Wednesday, 16 February 2005
Hypocrisy
Topic: State Of The Union
The Indy Voice has been pondering the inaugural address given by our President. I see shadows of the truth and much hypocrisy in statements like this,
"For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny - prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder - violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat. There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.
We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.
...All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors."
The large division that has been created between the liberals and conservatives over Iraq has been needless and almost a simple matter of miscommunication. The ideologies and foreign polices that George W. Bush is promoting are extremely similar to those of the 1960's liberals in their quest against communism vis-a-vis the domino theory. Liberals in the 1960's were the hawks that the conservatives railed against.
Conservatism once stood for prudence and practicality, not conflict based upon an ideology. When the liberals that stood firmly with the President following 9/11 broke from him, they did so not based on an ideology but rather because it was the pragmatic thing to do. Liberals were not decrying the use of violence in all its forms nor were they railing against war based on philosophy of dovishness. Liberals have and were trying to say that Iraq was a country that the United States should be concerned with but not a country that we should war with. Iraq posed no threat through either intent or ability to the security of the United States. Liberals knew it then definitively and now the rest of the world knows it unequivocally. Liberals are and were trying to say that we need to take a practical approach to defeating terrorism. Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia do and did pose more of a significant threat to the security of the United States than Iraq. Liberals have lately been promoting a foreign policy reminiscent of the main street conservatives.
The first step that a main street conservative would take in defeating terrorism is to understand the implications of the actions our country has taken in the world. Take a good look at our country in the mirror and ask if you like what you see. Think about a country of 5% of the total world population militarily dominating and extending into areas of the world that even the Romans could not justify or maintain. Ask yourself if its either hypocritical or important to maintain a foreign policy of allying with tyrannical kingdoms like Saudi Arabia for the sake of oil.
The next step that a main street conservative would take is to understand our enemy. We should ask why someone would die in a suicidal act against our country. The answer, if we do attempt to ask the question, is of incomparable significance. People do not take upon a mission of certain death because the don't like McDonalds, women without head coverings, apple pie or freedom. They decide to die because they believe that our actions and policies have directly led to their suffering and through their death they may be able to instigate a resolution. Courage would be admitting to ourselves that there may be some truth to that. Changing would not condone their behavior but it would make us a people willing to question themselves and a nation strong enough to face the implications of the answer.
The answer is that we can never let violence, injustice, hypocrisy and hatred breathe. That means that when we see injustice, whether at our hands, a terrorists or a kingdom that sells us oil, we need to raise a wall of impenetrability against it. It also means sacrifice, patience and resolve. When it becomes tempting to act just like those that perpetrate violence for political ends we need to pledge that we will exhaust every alternative first. That will require facing the hard realities that we have been avoiding for some time. This is the essence of the division between the modern day conservatives and liberals. Words are empty. Strength lies in accepting complicity for our actions and defying injustice and hypocrisy no matter whose flag it's flying under.
Posted by The Indy Voice
Hypocrisy
Topic: State Of The Union
The Indy Voice has been pondering the inaugural address given by our President. I see shadows of the truth and much hypocrisy in statements like this,
"For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny - prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder - violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat. There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.
We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.
...All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors."
The large division that has been created between the liberals and conservatives over Iraq has been needless and almost a simple matter of miscommunication. The ideologies and foreign polices that George W. Bush is promoting are extremely similar to those of the 1960's liberals in their quest against communism vis-a-vis the domino theory. Liberals in the 1960's were the hawks that the conservatives railed against.
Conservatism once stood for prudence and practicality, not conflict based upon an ideology. When the liberals that stood firmly with the President following 9/11 broke from him, they did so not based on an ideology but rather because it was the pragmatic thing to do. Liberals were not decrying the use of violence in all its forms nor were they railing against war based on philosophy of dovishness. Liberals have and were trying to say that Iraq was a country that the United States should be concerned with but not a country that we should war with. Iraq posed no threat through either intent or ability to the security of the United States. Liberals knew it then definitively and now the rest of the world knows it unequivocally. Liberals are and were trying to say that we need to take a practical approach to defeating terrorism. Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia do and did pose more of a significant threat to the security of the United States than Iraq. Liberals have lately been promoting a foreign policy reminiscent of the main street conservatives.
The first step that a main street conservative would take in defeating terrorism is to understand the implications of the actions our country has taken in the world. Take a good look at our country in the mirror and ask if you like what you see. Think about a country of 5% of the total world population militarily dominating and extending into areas of the world that even the Romans could not justify or maintain. Ask yourself if its either hypocritical or important to maintain a foreign policy of allying with tyrannical kingdoms like Saudi Arabia for the sake of oil.
The next step that a main street conservative would take is to understand our enemy. We should ask why someone would die in a suicidal act against our country. The answer, if we do attempt to ask the question, is of incomparable significance. People do not take upon a mission of certain death because the don't like McDonalds, women without head coverings, apple pie or freedom. They decide to die because they believe that our actions and policies have directly led to their suffering and through their death they may be able to instigate a resolution. Courage would be admitting to ourselves that there may be some truth to that. Changing would not condone their behavior but it would make us a people willing to question themselves and a nation strong enough to face the implications of the answer.
The answer is that we can never let violence, injustice, hypocrisy and hatred breathe. That means that when we see injustice, whether at our hands, a terrorists or a kingdom that sells us oil, we need to raise a wall of impenetrability against it. It also means sacrifice, patience and resolve. When it becomes tempting to act just like those that perpetrate violence for political ends we need to pledge that we will exhaust every alternative first. That will require facing the hard realities that we have been avoiding for some time. This is the essence of the division between the modern day conservatives and liberals. Words are empty. Strength lies in accepting complicity for our actions and defying injustice and hypocrisy no matter whose flag it's flying under.
Posted by The Indy Voice
No comments:
Post a Comment