How to be morally superior to a Liberal

It's finally becoming clear to me how they do it.

How Right Wing bloggers, pundits, radio and TV blowhards, politicians, and security moms and soccer dads maintain their sense of moral superiority in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are not particularly moral at all.

First, you have to treat the easiset and most ordinary forms of good behavior, actions and practices that meet the most minimum standards of the definition of common decency, as if they were the most difficult and superhuman examples of virtuousness.

Being faithful to your spouse is their favorite.

Hating terrorists is another one.

But giving to the local chapter of the United Way, not letting your kids play violent video games or watch the Playboy channel, volunteering to help out at the church bazaar, shoveling your sick elderly neighbor's driveway, working hard at your job, not frequenting crack houses, not robbing liquor stores, not being too poor to own a car so you can't leave town before a hurricane hits and not getting trapped in a flooded city and not being desperate enough to break into an abandoned store and steal a case of bottled water, which, as we all know, is exactly as depraved as breaking into an abandoned store to steal a TV set so it's ok to talk as if the several people you saw on TV stealing televisions---or heard your favorite Right Wing Media Blowhard say they saw on TV---outnumber by thousands the people who stole bottled water, all this counts as moral action the angels would have to struggle to achieve.

You can also elevate neutrally self-interested acts and beliefs to the level of virtues.  Wanting your kids to go to a good college, belonging to certain clubs and organizations, living in the suburbs, driving a big gas guzzling car for reasons of "safety," happening to have a job at a company with a well-funded 401k plan so you can congratulate yourself on your thrift, prudence, and foresight---nevermind the massive credit card debt and the huge mortgage payments on the McMansion; both are signs of how determined you are to see that your family is well-taken care of.

Voting Republican because Republicans are against Big Government programs that just encourage dependency in the Poor, that's another good one.  The lower taxes that result for you are just gravy.

You call all this---which from an objective point of view looks like you're just leading a safe, comfortable, upper-middle class life in a bedroom community free of any immediately pressing financial need to misbehave and with your wife, kids, and neighbors constantly there to look over your shoulder so you can't get a chance to talk alone with the pretty young divorcee up the block and your boss hovering every time that flirty saleswoman from Snapit-fast drops by the office---you call all this leading a moral life.

You can throw in loving America, believing in God, and watching sports, if you like, and you do like.

Now comes the most important part.  This is the sign that you are a true saint on earth.   You go about loudly approving of it all.   It doesn't truly count unless you talk about how good it is to be good in the ways you happen to be good.

From there, the next step is easy.

You simply have to believe that Liberals don't approve of any of it.

It would be a lot more rewarding if you could believe that Liberals don't practice any of those virtues.  Some of those guys at work, the loudmouth on the radio in the morning as you drive to the office, your brother-in-law, they seem to believe it.  But you know the evidence is against you on that one.

There's that damn Jimmy Carter, to begin with.

And you'd also like to believe that even if some Liberals have some virtues, all good Right Wingers like you, or most of them anyway, have all those virtues and practice them more diligently and more consistently.

But then there's Newt Gingrich.  And Rush Limbaugh is a junkie, no matter what he says.  And your brother is running around on his wife, your old boss, who was in your fraternity, for Christ's sake, just got caught stealing from the company, your own daughters drink and party too much and one of them may have had an abortion, you're not sure, because she hasn't spoken to you in years, and you yourself haven't been to church in God knows how long and, admit it, you hate NASCAR, it's boring and the people who wear all that NASCAR gear everywhere, they're kind of stupid and tacky and you're really kind of ashamed they vote Republican.

And, don't forget, there was that time at the sales convention in Minneapolis and the rep from Snapit-fast and you stayed late at the bar...you've still got her home phone number too.

So you can't really believe Right Wingers are better behaved than Liberals.

But you know that Liberals are uncomfortable talking about all that stuff as if it matters.  You know they reflexively make excuses for people who don't manage the same high level of morally superior behavior as you do, even if you don't go to church, and anyway, your wife goes, and she takes the kids, and maybe you'll go with them next week, so, dammit, you are a religious guy, after all.  You know Liberals like to see people burning flags and they love abortion and they don't care if the world is awash in pornography.

You know they watch stuff like Sex and the City and Deadwood and Desperate Housewives.  Well, so do you, the first two, and your wife loves Desperate Housewives, which makes you uneasy for some reason, why does she laugh so hard, anyway?  But you also watch good stuff, like The Medium, when you remember it's on, and you take your kids to good wholesome movies like March of the Penguins, or you will this weekend or your wife will or you'll buy the DVD when it comes out, whatever.  You know Liberals won't go see it or if they do---your stupid cousin, the ex-hippie who teaches Women's Studies, she took her kids---even if they like it, you know they don't draw the right lessons from it.  They don't see it as a metaphor for marriage.  They talk about evolution, crap like that.

