previous post next post  

Freedom and Democracy Are So Passé

[Kat]

Freedom and Democracy are so passé these days. Particularly, the defense of freedom and democracy. At least, that is the impression that you get when listening to the two men who are currently running for President.

In fact, freedom and democracy as an American cause has been déclassé since the end of the Reagan presidency and the demise of the Soviet Union. Yes, there was a brief resurgence post 9/11, but it didn't last long.

Instead, we get soaring speeches about stopping the rising tides of the oceans. Or, the political commercial for John McCain I caught after the late news the other night. It starts out with, "I hate war." Somebody actually had to say that? And, why is it necessary to say that instead of articulating the principle that defense of freedom and democracy, the defense of the United States, is the first principle above all others that a leader of a free nation must be ready to not only articulate, but perform? Now we have to apologize for even thinking the idea because it is tantamount to expressing some terrible militancy. Nazi like in fact.

What happened to being a prominent and unyielding leader of the free world? "Bear any burden, pay any price" and "tear down this wall" apparently met their demise along with the bogeyman of Communism. Instead, our modern idea seems to more closely resemble Rodney King's cry, "Can't we all just get along?"

[continued in flash traffic]

The answer is, no. No, we can't. There are some things that cannot be compromised. Among them are freedom and democracy, but just as importantly the defense of these United States.

No one, it seems, can be brought to care about millions of people still living in tyranny and terror. Nor care that such disturbance aren't just mild blips on edge of our national psyche, but have historically led to the rise of the worst sorts of evil ideologies and become threats to those same passé principles of Freedom and Democracy.

The most gauche slip of all is to refer to any ideologies or nations as "evil". That simply does not jive with our modern, enhanced, sophisticated, nuanced understanding of the world. The word "evil" is apparently an antiquated term used by superstitious people who are barely two steps evolved from their cave dwelling ancestors. Now, people are just misunderstood. Nations are simply reacting rationally and logically to the actions of others or the potential demise of their governments by malcontent rebels who just don't get that freedom and democracy are so déclassé when the planet is about to meet its imminent demise.

Freedom and democracy have been tossed aside like yesterday's fashions. "Global warming" is now the cause du jour. In fact, it has surpassed an ideology based on once obscure science and reached the status of a religion, complete with prophets and prophecy of an apocalyptic revelation of the end times of the earth. That's how you know it has reached the status of a religion: prophets and apocalyptic prophesies.

How ironic is it that many of the same people who castigated "evangelicals" for just such beliefs as superstitious, uneducated, exclusionary bigots have themselves become evangelicals complete with all of the ills they prescribe to any other practitioner of religion and faith. If you deny the existence of "global warming", or, at least, disbelieve that it is either a primary result of mankind's activities or that the known historical climatic ages of the earth can be stopped by mankind, you are a blasphemer.

You are a sinner of the worst kind if you don't fully participate by buying energy efficient vehicles that allegedly don't produce carbon emissions or do other environmentally friendly activities such as recycling, composting or eating organic foods. There are certainly many reasons to do things that are "environmentally friendly", including not putting poisons into our own water or soil conserving farming, but these have much more immediate concerns. Such as not contributing to the death or birth defect rate of children. Or, insuring that the soil is capable of continuing to produce food well into the future to support the burgeoning human population and its continuing progress towards prosperity, away from starvation creating, population destroying famine.

The list could go on as to the reasons to do it, but "global warming" doesn't and shouldn't even hit the top ten list of reasons much less reached the status of religious dogma. While man can impact his environment and his ability to survive in that environment, the idea that man is responsible for or can control the global climate is obscene arrogance. Man is no more capable of that than an ant building its tunnels in the yard can stop the torrential down pours of rain.

The religion of "global warming" has elevated man to the status of a god. Man has become the embodiment of the Hindu god Vishnu: both the destroyer and the creator, the sinner and the savior. No one has yet to explain satisfactorily the illogical leap from eons of global climatic change without man's interference, due to the changes of the earth itself and its relation to the sun, to man becoming the arbiter of the coming global apocalypse.

