Liberals, Help me Out Here

Published on March 15, 2007 By Gideon MacLeish In Current Events

OK, I'm a little confused.

Ever since 9/11, a select group of far left liberals (read: NOT mainstream Democrats) has demanded that we were the reason 9/11 happened...and that other countries hate us because of our hegemonic tendencies. And while mainstream Democrats weren't among the sandwich board kooks shouting on main street, they certainly didn't raise much of a protest while the fringies stood on their soapboxes.

Now today I read about presidential hopeful John Edwards' plan to educate impoverished children around the globe. Again, no shouts of protest from the Democractic faithful.

Why is it when the GOP meddles in foreign affairs, it's hegemony, and when the DNC does it, it is compassion?

The truth is, we don't have the resources to educate the globe. India needs to take care of India's affairs, China needs to take care of China's affairs. While it may make for good rhetoric, why is it that presidential hopefuls are focusing their energies on other countries, and not on US affairs?

Could it be that they actually understand what conservatives have been saying all along: that while true poverty may not be completely eradicated in the United States, incidents of it are so few and far between as to render it almost an anachronism? Or could it be something else, the ear tickling ramblings of politicians trying to give their far left loonies what they want to bring them back into the fold?

At either rate, I think we would be well advised to note these comments and bring them back to the surface. After all, if we can't manage the affairs of our own country without running massive deficits, how are we going to manage the affairs of a globe with a population twenty times our size? And will we want to live in the quagmire that results?

Comments (Page 1)

philomedy

on Mar 16, 2007

philomedy

on Mar 16, 2007

To begin, let me say that mainstream conservatives haven't exactly been stampeding down the avenues fixing targets on right-wing lunatics, and to be honest, I don't believe that they should have to. That's not really the point of this article, however, so I'll leave it for now and perhaps revisit it on my own page.

Now, as to why there is no protest when John Edwards says he wants to educate impoverished children worldwide:

John Edwards: I want to educate impoverished children worldwide.
Democrats: How dare you!?!
Morning Newspaper: Democrats Oppose Educating Youth Worldwide

At some point in the article, probably near the bottom of the page, said morning newspaper may decide to print some actual facts, and perhaps make the valid and logical points that you raise (i.e. we don't have the resources, etc.), but the headline will be what it is.

John Edwards, like every other candidate at this point, needs rhetoric that works. Are there logical obstacles? Of course. But this is true of every politician's pipe-dream campaign statements, be they about world peace, ending world hunger, or being faithful to their spouses.

There is no protest here because there cannot be, just like there can be no protest against someone who says they plan to work towards world peace. We know it won't happen, and they know it won't happen, but it is a noble proposition that, on principle, cannot be opposed. Same scenario here: the principle of the thing is good, and I assume the proposed execution is going to be a bit more complex than "spend American resources to educate the impoverished worldwide." I assume this proposal is still in its infancy and no details have been released, since there are no specifics mentioned in the post, but I would hope the plan being considered relies on some sort of worldwide coalition to educate the worldwide population.

And on one side note to close, it really doesn't help your case to ask the hegemony/compassion question. If you're going to start a piece by acknowledging the difference between the far left and the mainstream, why follow up with a question that validates the far left point of view? To answer the question, either way, the GOP's recent meddling has tended to be a bit more explosive than worldwide education.

Dr Guy

on Mar 16, 2007

JOhn Edwards is the epitomy of how the left reacts. It has nothing to do with results - just the intention. So he can make grand promises that have no chance of being done, and he is judged on his intent, not the result.

philomedy

on Mar 16, 2007

What great result is the current administration being judged on? Crafting rhetoric is what every self-respecting politician, of either denomination, is doing at this point in the campaign.

Dr Guy

on Mar 16, 2007

What great result is the current administration being judged on?

You dont see judgement from the left and the media on Bush? You cant read the Ny Times without getting that, instead of news.

philomedy

on Mar 17, 2007

That's my point. There is plenty of judgment of Bush, and it is well deserved.

My previous point was about your claim that the left cares only about intent, and not results. If this were the case, than the left would be applauding Bush for deposing a tyrant, instead of crucifying him for mismanaging a war. And on the topic of grand promises, I believe the war ended a few years back, according to the president...and to hear him speak, it sounds like he wants to be judged on the nobility of his intent, instead of the travesty that it has become.

Also, how do you highlight portions of the article and insert them into a response? Apparently my prolonged absence has rendered me bloggishly improficient.

SanChonino

on Mar 17, 2007

Also, how do you highlight portions of the article and insert them into a response? Apparently my prolonged absence has rendered me bloggishly improficient.

If you're using IE, just highlight it and hit the quote button, either the "Q" on the blogs themselves or the "Quote" button on the forums.

In Firefox, it's a bit more finnicky. You've got to copy/paste it, all wrapped up in the tags (keep in mind I'm changing the q to a g so you can see it) [quote] and [/guote].

philomedy

on Mar 17, 2007

Thanks.

Dr Guy

on Mar 17, 2007

My previous point was about your claim that the left cares only about intent, and not results. If this were the case, than the left would be applauding Bush for deposing a tyrant

I should have qualified that as "when the intent is in line with their philosophy". Obviously, Bush is not. But the worst president of the 20th century is hailed by them as their greatest sucess in the last half of the 20th century. Why? Because his intentions were pure, even though his results stunk.

MasonM

on Mar 17, 2007

In Firefox, it's a bit more finnicky. You've got to copy/paste it, all wrapped up in the tags (keep in mind I'm changing the q to a g so you can see it)

.

Actually just highlighting it and hitting the quote button is now working again in Firefox.

philomedy

on Mar 17, 2007

I could make a case for Bush being the worst president in the last half century, and use the same claim as to why the right lets him slide.

MasonM

on Mar 17, 2007

I could make a case for Bush being the worst president in the last half century, and use the same claim as to why the right lets him slide.

I could make a case that Donald Duck would make the greatest president in history, but that doesn't make it so. Anyone with a bit of wit can make a case for or against anything. I personally find the Left/Right bickering to be some of the best entertainment around. Both sides are full of shit but neither one seems to know it.

SanChonino

on Mar 17, 2007

Actually just highlighting it and hitting the quote button is now working again in Firefox.

It's working for me in the forums, but still not in the regular blog pages.

Dr Guy

on Mar 17, 2007

could make a case for Bush being the worst president in the last half century, and use the same claim as to why the right lets him slide.

Lets talk media. Then we have a discussion, and not some opining.

philomedy

on Mar 18, 2007

Lets talk media. Then we have a discussion, and not some opining.

I could make a case for Bush being the worst president of the last half century, and use the same claim as to why the right-leaning media lets him slide.On the same topic, plenty of the same right-wing media was ranting against Clinton while he was in office.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!