They don't believe in the sanctity of marriage.  So what if half the couples you used to pal around with at the country club are divorced now.  Liberals don't care about the divorce rates.  They don't care if anybody gets married at all.  Not any straight people, anyway.  They love it when Adam marries Steve or Eve marries Eva, though, don't they?  And you know if they found out about you and the rep from Snapit-fast they wouldn't be shocked or appalled.  Except for the lesbians among them.  Lot of those.

You know they hate sports and they make fun of fathers and don't want them to have any rights and they think women should have kids without getting married and they think anybody who believes in God is stupid.

You know that even if some of them aren't bad themselves they don't approve of good behavior.  In fact, they disapprove of it.  They must.  Otherwise, they'd talk about it all the time, wouldn't they, about all the smut, and drugs, and sex?  They may not be evil and depraved themselves but they are allowing the country to go to the dogs with their attitudes and ideas and their policies and their failure to constantly scold and complain about other people's immoral behavior the way you do.

And that's why you're better than them.

So the next time that snotty woman from advertising shoots a hole in your arguments about how universal health care is bad for poor people or the boss likes her idea about what to do with the Karner account better than yours, you can just congratulate yourself on how much a more moral person you are.

She's probably a lesbian anyway.

(Thanks to Brad DeLong, Roy Edroso, Norbizness, Blue Girl, the Viscount, and Bill Nothstine.)

Comments

[Mike]

What, you mean material rewards in this life aren't proof of moral virtue?

Everyone knows God rewards good people with big houses, cars and comforts.

And apparently, He decided to punish the homosexuals of New Orleans by killing a lot of poor black people.

[Domoni]

I love you. There I said it.

In a wholesome Promise Keeper sort of way, of course.

I think.

[norbizness]

Don't thank me, I'm just not doing my real job.

BTW, I can't read your name without saying it in my mind like a superhero self-announcement: LAAAAAAAAAAAAAANCE MANNNNNNNNNNNNNNION. Think "Powdered Toast Man."

[Jennifer]

Thank you, thank you, thank you... I knew that was exactly what I was feeling, but could never quite sum it all up or get it all out. Thank you. That was incredibly satisfying to read.

[SAP]

By Jove, I think he's got it!

Seriously, you've described quite a few people I know, right down to the flirty sales rep. Good post, LM.

[Campaspe]

Fantastic post. Yes, the scolding is the key bit. It isn't enough that I'm faithful to my spouse ... it should really, really, really upset me that somewhere out there, someone else isn't being faithful to his spouse.

[David W.]

"Fantastic post. Yes, the scolding is the key bit. It isn't enough that I'm faithful to my spouse ... it should really, really, really upset me that somewhere out there, someone else isn't being faithful to his spouse."

Not bad, but you haven't quite got the knack yet. It should really, really, really upset you that somewhere, out there, a liberal isn't being faithful to their spouse and is probably a lesbian.

[denisdekat]

Being a right winger is the choice that is made by an unclean mind. As in, it is either a stupid mind, or a greedy selfish mind. I do not think that rationlization plays a big part as much as entrenching yourself deep on your side. Then from that mental trench, you shoot at any arguments heading your way. As in opposing views are to be deflected/stopped, not disected/understood...

Rationalizations, these moral reasons, are key only in trying to shut the other side up (ammunition). You would not want their reasons entering the nonthinking brain as it might inspire thought. So these moral reasons or arguments are there not so much to be understood, but rather, to use in the fight. This is what I see as they all focus on the same speaking bits...

BTW, your writting just gets better...

[Kevin Wolf]

Lance, if you keep channeling the right wing mindset in this way, I'll have to stop reading your blog.

[The Viscount LaCarte]

Rush and the gang have mastered the fallacious argument, their favorite one being "The Straw Man."

We have to start telling them, "Should I ask Michael Moore or Ted Kennedy what you believe as a conservative, or should I ask YOU? Right. Then don't ask Rush Limbaugh or Tom DeLay what I believe. Ask ME."

Spectacular post Mr. Mannion.

[yamb]

Yeah, google the "liberals love abortion" phrase for over a hundred hits. Blue Girl nailed that one pretty well.

