Sunday, March 20, 2005

Lefties Don't Know Iraqis

I've previously discussed the inversion of the American political spectrum: Increasingly nervous about being on the wrong side of history, lefties shifted strategies to claim both that democracy cannot be installed by force and that Iraqis resented America's efforts. The two-word answer to the first point is "Germany" and "Japan." And I've provided ample evidence that most Iraqis appreciate our help.

In that context, Chrenkoff linked to powerful new evidence presented by Seekerblog, comparing attitudes in Iraq and America. According to pollster IRI, Iraqis are optimistic:
The new survey revealed that 61.5 percent of Iraqis believe that their country is headed in the right direction compared to only 23.2 percent who feel Iraq is headed in the wrong direction. The nearly 40 point margin between right direction and wrong direction is the largest since IRI began polling in May 2004, and this margin is more than double what it was in the poll taken from January 13 to 25, 2005. The current poll further shows that more than 90 percent of Iraqis feel hopeful for their future.
In contrast, according to the WaPo, most Americans think the "war was not worth it."

Most importantly, Seekerblog suggests the U.S. anti-war crowd isn't just "disconnected" from ordinary people but actually espouses principles entirely opposite of the Iraqi people, juxtaposing these two graphs:


Iraqis Increasingly Optomistic (click to enlarge)


Americans Consumed With Doubt (click to enlarge)

The numbers show a left without any legitimate claim to speak for Iraqis, a point also made by Kevin at Wizbang, who contrasted today's moonbat marches (San Fran; San Diego; Montreal) with Iraqis in Baghdad protesting not America but Jordan, outraged at that next-door Arab kingdom's involvement in a deadly suicide bombing last month.

Seekerblog asks, "Is this possibly a consequence of the unwavering media pessimism?" Bret Stephens thinks so, in his March 12th critique in the WSJ:
The problem is not that journalists can't get their facts straight: They can and usually do. Nor is it that the facts are obscure: Often, the most essential facts are also the most obvious ones. The problem is that journalists have a difficult time distinguishing significant facts--facts with consequences--from insignificant ones. That, in turn, comes from not thinking very hard about just which stories are most worth telling.
But surely some of the problem is the left's growing Blue-state isolation, fostering reliance on the all-liberal-all-the-time MSN and consequential retreat from reality.

Back in JFK's day, the anti-Communist left represented the best of America. No more, says NRO's Victor Davis Hanson, "If there was an era when the extreme Right was more likely to slander a liberal as a communist than a leftist was to smear a conservative as a fascist, those days are long past." Similarly gone is a time when liberals tried understanding and assisting the less fortunate of other nations. What changed, asks Mohammed at Iraq the Model:
Why was the world surprised? And what were the motivations of the people who have never experienced democracy before?

There were so many misconceptions about Iraq and these were the reasons why viewers from outside as well as many Iraqis were surprised. In the past few months, the media have played a big role in reflecting a blurred image about the will and preparations of Iraqis to hold the elections, not to mention exaggerating the size of the "militant groups" and their capabilities.
Put differently, why assume Iraqis are less anxious for liberty than Americans? JFK and Truman knew better.

In short, the Dems don't speak for the Iraqi people. I doubt they really care; the left's reflexive cheerleading for America's enemies bypasses JFK and Truman and short-circuits any logic. Until they return to the reasoning of heroes past, today's left will, and should, be confined to the political wilderness.

5 comments:

SeekerBlog.com said...

Carl,

Good work here - I followed your SeekerBlog comment over here . I must say you really put some effort and thought into this piece!

Today's conservatives support and have triggered change while liberals have become reactionary and out-of-touch, "more interested in preserving the past than in discovering the future."


Indeed.

I just finished reading "Unholy Alliance : Radical Islam and the American Left" by David Horowitz. It has been a real puzzle to me why the left has taken the reactionary position - increasingly so, since the Soviet collapse.

I thought that the socialist utopia was totally discredited, particularly after the Soviet archives were opened. If Horowitz is correct, I was completely wrong. Per Horowitz a significant number of the old socialists are still dreaming of their communist utopia. There problem is that globalization (and its US prime mover) are interfering with their program. Thus the socialists ally with forces perceived to be sufficiently anti-American, whether Saddam, the mullahs of Iran, or Al Qaeda.

This is truly bizarre logic - is Horowitz correct?

I just put up a post from my offline archives that I think you will appreciate:
Haim Harari Speech: A View from the Eye of the Storm, Apr 2004. Harari reminds me a bit of Richard Freyman - he certainly penetrates the "accepted wisdom" with alacrity. I wish I could sit down for a conversation with the man.

Carl said...

Thanks--all inspired by the original post.

I read Horowitz's new book in January and I must say, from personal experience, that he's correct that the socialist utopia still infests the left. Take my parents, for example--please!

Harari's speech is good (though I'm not sure Feynman-esque--Feynman was beyond compare!--and perceptive. I'm impressed by his understanding that the dispute between Israel and Palestine is a symptom, but not the cause, of conflicts in the Arab and Magreb world.

Bush turned the tables on the left by addressing root causes. Unsurprisingly, the root cause of Radical Islam is the absence of freedom. Surprisingly, the left became barking mad when Bush swiped their issue. It's resulted in an uncomplicated Democratic Party platform--just say no. Or, as Horowitz says, support America's enemies.

MaxedOutMama said...

Carl, this is another superb post. I quibble a bit about the conflation of all Democrats with the "lefties" - there are many mainstream Democrats around. But I have to agree with the idea that current discussion among the leftist elite has veered terribly far from the beliefs of the traditional Democrat in the US.

When I read JFK's speeches I think the man would be elected again today, and probably Truman would be as well.

SeekerBlog.com said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
SeekerBlog.com said...

Carl,

I thought I had set an RSS feed to track your blog. Today I discovered I had not, so missed out on your comments and subsequent posts.

I can't seem to find your RSS link - am I just missing it?

I was prompted to check when I added a new SeekerBlog post that I thought might interest you: Norman Podhoretz latest April Commentary article on the Bush Doctrine and the M/E conflict.