Benazir Bhutto: The Price Of Freedom
Today the citizens of Pakistan lost a great patriot. Former Prime Minister and opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated. She stood against tyranny and terror in a world that is full of both. She offered her people a path towards freedom. For that she was struck down by the forces of terror. This runs quite contrary to some of the theories that surround terrorism.
Liberals and others contend that in fact the people in the middle east like dictators. They use the example of Hamas to state that if you give Arabs voting rights and democracy they will simply elect the terrorist. Well today they have been, sadly, proved wrong. If the terrorist could compete with democracy, then they would have squared off with Bhutto at the ballot box. But they cannot so they did what they always do they used fear and destruction to get their way.
To us in America this should be a lesson. Hold dear the freedom we enjoy. More important we need to help others searching for freedom. For if we leave these people with out assistance they could begin to fall prey to the politics of suicide bombings and terror. Thanks to the surge this is fading in Iraq but we must stay until it fades completely. Unless we show these monsters that freedom can prevail, then they will continue to use the methods that have served them well thus far.
posted by Christopher Cerami at
12:10 AM
4 Comments:
Chris, you fantastically exploited an international tragedy for petty politics. Rove is smiling fondly.
I've never heard of a progressive "theory" that people in the Middle East like dictators. First because the Middle East is a broad term, and Pakistan isn't always seen as a part of the Middle East. Also, Pakistanis aren't Arab, so looking for parallels with the Palestinians isn't a good idea. (Your mistake, while hopefully not intended, is ethnocentric at best and racist at worst.)
But have conservatives really stood against this "theory" that you've proposed? Please note that Musharraf is a key ally in the efforts in Afghanistan, thanks to courting by President Bush (and despite Musharraf's own resistance to cracking down on al-Qaeda in either Afghanistan or his own country). Conservatives and neocons have also appeased the regime in Saudi Arabia, which goes one step further than undemocratic Musharraf by being blatantly theocratic.
The problem with the modern neoconservatives is that they pick and choose which regimes to press and which regimes to appease while simultaneously criticizing all nondemocratic countries. This isn't entirely nonsensical, as Pakistanis before Bhutto's death were mildly supportive of Musharraf because they believed him to be secure, and he did assist the US in Afghanistan. But for Republicans to work with some dictators while categorically condemning all of them is dishonest.
As a conservative, you have bigger concerns than attacking Democrats (who have always been generally hesitant to work with Musharraf). Instead, you need to explain why, despite his reluctance to democratize and his failure to crack down on al-Qaeda and the Taliban, you previously supported him and now why you no longer support him. Finally, you need to give sources explaining this liberal "theory." So far this post has been intellectually dishonest--you want your blog to provide credible insight.
KD,
You are all over the place big guy. First off, this post hardly "exploits" the death of former PM Bhutto. Second, yes...liberals here in the US have been pushing the idea that individuals in the middle east do not prefer democracy of any sort, citing Iraq and Afghanistan as examples. They have even gone as far as to claim that Iraqis were happier/better off with Saddam in power. Next, yes, conservatives do stand against oppressive, violent dictatorships. You say we choose which "regimes" to accept or criticize, but name any politician who hasn't done this in the history of any nation? Its called alliances buddy.
Now, you attack the author calling him a racist, calling out his level of intellect and putting him down as your generalize all conservatives and neocons, while pulling out any meaning you wish from the few words that he typed here.
By the way, you want sources on his "liberal theory?" try a Google search.
Finally, stop using the term "progressive" when referring to liberals. Its merely a political word designed to make liberals sound useful. Progressive is a matter of perspective, and from where I'm sitting liberals are not progressive, they are destructive, evasive and dishonest.
Anon, I've been looking and I just haven't found any sort of liberal theory that says people in the Middle East like dictators. And what's this with conservatives bunching countries together? What gives all people in the Middle East the same cultural qualities? You'll note that Iraq and Afghanistan have remarkably distinct cultures--please stop grouping them in the same region (by most definitions, Afghanistan isn't a part of the Middle East). One of the reasons why I'm a progressive is because I've found that progressivism considers these cultural differences more carefully than conservatives do; but we can just disagree about that agreeably, if you'd like.
The point you make about Iraq displays misunderstanding. Pointing out that people in Iraq were "better" under Hussein then they are now doesn't in any way mean that they were "good" or "well off" under him, or that they like dictators. I feel like that's a pretty easy point to realize. What it does mean, however, is that we've really been doing poorly if we've been doing worse than a dictator. Please note that I'm not saying that the effort in Iraq is hopeless--I have reservations about complete military withdrawals--but I am saying that we've been doing awfully there. (Like in the first paragraph, I'm merely breaking this down so you can understand it. I know you don't agree, so there's little need to throw talking points at me...though you can if you want to.)
"...conservatives do stand against oppressive, violent dictatorships. You say we choose which 'regimes' to accept or criticize, but name any politician who hasn't done this in the history of any nation? Its called alliances buddy."
Okay, buddy (what's with that?), if you have an alliance with an "oppressive, violent" dictator, then you aren't standing against him. Neoconservatives stand against all but still have those alliances. If you're making those alliances, then you're betraying your true motives, which is to stop dictatorship (instead of working with it). If you're going to betray those motives, you might as well be honest about it, abandon neoconservatism, and resort to realism (an also-bad, though more defensible, idea).
I didn't outright call Chris a racist (please note the difference between that and what I said), I didn't put him down (I don't see any ad hominem remarks), and I didn't call out his intelligence. I actually happen to know Chris--I think he's a good kid, and, despite our disagreements, smart. Don't say I'm doing things I'm not doing. As for generalizing neocons--neoconservatism is a theory, a complete idea. As such, I'm free to use my own level of analysis to critique that idea, or aspects of that idea that Chris has pointed out. Finally, please point out where I misinterpreted, or "pulled out any meaning" from, what he wrote. There's a difference between misunderstanding and disagreement. You haven't said what exactly I've misunderstood.
I've already addressed not being able to find the liberal theory. You haven't shown me any source either.
I actually have commented on this blog before, and I addressed the "progressive" issue. I'll copy/paste that explanation here:
"Liberal is a vague and confusing word. In Europe, a liberal (or “classical liberal”) has historically been someone who is economically conservative (you might just happen to notice the similarity between the words “liberal” and “libertarian”). In America, a liberal is simply someone with left-wing political views, but that’s too vague (hence why rightists use terms like neocons and libertarians for themselves). A progressive, in the tradition of Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, has more of an economic populist tone. While a liberal is interested in, say, promoting education to provide opportunities, a progressive is interested in that and, say, attacking Wal-Mart for their intimidation of minorities. In short, progressive is a more specific term, and it shows that I’m not only committed to helping the little guy, but I also support candidates who are willing to stand up against the bullies who pick on the little guy."
The difference between the two groups is one of theory. You don't have to like the implications of the term, but it's an accepted term for an idea that is separate from liberalism.
And lastly:
"Progressive is a matter of perspective, and from where I'm sitting liberals are not progressive, they are destructive, evasive and dishonest."
Who's putting down who?
Kd,
Where do you get off even questioning the author, or anyone sharing his views for that matter? It's called Right for a reason, literally.
Anon, keep fightin the good fight, we'll bash these progressives back to communist russia where they belong before long.
Post a Comment
<< Home