[Ryan]

Ever notice how they always pick safe "sins" to focus on. It's not as most people are going to struggle with homosexual temptation or have a sudden urge to get an abortion. It's easy to admonish homosexuals for giving in to their weakness if you are attracted only to the opposite sex. I feel so smugly superior because I've never made out with a dude.

[Pepper]

Lovely summary of all the talky-talky that happens on the conservative side of the fence.

I also get grumpy when conservatives assume liberals don't like sports. Excuse me? I'm 3rd in my fantasy football league, and I love smearing it in their faces that I know more about football than they do. HAHAHA. And I eat meat. LOVE IT! Whee! AND I'M A LIBERAL! HAHAHAHA!

Okay ... that was a psychic break, but I've had so many conversations with people who love to tell me what "liberals are really like" that they don't bother to find anything out about me.

[Kip W]

Straw man, yes. Seems like a favorite rhetorical device on the Right is to make up a straw man that represents the Liberals, and then chide the real Liberals for not being like the straw ones.

[sfmike]

Around a hotel swimming pool in La Paz, Baja California last week, I chatted with a sports fisherman in his 50's from Bakersfield, a brutal oil and agricultural town at the south end of California's San Joaquin Valley. He said the place was changing fast, but it had many good things going for it, including "traditional values."

Those particular words made the hair on the back of my neck stand up because the last time I'd heard somebody use that phrase to my face, it was my grandfather, who also lived in the San Joaquin Valley. After he died, everyone finally started talking and it turned out he had sexually molested all of his daughters and quite a few of the little girls around the neighborhood as well.

A lot of the "approving" (and that's a great word for it) stems from people who are protesting a bit too much, from what mixture of personal sins and guilt who the hell knows.

[KathyF]

Well, I'm all up with that, except, let's not make the same mistake. I know a quite a few right wingers who are faithful to their spouses, have good relationships with their kids, donate to the United Way, and are actually probably morally superior to me.

These are the people who really mystify me. By blowing off the blowhards, I think we miss an opportunity to investigate where we can actually reach common ground with a lot of people.

[Account Deleted]

Bravo!

[reliapundit]

i think you are WAY OFF BASE. Here's how I see it:

1 - We believe in UNIVERSAL values; we are not cultural or moral relativists. we belive democracy is the only way people can form consensual self-givernemnt and that EVERYONE can do it. It's adaptable to all cultures.

2 - We believe - like FDR, Truman and JFK - that the USa has the moral duty to use our military and financial might to liberate opur brothers and sisters everywhere from tryanny and totalitatianism. (Re-read FDR's Four freedom's speech and JFK's Inaugural speech; they DEFINE neo-conservativism.)

3 - We believe that life begins at conception, and that ALL delineations after that are in fact ARBITARY, and that pregnat women who do not want their babies should go to term, give birth, and put them up for adoption - so people who want kids can have them. 2 RHETORICAL QUESTIONS: if life isn't being copceived at conseptiuon, then what is... a toaster oven!? What is a woman expecting - during her first trimester - if it is NOT a baby; is she expecting a poodle?

4 - We believe that a growing economy is the best way to improve the incomes and assets of the poor. We know that China and India lifted themselves out of poverty and starvation by introducing market reforms ewmpowering free markets, NOT by central command economic controls (ehich have ALWYS done more poorly EVERYWHERE). We believe that low taxes and as little regulationas possible (but as much as necessary)allow peoiple to grow their businesses more than hiug taxes an too much regulation. We belive that a free market is more efficient and creative and productive than all other makets. Because Reagan proved it here, and thatcher in the UK, and Ireland preoved it, and India prved it and China proved it we see the Left's continued adherence to command market tactics to be irrational.

5 - We believe that quotas and set-asides and affirmative action and bi-lingual education are racist and make us a less cohesive society. We believe that the USA should be a meritiocracy, not a commnd market which predetermines winners and losers based on race or ethnicity. We believe that mulit-culturalism leads to cultural relativism and moral relatvism and amorality. We believe that a society with no moral code cannot long stay cohesive.

6 - We believe that the media should be as mutlivaried as possible and that all peole ahoulsd get to hear ands read news and commentary from many POV's. We believe that the MSM is - as Evan Thomas (son of Norman Thomas and prolific author and editor of NEWSWEEK) said last year dominated by the Left and that this is worth 15% in elections. And we believe this is unfair so we have used radio and blogs to re-balance the media and holkd the MSM accountable.

