The Left's Moral Equivalence Mindset

[aquapub]

My theory on where the left's moral equivalence mentality comes from:

1) When simple-minded people try to look smart, they often confuse questioning your self and your own country with doing counter-intuitive things and standing against your own country: "I can't be questioning my country unless I'm opposing it."

2) Ever heard about the Beatles showing up in India and being severely dissapointed because they had worked up this image in their minds of Indians all being spiritual elites sitting in lotus position?

It's the grass is greener thing. Liberals glamourize the other side's perspective and single-mindedly find ways to relate with it, even despite horrific immorality, hence the endless excuses they make for Saddam and terrorists in general at America's expense.

 

[MSgt]

Actually, I believe it to be the absence of focus. A tragedy in our time is that the left squandered the last of its moral capital by elevating rigid anti-Americanism above human rights and freedom. We hear all the time how the Republican Party has been hijacked by NeoCons. Well over time, campus theorists were able to hijack the left even in the U.S., thanks to a splendid paradox of history. In America, the workers of the world won. The traditional leftist program for which labor leaders struggled ended in a triumph for the working man and woman, thanks to the progress of capitalism, a system whose dynamism Marx and his followers never grasped. The American worker's priority shifted from a fight for economic justice to a desire to enjoy the gains achieved, leaving the left to ideologues who now disdain the worker as fully as they despise the government he or she chooses at the polls.

Our American left fancy themselves more as citizens of the world instead of the U.S. Ever scoffing at the idea of patriotism or nationalism and seeking new meanings so they can be included. The truth is that the Middle Ground of the country believe more in Liberal movements than the left anymore. The crocodile tears of our liberal faithful no longer have the comfortable position of preaching their ideals while safely assuming that they won't have to realize them through the sweat and blood of the conservative leaning military.

An American country that actually serves to protect freedom and human rights abroad leaves our left without their illusions. Nothing is more useless than a sentiment that would theatrically mourn the dead while doing nothing for the still living and suffering.

 

[niftydrifty]

Ever heard about the Beatles showing up in India and being severely dissapointed because they had worked up this image in their minds of Indians all being spiritual elites sitting in lotus position?

nope. but i've seen aquapub worked up on debatepolitics.com, constantly expressing disdain for this invention of his called "the left," (please note the lack of names, examples and quotations) and how they are simple-minded, confused, immoral and unpatriotic.

It's the grass is greener thing. Liberals glamourize the other side's perspective and single-mindedly find ways to relate with it, even despite horrific immorality, hence the endless excuses they make for Saddam and terrorists in general at America's expense.

Oh, you mean like when they called Saddam a threat but had problems with waging war with the President we have?

When simple-minded people try to look smart, they often confuse questioning your self and your own country with doing counter-intuitive things and standing against your own country: "I can't be questioning my country unless I'm opposing it."

This goes both ways. Occasionally smart people do have a problem with what their own country is doing and their gripes are legitimate. Folks conditioned toward black-and-white / either-or thinking misconstrue this as something which it is not. Hence even "smart" people can look simple-minded.

as Wallace Stevens so aptly once said, let's hear about the thing itself, not ideas about the thing.

 

[aquapub]

nope. but i've seen aquapub worked up on debatepolitics.com, constantly expressing disdain for this invention of his called "the left," (please note the lack of names, examples and quotations) and how they are simple-minded, confused, immoral and unpatriotic.

:ws

In America there is this thing called a political spectrum. People who fall on the left side of it are called the left. Not my invention.

And it makes no sense to name names and include citations for every single point you make, regardless of whether or not anyone has challenged your observation.

The burden here, is rather on people like you to act like adults and ask for quotes (if that's what you would be convinced by).

 

[aquapub]

Oh, you mean like when they called Saddam a threat but had problems with waging war with the President we have?

As long as they called Saddam a threat before making 101 excuses for him, relentlessly undermining all efforts to do something about him, and lying through their teeth about the troops and their mission, then Democrats weren't defending him?

Nice logic.

BTW, the left's fixation on handing Iraq over to genocidal terrorists just as things are starting to get better is one of the reasons no one will take them seriously on Darfur. If history is any indication, liberals will just sabatoge that mission at the most catastrophic point possible as well.

And liberals voted for Afghanistan before immediately turning on that mission and undermining the crap out of it too.

 

[aquapub]

This goes both ways. Occasionally smart people do have a problem with what their own country is doing and their gripes are legitimate.

But the point of this thread...using moral equivalence (the notion that there's no difference between America taking out the Taliban while dropping food supplies to Afghanistani civilians and Islamic "freedom fighters" mass murdering civilians to inspire terror)...is not a legitimate gripe. It's thinly veiled, totally invalid excuse-making for evil butchers and liberals do it all the time.

