom Bush lockst sowieso in der Jahreszeit koan Hund vorm Of`n vor. Der Tschortsch hat nur mehr Alteisenwert! Wann kapierst es endlich?

[Kabbes]

@Wrdlbrmpfd:

seit die bushisten ordentlich ein paar in die fresse kriegen, ertrage ich den ganzen schmotz vom spicolt auch besser