7 - We believe that insbide most Leftists is a Hayekian libertarian waiting to come out because Hayek proved that leftism is the road to serfdom (poverty and servitude)and that propserity is a BY-PRODUCT of libery. Because most Americans want prosperity and liberty, once liberlas and lefties accept/admit that their ideology has been discredited they can become neo-cons. In fact, ther are very VERY few people who go from klft rto right, and many MANY luminaries who have gone from left to right - because it makes sense to!

8 - We believe that religiousness can be a transcendent source of eternal universal values; we believe that the Declaration was exactly right when it says that "we are endowed by our Creator with inalienaable rights..." and that these rights are each persons from conception, and not merely bestowed upon people after birth by the State. Life and liberty are one. EVery baby is born with liberty ad individualism: they want to move and eat and sleep when they want. As we mature we learn to balance our desires with other peoples desires, to deal with conflict with a fairness which accepts that we all have equal right before the law, and that we are a nation of laws, not people. We belive that the courts should decide what the law means, and not what's best for society; we belive that in a democracy ONLY THE POEPLE THEMSELVES - or their elected representatives can make laws.

Becuase since 1789 the efficacy of this system has been proven OVER AND OVER AGAIN, and because since the advent of reagan and Thatcher and Deng tsao Pineg and Rao capoitalism and free m,arlkets have proven OEVR AND OVER NAD OVER AGAIn that they are most effective measn of reducing poverty and increasing properity FOR ALL, we belive that the Left's contiued support for socialism and socialistic polcies is NUTS.

Thanks for your time.

Good luck.

I hope you ALL open you eyes.

I did.

I was raised a leftie by card-carrying commies! I was mistakely opposed to n ulcear arms, and the Vietnam War, and cutting taxes, etc.

But I opened my eyes and took a deep breath and accepted the truth. I was anxious about it, a first, but them I found it
WAS VERY LIBERATING. (Pun Intended!)

I have been - and remain - a registered Democrat (since 1974!).

I am a JFK Democrat, Read his inaugural.

Thanks again.

DON'T DESPAIR. YOU CAN DO IT!

[cali dem]

This Republicanism/conservatism stuff is all about desparately seeking a sensation of moral superiority in a time of cultural/spiritual vapidity? The unbearable emptiness of the suburbs & Grisham novels...

[Laurelin]

Brilliant, Lance. Just brilliant. Compliments to the chef!

[steelyman]

I'm only kind of surprised that among all the values Reliapundit says he/ she believes in, good spelling doesn't even get a lookin. I guess it's ok to be relativist about orthography ...

Also, it's always charming to be given a lesson in economics and development by a neo-con, especially when it concerns China and India. They always, *always* seem to miss out on the fact that 50 years of state-controlled economic planning enabled both countries to enact market reforms that allowed their economies to start participating in the global economy from positions of relative strength, as opposed to any number of South American economies that obeyed the lunatic commands of American free-marketers and have paid the price several times over.

[Lance]

Reliapundit,

Bit of a contradiction there, to claim conservatives are following in the footsteps of FDR and championing his Four Freedoms while going great guns to gut and eliminate all the "socialistic" programs he enacted to provide those freedoms to millions of Americans.

And note the grumbling of a lot of Republicans about rebuilding New Orleans. Not exactly in the spirit of the New Deal.

And if you believe in using force to liberate all your brothers and sisters, how come we haven't invaded North Korea, Iran, half of Africa, various parts of the far East yet? Or is that the plan down the line?

Also, please explain how using force to bring freedom to our brothers and sisters in Iraq has resulted in our sisters there losing all their rights?

Believing in universal values that you don't really practice doesn't make you morally superior. It makes you a superior form of hypocrite.

[harry near indy]

i hope these people don't break their arms patting themselves on the back.

congratulations, lance. this is the post about the one thing that makes me despise some middle-class people.

[Exiled in NJ]

Where I grew up, we had this saying that seems to apply to so many on the right, and sadly to a few I know on the left:

"Have you had a group picture of yourself taken lately?"

[mac macgillicuddy]

Looks like Reliapundit has been listening very carefully to Rush Limbaugh -- who has an uncanny knack for ignoring any facts that don't support his oddball view of world economics (China and India eliminated poverty? When? Must have been since I was there in 2001!).

I'll bet there are some proud card-carrying parents out there.

And that 4.0 tremor we all felt was JFK and FDR spinning in their graves.

(Oh, and while this is probably an unfair dig because anyone can have trouble proof reading before posting -- the argument is so illuminated by its splendid presentation.)

[reliapundit]

lance, thanks for commenting on my comment.