Worse, this pseudo-religion has been elevated to a presidential platform by Sen. Obama with a nod by Sen. McCain. All the while Sen. Obama was exhorting the crowds that this is the generation that will stop the rising tides of the oceans, the junta in Myanmar were massacring non-violent monks and dumping their bodies in the jungle. In Zimbabwe, Mugabe lost the elections and refused to give up power. Instead, he is sending out thugs to murder his opposition and their families, butchering them and setting them on fire in their own houses or in the streets. In Sudan, ethnic cleansing continues, with tens of thousands dead and more displaced.

In Venezuela, Chavez continues to push his nation towards fascistic socialism, sending red shirts into the streets to beat up and shoot any opposition. He is barely held in check from declaring his life long dictatorship. Even that is still questionable since the real test is the next election. The Bolivians are in the same boat, while down in Colombia, Venezuelan interference and support for FARC narco-terrorists has come to full light. Here, in the United States, instead of supporting Colombian democracy and free trade, the Democrat led Congress continues to treat Colombia as if it was actually one of the worst dictatorships on the planet.

In Pakistan and places around the globe, an evil, oppressive ideology has taken shape and has inflicted truly horrific death and destruction on multitudes of "impure" and have directly attacked and killed citizens of this nation, both within its borders and abroad.

Sen. Obama continues to insist that he will attempt some sort of rapprochement with actual repressive regimes like Iran, Cuba and North Korea as if these regimes were worthy of remaining in place. All those who languish under the yoke of that repression are just so much detritus in the shadow of the great apocalyptic "global warming".

Once upon a time, the leaders and would be leaders of this nation would turn their eyes on the unfortunate unfree and state clearly our solidarity with their desire for freedom and their right to life and liberty. It was the continuation of our national imperative. While the world might not have trembled nor instant changes take place, those repressed were given the audacity of hope and nations understood where this nation stood: the leader of the free world, against tyranny and injustice, ready and willing to stand with those who would be free.

Now, there is barely a whisper from the White House. No candidate from the presidency has made it a central platform beyond McCain insisting that we continue to support the fledgling democracy of Iraq. Something that is considered a political albatross and risky to boot. With the last great foe of freedom defeated, the cause of freedom and democracy seems to lack any meaning. These remaining pesky, tyrannical states are too small to give time or thought to much less turn the great strength of our nation towards or even spare them a word beyond comforting, sonorous intonations of meeting with their oppressors to avoid conflict.

Of course, democracy and freedom are hard work. They are messy and occasionally ugly. They do not happen over night and tyrants do not fall without being shoved. Freedom and democracy require vigilant and jealous guarding which in turns requires strength and stamina. When global liberty and the prosperity that goes with it is at hand, we have turned away, unwilling to do the last difficult tasks and see the job done. We are leaving that to the others while we hurry on towards the next great cause; the pop religiosity of Global Warming.

Let the masses help themselves. We're too busy talking about the arctic ice caps that are or are not melting, the latest star to give lip service to the new faith by driving a Prius while living in 5,000 sq ft mansions, taking private jets to the next filming destination and threatening ex-communication on any industry that is not fast enough to genuflect to the ten thousand commandments from the Church of Global Warming.

Would it be blasphemy against the Church and the Chosen if one wondered what has been happening to all those political posters, signs, fliers and other such gee-gaws that go with political campaigns? Have they all been printed on recycled paper with environmentally soluble ink? Did they go to the recycling plant or end up in the land fill with the rest of the garbage?

We are talking about the same people who, mouthing such platitudes, still drive their individual cars to work; alone. Cars that, even if they get 35mpg, still emit carbon emissions. Particularly when they are idling away in the drive thru of their local fast food or speedy coffee chain getting their caffeine in cups that may or may not be made of recycled paper, but inevitably end up in a land fill just the same.

That's another way you can tell that Global Warming is a religion: it is already chock full of hypocrites and inveterate backsliders.

Where, in all of this, are the oppressed, imprisoned and murdered for political tyranny? If you were watching all of this, you would believe that they don't exist. Except, maybe in Guantanamo.

