Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Thoughts on the Left’s Assessment of the World’s Good Guys and Bad Guys – and of Offensive and Defensive Weapons
As I was exercising tonight, random thoughts popped into my head, as I was thinking more about the Israel v. Hamas conflict. So please indulge my stream of consciousness as I think through a few questions.
Is there a parallel between the left’s opposition to SDI in 1980 – going so far as to propagandistically call it “Star Wars,” implying it was offensive, rather than defensive in nature — and the pathetic assessment by some on the left today that the war in Israel is unfair, in part, because Israel’s Iron Dome has caused a disproportionality of casualties?
In both cases we are talking missile defense systems and in both we are talking about the left sympathizing with the aggressors against whom the defensive system was designed to be used (in the first case) or actually used (presently).
I believe Ronald Reagan’s primary rationale for developing missile defense was that if we had it, the Soviet Union wouldn’t dare attack us, or, if they did, it wouldn’t do them much good. Of course, that was also the rationale for his rebuilding our military and defense systems in the first place following the Carter disarmament. As long as we had enough arms to respond to the Soviet’s nuclear attack with assured destruction, they wouldn’t attack us. I know, it was mutual (MAD).
But the Soviets were engaged in such an aggressive and rapid buildup for a while (more ICBMs, multiple warheads, submarines etc.) that concern began to grow in some quarters that Russia might eventually develop first-strike capability. The left always pooh-poohed the notion, but my recollection is that there was legitimate concern about it. In other words, we weren’t just building missiles for the sake of feeding the “military industrial complex.” Reagan’s program of rebuilding and modernizing our nuclear and conventional weapons, and refusing to take SDI off the table, significantly contributed to the Soviet’s demise.
The left accused Reagan, et al., of extremism and warmongering for this buildup and SDI, but many of those same leftists advocated a much more extreme position – a nuclear freeze. Truth be told, if some of these kooks and pacifists had their way, we would have completely disarmed. Along these lines, to some extent, Obama is quietly disarming us across the board (F-22 raptor, missile defense, military space programs, Tomahawk missile, ICBMs, etc.) Meanwhile, Russia and China have been ramping up. Research it if you don’t believe me. Ah, flexibility.
Why would the left ever oppose America’s nuclear superiority and advocate parity? In this increasingly dangerous world, why would some of them favor complete nuclear disarmament? Sure, we’re seeing more instances of asymmetrical war, but that hardly makes nuclear weaponry and other sophisticated conventional weapons obsolete.
Well, I happen to believe that the United States has been as close as a nation can be – especially a nation with such unprecedented power – to a benevolent superpower and, as I’ve said before, overall a force for good in the world. It follows that the more power we have, other things being equal, the more peaceful and stable the world will be.
The left doesn’t seem to share that favorable view of the United States, and thus doesn’t believe that the world will be safer if we have nuclear and/or conventional superiority. Indeed, they tend to think our military supremacy is itself a provocation, just as they think people with wealth are the bad guys who must be taken down a notch – excuse me for that extraneous analogy, but I couldn’t resist. Here’s another analogy I can’t resist, so forgive me: On some level they must view the weapons themselves as the culprit – as posing the real danger. It’s not just the people with their fingers on the button, but the weapons, just as they blame the existence of guns and not criminals for gun crimes.
In summary, I think the left generally opposes America’s pursuit of SDI, and Israel’s “unfair” use of Iron Dome, because, in their heart of hearts, they don’t see either the U.S. or Israel as the good guys and don’t think they can be entrusted with military superiority – even though the track records of both nations prove they can. The flipside of this coin is that they also don’t recognize the bad guys, whether it be the former Soviet Union, Hamas, or even modern Russia – though Obama is rapidly being forced to change his tune here.
But until recently, the president mocked Mitt Romney for recognizing how dangerous the Russians are and contended that he could make everything better by simply being kinder and gentler to them (reset), which is literally as complex as his foreign policy mindset apparently gets. Same with Islamic terrorists – if we’re nicer to them, they’ll be nicer to us. In both cases, their hostility to us is largely a reaction to our imperialistic attitude. It is our fault they don’t behave because we are arrogant American exceptionalists who push our weight around and because we are close-minded and intolerant toward other cultures – and non-Judeo-Christian religions. If we weren’t so narrow-minded, we’d realize just how much Muslims have contributed to the fabric of our society, as Obama said the other day in a presidential statement.