1 - to claim conservatives are following in the footsteps of FDR and championing his Four Freedoms while going great guns to gut and eliminate all the "socialistic" programs he enacted to provide those freedoms to millions of Americans.

1a - his war-stuff was good; his socialism was bad. it deepened and prolonged the depression. unemployment was higher in 1940 then in 1932-1936. the new deal was an abject failure - and unconstitutional.

2 And note the grumbling of a lot of Republicans about rebuilding New Orleans. Not exactly in the spirit of the New Deal.

2a - many gop support his spending plan for the gulf too. as do many dems (like me). the GOP has become the b ig tent party. the dems - sadly - have once again been taken over by the leftie doveds, as in 1972. in 1972 - at he apex of the anti-war moevement (ever!) the left NOMINATED mcgovern. and lost in the biggest loss of all time.

doves and socialists will never carry the day in the USA.

if socialsim worked so well, why then did china start feeding itself and end a century of poverty (30 years under socialist tyranny) only AFTER abandoning it!?

irelansd the UK india all PROVE that socialism is the road to serfdom and free marjets the best way to hwelp the poor. FDR's
program was well intentioned but a failure.

george w's expensive plan for the gulf coast has better structuresmore oriented to personal empowerment, low taxes, direct aid to people. but we must rebuilkd the enitre infrastcuture there and that does cost big bucks. as did ike's highway plan. that's not anyhting like FDR's "MAKE WORK" WPA stuff which was a WASTE.

3 - And if you believe in using force to liberate all your brothers and sisters, how come we haven't invaded North Korea, Iran, half of Africa, various parts of the far East yet? Or is that the plan down the line?

3a - after pearl harbor we did not invade japan. we invaded NRTH AFRICA! Germany and japan came last.

and each front requires different tools. libya. noko. iran - they're EACH been handled differently, which is apporprite. we cannot attack noko becuase they have enough artillery on the border to kill1MILLION sokos in an hour. WE MUST pay attentioon to little details like that; it prevents us from doing many things - ESPECIALLY becasue our ally soko is split on hiow we should prceed, and becaseu WE ARE NOT AN EMPIRE, WE DO NOT DICTATE HOW WE WILL PRCEED TO OUR ALLIES. like france germany etc. they have troops in afghanistan but not iraq. that';s bad, but we're coooll with it. no sanctions.

4 - Also, please explain how using force to bring freedom to our brothers and sisters in Iraq has resulted in our sisters there losing all their rights?

4a - our sisters have NIOT lost all there trights/ 20% of the elected officials in afghanistan ARE WOMEN! they see docoitrs now and go to school. that is good, NO?!?!?! they havce enemies we still must cobvert or defeat. it will take time and resolve. I think it's worth it; you - pitifully - do not. ARE YOU BETTER THAN THEM / do you tink you and your sisters are more deserving of liberty / do you think you have liberty FOR FREE!?!?!?!?!? Dont you see that OUR liberty was won with blood over the ages. so it must be won today iand in the coming yeasr for our brothers and sisters EVERYWHERE - LIKE FDR SAID.

5 - Believing in universal values that you don't really practice doesn't make you morally superior. It makes you a superior form of hypocrite.

5a - LANCE: that was just means and uncalled for. You should apologize. I posted my comment here - and this reply in good faith. i dfended the right based on its VALUES and CORE BELIEFS - basically arguing that it is these CORE BELIEFS that make the right what it is, and NOT the laundry list yopu posted about. That was NOT condescending. As a foemr leftie - for 35 years! - I know you and your readers can ssee the light. that is not cpondescending.

WHY NOT READ "THE ROAD TO SERFDOM" by Hayek. It'll open your eyes.

All the best! Good Luck. Buh-BYEE!

[reliapundit]

eher's an op-d from SOCIALIST Jalal Talabani. Oh eyah: he's also the PREZ of Iraq:

We Need American Troops
Thank you for liberating my country. Please don't leave before the job is done.

BY JALAL TALABANI
Wednesday, September 21, 2005 12:01 a.m.

BAGHDAD--There is no more important international issue today than the need to defeat the curse of terrorism. And as the first democratically elected president of Iraq, I have a responsibility to ensure that the world's youngest democracy survives the inherently difficult transition from totalitarianism to pluralism. A transformation of the Iraqi state and Iraqi society is impossible without a sustained commitment of soldiers from the United States and other democracies.
To understand why, let us recall how we reached this juncture in history. How is it that Iraq today has a democratically elected head of state, government and Parliament? How it is that members of the most repressed ethnic groups now hold the highest offices of state? All these welcome developments are a result of the courage and vision of President Bush and his allies, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Australian Prime Minister John Howard, leaders whose commitment of troops to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions liberated Iraq.

