Glenn Greenwald, an apparantly honorable Liberal, wrote a piece for Salon, in which he laments the demise of anti-war fervor apparent in the latest elections.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/24/wars/index.html
The article isn't profound, except in one sense: Mr. Greenwald seems to be legitimately anti-war, as opposed to most Progressives who are only anti-war-if-it's-a-Bush-war. Accordingly, Mr. Greenwald connects dots that might've been connected before the election if journalists (sic) had vetted Obama's corporate donations as thoroughly as they scoured the north country for the perfect Palin malediction.
In the 60's, there was a noteworthy anti-war figure, Eugene McCarthy. He epitomized principled opposition to war. His unequivocal and consistent opposition to our military actions in Vietnam was a matter of personal conviction, not just political expediency.
But there were at least two other types of anti-war folks during the 'Nam war: the opportunistic kind, and the treasonous kind.
While observing the changing political winds, Senator Robert F. Kennedy wrung his hands, and made a decison that he, too, was anti-war. Being a media darling, and the brother of a martyred president, his altruism was largely unquestioned as he supplanted McCarthy as the "anti-war" candidate in 1968, after LBJ dropped out of the race. Never mind that the former good buddy of Joe McCarthy (no kin to Gene) was an integral part of the administration which upped our troop presence in 'Nam from hundreds to several thousands - RFK had rock star appeal, and harnessed the naive energy of the idealistic left into frontrunner status for the presidency until the awful night in early June.
Third on the list of anti-war types is Jane Fonda. Her opposition to the war in Vietnam was of the treasonous kind.
Aid and comfort to the enemy is, by definition, treason.
Oh, and schmoozing with NVA anti-aircraft crews is aid and comfort. Getting away with it shows how feckless our government was even forty years ago.
Some people think the Left's reticence to use terms like "radical Islamic terror" is treasonous. Their ire is understandable, especially when those who won't acknowledge the disproportionate level of violence perpetrated in the USA by Muslims, relative to their population, readily issue stern missives about potential (any day now!) violence about to be unleashed by hordes of tea partiers.
But the illiberal Left's duplicity isn't treason. It's stupidity.
The hallmark of the irrational anti-war crowd is cognitive dissonance - they have pre-readied indictments for soon-to-come tea party terrorism (it was oh so disappointing when the Times Square wannabe bomber turned out not to be a tea partier, but a - surprise! - Muslim), but don't you dare draw conclusions when a Muslim officer actually kills a dozen or so fellow soldiers at Ft. Hood.
Well, Mr. Greenwald has discovered that anti-war activity is often as partisan in nature as jingoism. He concludes that the current wars have declined as issues because neither major party benefits from broaching the subject, since the GOP started the wars, and Obama continues them.
Now if only the peaceloving Mr. Greenwald could overcome his Progressive indoctrination and look at the issue of war funding.
More specifically, the Federal Reserve bank's role in same.The ability to create money from thin air, combined with the ambitions of the increasingly imperial presidency, adds up to the endless war scenario that Mr. Greenwald seems to so earnestly deplore. As long as the George Bushes and Barack Obamas of the world have access to a fiat money tree, opportunities to make war will be unlimited.
Mr. Greenwald could start exploring the matter by reading Ron Paul's END THE FED.
One problem: the Progressive party line is to ignore Paul's message and go after Paul and his son, Rand.
Will Mr. Greenwald continue a frustrated existence in the box, or will he venture out? How open minded is this Liberal?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
1. "Most progressives" aren't anti-war. Wrong. The opposite is the case. I haven't heard a single caller on progressive radio be in favor of Obama's war making. But I won't call you "stupid." Just incorrect.
2. I heard frequently of corporate contributions to Obama from progressive and public radio sources. EVERY viable candidate receives significant corporate contributions. You know that, don't you? Still, I think you're incorrect, not stupid.
3. Where's your proof the RFK was a fake peace guy? Why couldn't he have authentically absorbed the spirit of the times, which was sharply anti-war?
4. "former good buddy of Joseph McCarthy" is guilt-by-association, a common tactic of the Right, especially as it tries to destroy personages it hates.
5. I believe RFK was attorney general of JFK's administration. As such, it it fair to pin the troop escalation on RFK? War is not normally the province of AGs, is it? More guilt-by-association.
6. Are you among the those who think eschewing "radical Islamic terror" is treasonous? If so, you are being quite extreme. Besides, I'm not aware that your premise is correct. I do know that liberals hate the term "war on terror" for the non sequitur that it is.
7. Tea Parties are dangerous? No, it's the extreme Right sing militias, the White Identity Movement, and militant anti-abortionists who are officially being monitored, for good reason. They may show up a bit at Tea Parties, where I'm sure they're comfortable, but I don't know if Tea Parties per se are considered that dangerous.
See Steve, you've had some influence on me!
8. What is the violence quotient for Muslims in this country relative to their population? How would that compare to Right wing threats and violence? I don't know the answer to that. Do you?
9. "Stupidity?" Hey Steve, maybe we're wrong and horribly misguided, but generally speaking, the IQ points favor the Left. After all, Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman bring down the Right's IQ significantly by themselves. We're the side that favors higher education, facts, and unbiased reasoning. So, I doubt if we're "stupid." That's your anger speaking, and it's quite unbecoming.
10. Why wouldn't Ron Paul's message include his incriminating thoughts on race?
Post a Comment