 

[Gardener]

I am no fan of moral relativism that only acts as a specious ruse applied in such a way as to explain away inconsistancies in the application of one's point of view.

That being said, I am also no fan of rigid moral statism where morality is offered as an inviolate set of precepts that are accepted without examination and cannot be justified as being the subject of true morality without similarly specious rhetoric since they are simply social mores, instead.

As we so broadly define "the left" and "the right", I would say that while the former can be guilty of excessive moral relativism, the latter can be equally guilty of excessive moral statism.

The trick, as I see it, is to form a consistant basis from which one applies their morality,especially in regards to being able to support WHY something is moral.

 

[MSgt]

Moderator's Warning:

Cool it before it starts.

 

[Gardener]

Moderator's Warning:

Cool it before it starts.

Hunh? Cool what?

 

[MSgt]

Hunh? Cool what?

Not you, yo.

 

[WI Crippler]

I personally feel that the American left has great things to offer and has done some good things in the past, but IMO it seems that their mindset has shifted focus away from doing great things for Americans. And when they do attempt to do things for Americans, it is to make them dependent on government, rather than empowering the individual.
Also they are more concerned with a global equivalency that will never exist. But the folly of their belief in global equality, is that they are not willing to pay the price in blood, sweat and tears, to ensure this.

 

[rivrrat]

I don't get it. What's the thread about, exactly?

 

[niftydrifty]

I don't get it. What's the thread about, exactly?

I agree. Some statements can be so general that they are meaningless. I don't believe I've ever said "the right or the left is this or that" ... and for good reason. anything you can say sorta won't be true, but also kinda maybe sorta could seem to be true. so there's the subject, the left, whatever that is. and then there's the object, moral relativism, and however "the left" manifests themselves in that sense, whatever that means. and how "the left" fancy themselves. etc. I don't get it, either.

We hear all the time how the Republican Party has been hijacked by NeoCons. Well over time, campus theorists were able to hijack the left even in the U.S., thanks to a splendid paradox of history.

GySgt, I love you and everything, but I'm kinda of bewildered by your post. if you hear that the Republican Party has been hijacked by NeoCons, do you believe it? isn't it kinda sorta not true, but only just a teeny bit, and maybe only one one particular sense? why go on to make an equally suspect yet even more general charge about the left, as what you have heard "all the time" about the Republican Party? why engage in this kind of thing that you hear all the time?

 

[MSgt]

GySgt, I love you and everything, but I'm kinda of bewildered by your post. if you hear that the Republican Party has been hijacked by NeoCons, do you believe it? isn't it kinda sorta not true, but only just a teeny bit, and maybe only one one particular sense? why go on to make an equally suspect yet even more general charge about the left, as what you have heard "all the time" about the Republican Party? why engage in this kind of thing that you hear all the time?

The entire face of the Iraq war had an irresponsible NeoCon pulse upon it. And even with this the NeoCon "plan" was perverted.

The facts of the Left's image over the last century is true. It has nothing to do with anything being "heard." Review history and look at the situation. What was the leadership of the Left, globally? What transitioned? And who leads the Left today? There is no general charge. This is truth.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GySgt:
An American country that actually serves to protect freedom and human rights abroad leaves our left without their illusions. Nothing is more useless than a sentiment that would theatrically mourn the dead while doing nothing for the still living and suffering.

Yeah, right!

It doesn't look to good for your argument after we take out Hussein, then stand by and do nothing, while Bayan Jabr does his thing at the Interior of Ministry.

 

[aquapub]

I don't get it. What's the thread about, exactly?

It is about the left's tendency to defend tyrranical butchers, genocide, and terrorism by saying things like, "the U.S. has killed people too," as if the U.S. taking out the Taliban while dropping food supplies for Afghan citizens is the same thing as Al Queda mass murdering civilians to inspire terror.

Bill O'Really on this site is notorious for equating anyone who kills with anyone else who kills. It is disgustingly dishonest and it gets used to attack anything the U.S. does to defend itself and its interests.

 

[MSgt]

Yeah, right!

It doesn't look to good for your argument after we take out Hussein, then stand by and do nothing, while Bayan Jabr does his thing at the Interior of Ministry.

...like Rwanda....like Darfur.....

The problem here is that it has not been the long time mantra of the Conservative Right to preach on equality, gender emancipation, and the basic human rights. These ideals are Liberal preachings without intention.