Without foreign intervention, the transition in Iraq would have been from Saddam's bloodstained hands to his psychopathic offspring. Instead, thanks to American leadership, Iraqis have been given an opportunity of peaceful, participatory politics. Contrary to the new conventional wisdom, Iraq and the history of 20th-century Europe demonstrate that force of arms can implant democracy in the most arid soil.
The rapidity of the democratization and reform of Iraq is staggering. There was no German state for four years after the Second World War. By contrast, Iraq has moved from a centralized, one-man dictatorship to a decentralized, federal republic in half that time.

Inevitably, there have been stresses and strains. In Iraq these have been amplified by the terrorism of the remnants of the fascist Baathist dictatorship and our interfering neighbors. To contain these tensions, and to defend our young democracy, requires the support of American and other troops. Foreign forces are needed to train and equip the new Iraqi armed forces and to give Iraq its own counterterrorism capability. Only the United States and its closest allies are able to provide such assistance.

Creating these Iraqi forces has not been easy, but Iraqis have been undaunted by the difficulties. Every terrorist attack on Iraqi forces leads to a surge in military recruitment--the opposite of the appeasers' myth that resisting terrorism causes more terrorism. For all the short-term problems, the soundness of the long-term strategy of building up Iraqi forces was demonstrated in recent days when Iraqis took over sole control of security in the holy city of Najaf.

As Iraqi forces gain in confidence and capability, so the need for foreign troops will diminish. The number of foreign troops will be determined in consultations between the Iraqi government and its foreign allies on the basis of operational requirements.

American forces are in Iraq at the invitation of the democratically elected government of Iraq, and with the backing of a United Nations Security Council resolution. Your soldiers are in my country because of your commitment to democracy. Moreover, during my visit to Washington, Mr. Bush reaffirmed the United States' complete support for the Iraqi political process toward sustainable democracy, and for the fight to defeat fascist and jihadist terrorism in Iraq.

That commitment to liberty has shaped our opposition to any timetable for withdrawal. There are also two practical, policy reasons to avoid such a scheduled reduction in foreign troop numbers. First, a timetable will aid the terrorists and tell them that all they have to do is wait. Second, military plans must be flexible. We should have the suppleness to respond to the often-changing level of terrorist threat. Indeed, we will require ongoing security assistance in many forms for many years to come.

If we keep progressing at the present rate, Iraqis may be able to take over many security functions from foreign forces by the end of 2006. That is not a deadline, but it is reasonable aspiration. During my visit to the United States, I was fortunate to meet relatives of some of the brave troops serving in Iraq. They were staunch, and I want their loved ones to have to serve in Iraq not a moment longer than is necessary.

Americans should be proud of what its soldiers have achieved. The presence of foreign forces has prevented a renewed civil war in Iraq--renewed because there has already been a civil war in Iraq. For 35 years, Saddam and his Baath Party made war on the Iraqi people. The liberation of Iraq ended that civil war.
Above all, American forces provide Iraq with a much-needed deterrence capability. In the past, Iraq sought an illusory security through the follies of aggression, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Today, our external security comes from our alliance with the United States. Our neighbors can thereby be assured that we will settle all of our differences with them peacefully.

Sadly, some of our neighbors have chosen not to understand this. They seem either unwilling or unable to shut off the pipeline of terrorists crossing into Iraq. And in addition to what is at least passive support for the terrorists, some of them are providing financial and material support to them, too. They must desist from this behavior now.

While the problem of some of our neighbors supporting terrorism is bad enough, we can only imagine what our neighbors might have done if American troops had not been present. Most likely, Iraq would have been transformed into a regional battlefield with disastrous consequences for Middle Eastern and global security.

Without American forces, the vision of American leadership and the quiet fortitude of the American people, Iraqis would be almost alone in the world. With its allies, the United States has provided Iraqis with an unprecedented opportunity. Iraqis have responded by enthusiastically embracing democracy and volunteering to fight for their country. By giving us the tools, your troops help us to defend Iraqi democracy and to finish the job of uprooting Baathist fascism.

Mr. Talabani is president of Iraq.