I just shake my head in near-disbelief at the bizarre worldview that gives rise to beliefs better suited to an alternative reality. But these Twilight Zoners, like it or not, are currently in charge.
Published in General
Iron Beam is almost ready – very close to the original Star Wars – that will really annoy the Leftists and Islamists :-)
David, two responses:
1.) You write, “I think the left generally opposes America’s pursuit of SDI, and Israel’s “unfair” use of Iron Dome, because, in their heart of hearts, they don’t see either the U.S. or Israel as the good guys and don’t think they can be entrusted with military superiority.” Exactly.
2.) If this is the kind of thinking you do while you’re working out, could you give me the brand name of your treadmill?
I think its the arrogance of a comfortable life. Its is almost because these people have it so good here and have never had to deal with these things up close that they can afford to have this upside down view of the world.
John Kerry is a perfect example of this. He can screw up this cease fire deal and make this conflict worse, then go back to his beach house in Nantucket to go wind surfing without a second thought.
No state is inherently good. All states are prone to evil which is why we need a constitution to limit state power.
True, they don’t see the US or Israel as good guys. Worse, they’re are incapable of calling evil what it is. Sadly, they have been playing this game of make-believe with Islamic terrorism for so long-with a brief bout of coherence after 9/11-that they’re not going to wake up until something awful happens in their (our) backyard again.
When you have no faith, your world view is rather limited. It causes you to think you are greater than you are. You end up believing all men can “get along” – because everything is relative.
Leftists have no faith. Without faith, they have no morals, and without a moral compass, they cannot determine right and wrong. So all things ARE relative. ?And then you wonder that they choose foolishly. ?How would they know any better.
The “Twilight Zoners” are actually on the other side, inasmuch if they could wish us into the cornfield, they would.
IIRC from my college days as a Deeply Concerned Young Liberal, there were deep shuddering fears on the left about Reagan’s curiously bifurcated nature: he was blind and stupid, yet devilishly clever. He wanted war with the Soviets – that was the stupid part – but was so smart he wanted to devise a way to minimize the catastrophic results. Hence the worry: he believed, we thought, in a “winnable” nuclear war.
Now, anyone who saw “War Games” knows that the only way to win is not to play, but not Reagan; he wanted to dismantle the concept of MAD, which would make nuclear war more likely. The left viewed the USSR as eminently rational, inasmuch as it wouldn’t push the button unless we’d backed them into a corner, but they were also a bit twitchy due to the Great Patriotic War, and hence might do something rash in response to our own provocative blundering. (To the left, our misunderstanding of our foes is excoriated, but their misunderstanding of us is excused.)
So the problem was Reagan. The very question of whether we could not only prevail but survive and recover with minimal losses through technological defenses was anathema. No sensible person entertained the idea. When a warmonger like Reagan explored the option it meant inevitable hellfire.
All concerns about nuclear weapons tend to evaporate when a Democrat enters the White House. Then we get TV shows where President Martin Sheen orders the forces to full alert and it’s a grim recognition of statesmanship and cool, steady-nerved leadership, with sotto-voce God help us mutterings to show how much this weighs on his noble soul.
In short, the Left does not care about reality. They think that they have the power to raise and lower the seas, litterally. No amount of evidence to the contrary till change their minds about anything. If they are shown to be wrong, they just ignore the past and move on.
One thought is that some on the left believe they are ‘progressing’ beyond dualistic Cartesian world views, beyond good and evil for instance. They do not like to call anyone good guys or bad guys, in favor of what they consider a more nuanced view. This view usually leads to making excuses for they bad guys, and blaming the good guys. For example, after all the horrible things that Al Quaeda and Saddam Hussein did earlier this decade, most of the anger was aimed at Bush! My feeling is that when you take the position that humans can be smarter than right/wrong dualistic thinking, you almost always wind up criticizing the right side and supporting the wrong side. Even in cases where it’s easy to see: one side launches rockets into civilian areas or shoots down civilian planes – those would be the bad guys – left-wingers think that is an unsophisticated view.
Dennis Prager notes that if you do not fight big evils, you end up fighting little evils.
Tell me this article, which I just heard Rush talking about, doesn’t validate my point in this post.
That is just Leftist babble. It makes no sense, but most of what the Left says makes no sense. The only thing that amazes is that it was allegedly written by an adult.
A lot of left-leaning people I know can get real worked up about genetically modified foods, pesticides, fast food, Monsanto, etc. I get much more worked up about terrorists, radical Islam, Hamas, Putin, etc. We certainly have different things that worry us according to our worldviews!