- 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."
- Democrats are now isolationists, and pacifists, preferring inaction to fostering freedom, repudiating even JFK's vision. Meanwhile, Republicans reject the "false stability" of dictatorship, recognizing that lack of liberty, not poverty or history, is terrorism's root cause.
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?Put differently, why assume Iraqis are less anxious for liberty than Americans? JFK and Truman knew better.
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.
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.