Copyright © 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

[spencer]

Relaipundit said" unemployment was higher in 1940 then in 1932-1936. the new deal was an abject failure - and unconstitutional"

unemployment rate
1932 24.1
1933 25.1
1934 22.0
1935 20.3
1936 17.0
1937 14.3
1938 19.1
1939 17.2
1940 14.6
1941. 9.9

employment increased from 38.0 M in 1932 to 43.9 in 1936 -- in 1941 it was 50.4 million

unemployment fell from 12.8 million in 1932 to 9.0 million in 1936 and 5.5 million in 1941

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/CT1970p1-05.pdf

If everthing else is as accurate as the data you quote on
the FDR recovery from the depression why should we pay attention to a single thing you say?

[burritoboy]

"We believe in UNIVERSAL values; we are not cultural or moral relativists. we belive democracy is the only way people can form consensual self-givernemnt and that EVERYONE can do it. It's adaptable to all cultures."

Really? So why was the de-facto head of your party for the central bulk of the twentieth century, Robert Taft, semi-secretly the moving force behind the America First movement? Indeed, Taft publically stated that Roosevelt was a greater threat to America than Hitler.

[burritoboy]

"We believe - like FDR, Truman and JFK - that the USa has the moral duty to use our military and financial might to liberate opur brothers and sisters everywhere from tryanny and totalitatianism. (Re-read FDR's Four freedom's speech and JFK's Inaugural speech; they DEFINE neo-conservativism.)"

Which is why your party has explicitly allied itself historically with such figures as Franco, Pinochet (Uncle Miltie Friedman's favorite dictator), Lee Kuan Yew, Strom Thurmond and the other supporters of the violent, single-party Jim Crow dictatorships of the South - including Trent Lott who probably participated in the terroristic attacks on US government forces at the University of Mississippi.

[burritoboy]

"We believe that quotas and set-asides and affirmative action and bi-lingual education are racist and make us a less cohesive society."

Your party heavily supported affirmative action for wealthy, well-connected white men that determined admittance to many private universities up into the 1960s. Of course, such discrimination persisted in much of hiring until well into the 1960s. You guys thought "Jew quotas" were just fantastic. It didn't bother your party that discrimination was explicit and open against non-Anglo-Saxons (indeed, Bill Buckley opposed the relaxation of these discriminatory rules).

[burritoboy]

"We believe that insbide most Leftists is a Hayekian libertarian waiting to come out because Hayek proved that leftism is the road to serfdom (poverty and servitude)and that propserity is a BY-PRODUCT of libery."

Yes, let's march out the old chesnuts from the socialist planning debate of the 1920s. Can you address why it was that the Dutch economy declined from being the center of the world economy in 1650 to an ignored and nearly abandoned backwater by 1800? Can you address why the British economy declined from being the center of the world economy in 1870 to a sidelined and disfunctional economy by 1930? Can you address that the US economy from 1890-1930 was de-facto centrally planned and organized by JP Morgan and his successors, and moreover, was shielded from foreign competition throughout the nineteenth century?

[burritoboy]

"his war-stuff was good; his socialism was bad. it deepened and prolonged the depression. unemployment was higher in 1940 then in 1932-1936. the new deal was an abject failure - and unconstitutional."

Your party hated both Roosevelt's foreign policy and his domestic policy equally. Many in your party opposed WWII because they believed Roosevelt's war against the Nazis was merely a step in his plan to make Stalin dictator of the world.

[burritoboy]

"Mr. Talabani is president of Iraq. "

He's President of Iraq for precisely as long as our troops are there. Roughly 30 seconds after we leave (if, in fact, he hasn't left long before our troops do), he will be lynched by the Iraqis and his multilated corpse displayed as what happens to traitors. But, he should be fine. The billion dollars he's looted from the American taxpayers should buy him a nice quick airline flight to Switzerland. A good villa there only runs $5-15 million, leaving plenty him plenty of money for prostitutes, cocaine, expensive cars and the "Talabani Collection of Contemporary Paintings".

[Samuel]

I am from India and it amuses and infuriates me no end to see fools put forth India as an example of the success of the free market. You know Indonesia would be a better example of what the free marketeers crow about.

Steelyman is on the mark here. As far as eliminating poverty goes, the previous Indian governmen hoped hiring a few spin doctors and starting a huge PR campaign called 'India Shining' would obscure the fact that the poor and most parts of India have been left out of the money being made. And the level of discontent with the government took everyone by shock. No one predicted that there would be such a big backlash.

And what did the newspapers constantly obsess about? The markets would take a hit because the reform minded government was to be replaced and that this lack of stability was harmful to the economy. So much for the free markets.

Now this is unfair, but I guess we Indians are not that sophisticated enough to fall for carefully crafted PR campaigns and Mission Accomplished banners.