I'm afraid mentioning an incident within an effort simply doesn't make an argument about anything unless you are trying to portray human behavior. One may as well state that our efforts in Somalia over a decade ago had nothing to do with human suffering, because some warlords slaughtered their civilians and stole UN shipments while we were there.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GySgt:
...like Rwanda....like Darfur.....

The problem here is that it has not been the long time mantra of the Conservative Right to preach on equality, gender emancipation, and the basic human rights. These ideals are Liberal preachings without intention.

I'm afraid mentioning an incident within an effort simply doesn't make an argument about anything unless you are trying to portray human behavior. One may as well state that our efforts in Somalia over a decade ago had nothing to do with human suffering, because some warlords slaughtered their civilians and stole UN shipments while we were there.

Intervening in Darfur or Somalia is a helluva lot more noble than going into Iraq!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by aquapub:
It is about the left's tendency to defend tyrranical butchers, genocide, and terrorism by saying things like, "the U.S. has killed people too," as if the U.S. taking out the Taliban while dropping food supplies for Afghan citizens is the same thing as Al Queda mass murdering civilians to inspire terror.

Bill O'Really on this site is notorious for equating anyone who kills with anyone else who kills. It is disgustingly dishonest and it gets used to attack anything the U.S. does to defend itself and its interests.

Do you consider yourself a responsible adult?

It has to do with cleaning your own house before you even think about cleaning someone else's. Anything short of that is hypocrisy!

 

[WI Crippler]

Do you consider yourself a responsible adult?

It has to do with cleaning your own house before you even think about cleaning someone else's. Anything short of that is hypocrisy!

So unless my house is spotless, I cannot go to my neighbors house that is infested with rats and garbage and help him out?? You are a riot Billo....

 

[WI Crippler]

Intervening in Darfur or Somalia is a helluva lot more noble than going into Iraq!

What about their sovereignity??

 

[aquapub]

Do you consider yourself a responsible adult?

It has to do with cleaning your own house before you even think about cleaning someone else's. Anything short of that is hypocrisy!

The left is filled with people who will find any excuse to equate the U.S. to the animals we fight.

And the justification for removing genocidal terror-sponsors shouldn't hinge on whether or not America's ever done anything bad.

Judging the situation within those confines guarantees that it will never be ok for America to do anything to defend itself, which is what the moral equivalence crowd counts on.

I actually had a liberal professor equate Bin Laden and George Washington once.

It's blatantly invalid BS aimed at keeping the U.S. from defending itself.

 

[aquapub]

Intervening in Darfur or Somalia is a helluva lot more noble than going into Iraq!

Stopping a genocidal warmonger (and his terror-sponsoring) in Iraq is less noble than stopping genocide in Darfur?

What could possibly be the logic there?

And liberals would just sabatoge the mission halfway through while patting themselves on the back for being "patriotic" anyway, so why rescue anyone?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by aquapub:
Stopping a genocidal warmonger (and his terror-sponsoring) in Iraq is less noble than stopping genocide in Darfur?

Except for the fact he wasn't genocidal or warmongering at the time we attacked. What he was doing was cooperating with UN inspectors.

Originally posted by aquapub:
What could possibly be the logic there?

The logic is:

• we are a nation based on the rule of law. Attacking Iraq was illegal!
• the US was supposed to be the reason against armed aggression,
  not the example of one!
• Darfur needs intervention, Iraq did not.

Originally posted by aquapub:
And liberals would just sabatoge the mission halfway through while patting themselves on the back for being "patriotic" anyway, so why rescue anyone

From my perspective, people supporting this war are sabotaging patriotism!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by aquapub:
The left is filled with people who will find any excuse to equate the U.S. to the animals we fight.

You show the same hatred and disdain towards muslims as do the head-choppers to American's. It's the same type of hate!

Originally posted by aquapub:
And the justification for removing genocidal terror-sponsors shouldn't hinge on whether or not America's ever done anything bad.

I want to thank you for actually trying to debate this issue without all your usual hyperbole. For what it's worth, I agree with you here.

Originally posted by aquapub:
Judging the situation within those confines guarantees that it will never be ok for America to do anything to defend itself, which is what the moral equivalence crowd counts on.

Well, you started good, but then...

Originally posted by aquapub:
I actually had a liberal professor equate Bin Laden and George Washington once.

Did they both smoke weed and have bad teeth?

Originally posted by aquapub:
It's blatantly invalid BS aimed at keeping the U.S. from defending itself.

It's not only BS, but it's a joke to think the US had to defend itself from a country of goat-herders 9000 miles away with no navy and only 9 hours of electricity a day with UN inspectors crawling all around their country and US satellites hovering overhead.