Yes, freedom and democracy are now passé. Calling destructive, mass murdering foes "evil" is gauche. The new cause demands sacrificing not one wit beyond what can be conveniently done in the home by turning off a light switch. Suggesting that condemning industry and technology that has largely been responsible for creating the ability to feed, clothe, shelter and educate the masses will result in worsening conditions for the vulnerable masses is blasphemy that is met with a modern version of Marie Antoinette's mythological reply: "let them eat cake".

There should be nothing more fearful to an American citizen than the slipping of freedom and democracy from its supreme position in our domestic and foreign politics to be replaced by a pseudo-religious cause.

11 Comments

These remaining pesky, tyrannical states are too small to give time or thought to much less turn the great strength of our nation towards or even spare them a word beyond comforting, sonorous intonations of meeting with their oppressors to avoid conflict. The irony is, these tyrannical states can leverage technology, freedom-of-movement, and open information ... none of which can be inhibited if our civilization is going to continue to thrive ... to attain the destructive power of "big" nations, and apply it with a deadly surprise ... ... yet they think, because they are "small" and therefore perceived as the underdog, they can act with near-impunity ... in large part, because so many in our civilization reflexively root for them to the point that they can inhibit decisive action to put down these rabid underdogs.
 
Kat, What happened to being a prominent and unyielding leader of the free world? Postmodernism happened. That's a school of philosophy that arose in Europe after WW2. It was half a genuine revulsion at the horrendous destruction wrought during the war, and half a cynical exercise in manipulation of public opinion by socialists who wanted to pave the way for a nonviolent takeover of Europe by the USSR. Postmodernism includes a basic assumption that the consequences of going to war, for any reason whatever, will always be worse than the consequences of avoiding war. Since war was by definition evil, any impulse that might lead to war had to also be evil. Including such things as national pride, colonialism, moral superiority, need for resources, even self-defense. But for reasons I'm not quite sure of, this only applied to Western countries. Non-western countries were free to do all these things to their own citizens, to other non-western countries, even to Western countries, and Western countries weren't permitted to stop them. These attitudes crossed the Atlantic in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and succeeded in infecting the Baby Boomer generation on a large scale. The notion of "freedom and democracy" as things worth fighting for -- indeed, the notion of anything at all being something worth fighting for -- has been going downhill ever since.
 
Non-western countries were free to do all these things to their own citizens, to other non-western countries, even to Western countries, and Western countries weren't permitted to stop them. Silly capitalist running dog lackey, former colonial enclaves of the imperialists were incapable, by definition, of performing in such an expansionistic manner because they were previously *victims* of imperialism. In exactly the same manner, plethorically melaniistic persons were previously *victims* of racism, and hence are intrinsically incapable of being racists themselves. To say otherwise is nekulturny and you must re-read the agitprop memos. And not the fascistic samizdat milblogs. Sheesh. Rationalist! No brie for you!
 
What happened? The Left has been successful in demonizing and ridiculing the words of philosophers like John Stuart Mill: "War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." The Left: Creating compliant sheeple for a global tyranny. The meek shall inherit the earth, and a despot will rule them.
 
"What happened to being a prominent and unyielding leader of the free world? "Bare any burden, pay any price" and "tear down this wall" apparently met their demise along with the bogeyman of Communism." And the tombstone on the grave of "freedom and democracy" has GWB's answer to 9/11 and Iraq - "Just go shopping!" Maybe the problem with being a "prominent and unyielding leader" is that when you're going the wrong way, other people tend to start edging away from you...
 
Maybe the problem with being a "prominent and unyielding leader" is that when you're going the wrong way, other people tend to start edging away from you...
And my answer to this would be: Instead of leading everyone who agrees with you off the edge of a cliff, like lemmings, a good leader will recognize that a change in direction needs to be made. The leader makes that change and turns, but there's often a delay in the reaction of the followers caused by the force of momentum. Once the followers stop, there may then be a delay as they stand around in confusion, wondering what happened and why there's been a change of direction. You will then have some argue that things were fine and that they should resume traveling in the old direction, and then some will argue that maybe they should continue to follow the leader. Either way, a leader's back is always vulnerable to the slings and arrows of petty followers who find it easier to criticize than to assume the responsibility of leadership.
 