Another beautiful post. Amused to see that somone from the right has appropriated FDR. Whats next?

[David]

Thank you, I would like to read more on the hijacking of a representative democracy.

[burritoboy]

"We know that China and India lifted themselves out of poverty and starvation by introducing market reforms ewmpowering free markets, NOT by central command economic controls (ehich have ALWYS done more poorly EVERYWHERE)."

Except that Japan has an effectively centralized economic planning apparatus with the Ministry of Finance / Bank of Japan controlling (sorry, "advising")the financial services sector, and MITI controlling (sorry, "guiding") Japan's core industries. The economic performance of many states which you would label "socialist", such as Sweden, Norway and Finland have actually been superior or broadly equivalent to your beloved UK.

[harry near indy]

regarding reliapundit...

i read his comments and these things stuck to my mind -- the mispellings, the capital letters thrown around without discrimination.

i first thought, ah, this is some guy gone to a blog and wanted to goof on the posters by sounding all free marketeer, because very few people would post such a slopping-looking post.

but then i thought ... lance, is that you?

are you doing the police in different voices?

[Erik Loomis]

Spencer--you and your "facts" and "evidence." They're just signs of your liberal elitism and America-hating. If you were a true American patriot, you would just throw around accusations without evidence while misspelling every other word just like Reliapundit.

[RPGPundit]

Very clever, and highly amusing post.

But it also highlites the exact opposite phenomenon in liberals.

If conservatives believe in their heart of hearts that they are more MORAL than liberals, then liberals believe in their heart of hearts that they are more INTELLIGENT than conservatives.

There's nothing right-wingers love more than talking, with a smug look of disapproval, about the "weakness" of the right; of how they are degenerates who will tear down the fabric of the country and drag us all down into poverty with their evil economic theories and turn our kids into degenerates with their perverse social theories.

Likewise, there's nothing that liberals love more than to comment, with a sly smile, about the "red states" and their lack of education; about how people can be just so stupid as to fall for Bush's lies, about how the right-wingers couldn't possibly really understand what's going on in the world and in their own community, and have have merely reached a conclusion that differs from their own. No, it MUST be that the right-wingers really don't understand because they are stupid! If they were just smarter, then they would be in favour of gay marriage and wouldn't believe in stupid things like god or the idea that an embryo is a living thing, even if it is. And they wouldn't believe the lies Bush told, like the WMDs or that the Iraqi people are better off without Saddam, even if that last one is probably true.

Certainly, those of us in the left don't have any extremist wing that believes in stupid things that aren't true, like that technology is evil, or christianity is evil, or that dictators can always be talked into peace, or that all rich people are evil.

And certainly, those of us on the left never ever make excuses for political wrongdoing the way the right-wing has for Bush, we certainly have no one in our side that have consistently been apologists for Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez, or accept any and all political or personal shenanigans from the likes of the Kennedies or the Clintons.

And certainly, the fact that there are SOME stupid people who are right-wingers must mean that I, as a liberal, am so much smarter than ALL right-wingers. They don't simply have a different viewpoint, they are clearly mindless dupes of purely EVIL people, the vast right-wing conspiracy, a shadowy cabal of corporations and elite politicians, ALL of them white, male, and upper class, who want to rule us all, rig elections, and make wars because they're bad bad men!!!

Right.

But we get to make fun of the right-wingers because THEY believe in fairy tales?

When it comes down to it, those are the illusions each side lives with. The right thinks its moral, the left thinks its smart. Neither of these are particularly true.

RPGPundit

http://www.xanga.com/RPGpundit

[Dan Nexon]

Personally, I love the assumption that if we only read Hayek, we'd be converted. I *teach* Hayek and I'm not converted....

[Lance]

Dan,

Dan,

I'm a little embarrassed to admit it, but I've never read any of Hayek's work. Should I? For reasons more than it's good to know what tune the devil is playing? And would I be amused by how they've misinterpreted him or misapplied his thinking, the way they used to with Burke and Levi-Strauss or dismayed that they've got him exactly right?

[Dan Nexon]

Far, far too late to respond (what is it, a month later?)... but yes, read, at a minimum, the Road to Serfdom. Do people who invoke it misinterpret it? Sure. But I don't think that's the major reason to read it; its a brilliant and influential work, and aspects of its ideas get invoked as core components of "American conservativism."

[Dr. Chris Mohler DDS]

haha haha. I think most conservatives truly are moral, but that some can not be or that they are tacky. I think it is terms of people's beliefs maybe that define what is moral and what is not.