Jason's point is still well-taken, as is Frank's response. President Clinton was a master at looking at which way the herd was running, metaphorically sprinting to the leading edge, and waving his hands wildly, saying, "Follow Me!" President Bush has been following the "There is where we must go" mode of a true leader - but, President Bush is rightly vulnerable to charges of failing to adequately inspire those he leads, and possibly to sticking to the single most direct, yet hardest, path to where he thinks we should be. Sometimes, doing what railroads do - following the path of the water - is in the end faster and cheaper than blasting the mountain out of the way... which is part of the metaphoric argument between Kat and Ry. And, of course, we don't know the answer until we go through the veil of the future to where what was future is now past, to know who was right. But both sides are oft times loudly and smugly sure, with one or both standing on a firm base of quicksand. It just hasn't gotten wet enough yet.
 
Sorry, gentlemen, et al, I was at one of those pesky meetings where the capitalist doktor's were discussing the problem of getting paid by our pseudo-national health care insurance. Now, to answer one or two:
And the tombstone on the grave of "freedom and democracy" has GWB's answer to 9/11 and Iraq - "Just go shopping!"
Actually, I believe you are somewhat correct. We did need to "go shopping" and keep our economy from sliding into a long term, serious recession. It was bad enough after 9/11. To recover so quickly from such devastation was truly remarkable, if you consider it. So, "go shopping" wasn't wrong, per se, but it was definitely not the call to defense that inspired people. I thought his best speech was 2004 inauguration "freedom is a fire in the minds of men". but we were so lost by then. I would agree with fdc that Bush had the right heading, but I would also agree that he has been pretty bad at signaling that direction to the trailing folks. Being in a position of leadership, you know if your people aren't going with you, it is your failure. You can certainly identify those things that keep them or you from progressing, noting the recalcitrants and nay sayers, but leadership demands that you find a way forward and a way to communicate. It's not Iraq that did it. It was, in the words of Cool Hand Luke, a failure to communicate. If there is one thing I note in this election, it is that Obama is a communicator. I disagree completely on the subjects he is choosing to lead with or their direction, but he does inspire. McCain, not so much, though I agree with much more that he says than Obama. We're in trouble, that's all I can say. Where are Obama and McCain reminding the oppressed that they are not forgotten or championing freedom above and beyond? No where, as far as I can tell, and that's where they want it.
 
In my example above, there's no doubt that a good leader will attempt to use better communications skills and try to gain a better "consensus" among the group before continuing to lead in the other direction. Sure, Bush has failed at doing this effectively. But you can't always have agreement or lead by consensus. Sometimes there are those in the group who succeed in undermining a leader's ability to convince the group to change direction - either because they can't see the edge of the cliff due to their limited perspective from behind, or perhaps because it is indeed their goal to see others advance over the edge even as they attempt to stop abruptly before going over. (Not so subtle reference to Chirac, Schroeder, and many in America's Left). In this case, a leader who leads by example can do nothing more than turns his back on those who refuse to follow, allowing them the freedom of their own action, and lead to safety himself and those who can be convinced to follow.
 
Like Moses? I was rather thinking last night that the global warming brouhaha rather resembles the impatient folk creating the golden calf while Moses was up on the mountain getting the ten commandments. Sort of inspired my "10,000 commandments of the church of global warming".
 
Also, to Jason, don't imagine that Bush's failures excuse Obama's. he is a great orator and has chosen a very disturbing, improbable, psuedo-religious concept to stake his claim on. He doesn't say one word about freedom and democacracy. That is not because Bush has made it unfashionable, it is because it is unfashionable on the left and parts abroad to discuss such subjects. It is indelicate and rocks the boat. Our Euro-centric politicians do not like to rock the boat. That is why he says little. And, regrdless of Bush's leadership, what sort of cowardice would keep a man from saying what he meant if he really believed it? No excuses and a pox on all of them.