I haven't read any of the other replies to your question, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents.

The reason people on the left are more concerned about Western crimes than others is because the people in question are from the West.

It's a very simple moral principle, you should work to stop the bad things that are happening where you have influence. So, as an American I'm more concerned with American sponsored crimes than I am with the crimes of the Chinese state.

The other thing I'd point out is that the left, and not the warmongering right, has been the most consistently anti-Saddam, anti-Kim Jong, etc...
Those who pushed for war on Iraq, those who lied and intimidated their way past international opinion, the UN, and committed this criminal invasion of Iraq, are the very same men who sponsored Saddam during his worst crimes.

If you truly thought their point of view was as legitimate as your own, you wouldn't speak out or try to change their mind. You'd live and let live, right?

I'm unsure how the notion of the other person's point of view as being legitimate enters into the argument. You've used the word before, (C#27) but I don't think that seeing someone else's point of view imbues it with any sort of legitimacy, nor does understanding how and whys of that view's development in any way create a justification for it. I understand slavery as an insititution, and why the high agricultural societies of the South pre-Civil War utilized it and came to rely on it more than the pre-Industrial societies of the North at the time, but such study and undertanding doesn't automatically imbue the institution with any sort of moral legitimacy. Or, to use your example in C#27, understanding why someone who's criminally abusive is being abusive doesn't justify or legitimatize their behavior, it simply means that one understands it. From such understanding can come a difference in how the criminal should be treated, but not a debate on if they're actions are a threat to society at large.

So it's not that we're reticent to make a value judgement, but as Kenny says, there is a limitation we place on ourselves of how far we're willing to go to enforce those values on others. And I believe this is what you're seeing as the inconsistency in the Left; that we're reticent to coerce those aborad by putting ourselves as the higher authority a la the Project for a New American Century as signed by Paul Wolfowitz, Don Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Steve Forbes, Dick Cheney, and others on the Right wish to.

If you truly thought their point of view was as legitimate as your own, you wouldn't speak out or try to change their mind. You'd live and let live, right?

Incorrect. I can certainly promote what I believe and hope to convince you of what I believe, but I will never attempt to enforce my viewpoint on you. Those are two completely different things.

Do you think a woman should have the right to choose to abort a fetus? If you say yes, and another person says no, you can say that you respect the other person's point of view, but your stances are mutually exclusive. In other words, you can't both be right.

Now you're getting it. :) We can't both be right. According to my experiences and beliefs, the view that I hold is the right one.

In the months leading up to the war in Iraq, I saw plenty of anti-war activists marching all over the place. They thought that going to war in Iraq was wrong, did they not? I don't recall hearing anyone say, "Well, I'm anti-war, but Bush's point of view is equally as valid as mine." I heard many more liberals pointing out that Bush's stance was wrong.

Two things on this: 1) Not every liberal person is like me (a belief in no universal good/evil) and 2) They are trying to convince people of their belief and those people who partake in anti-war protests are often going to be the more extreme end of the spectrum.

Per your comments on slavery, yes, good side effects sometimes come from horrible events, but that does not justify them.

I never said it was jusified... I'm just saying it's not a black and white issue (no pun intended).

People owning other people as property is wrong, was wrong, and will always be wrong.

I disagree, back then it wasn't wrong. Slavery wasn't viewed as wrong throughout MOST of history. Only in the last several hundred years it was viewed as a "bad thing."

I get the feeling that both Yaga and Kenny, in response to the way women are treated in Saudi Arabia, would admit that they don't like it, but wouldn't actively speak out against it, or belong to a group that works actively to bring about increased rights for women in Saudi Arabia, because that would be an imposition of values. That would be saying, "You're way is wrong, and needs to be changed."

To clarify: I don't like it. I will say that I don't like it. Changing it falls in a gray area for me. I'd like it to change, because I personally think it is wrong, but I don't have the right to tell them
the tenents of their religion/government are wrong.

So if I'm understanding correctly, its the fact the Left, using this example, won't come out and condemn Saudi Arabia unilaterally for its treatment of women? That is, our having a contrary opinion, speaking that opinion, espousing it, and working to change it aren't enough unless one also openly condemns those who think differently?

No, I'll repeat the basic argument one more time, verbatim from my last comment:

If you truly thought their point of view was as legitimate as your own, you wouldn't speak out or try to change their mind. You'd live and let live, right?

As with, say, the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia. I don't like it, and I'll speak out against it, and I'll do what I can to convince Saudi Arabia to change its mind... - Me, C#27

This is the inherent incoherency I've been trying to point out. -- Derek, C#28

This just seems like a gross inconsistency to me, proclaiming to value certain rights, but not in their application to all cultures, -- Derek, Original post)


So if I'm understanding correctly, its the fact the Left, using this example, won't come out and condemn Saudi Arabia unilaterally for its treatment of women? That is, our having a contrary opinion, speaking that opinion, espousing it, and working to change it aren't enough unless one also openly condemns those who think differently?

If that's the case, and that's what you see as the "inconsistency" of the Left, I think I can explain it: We don't like to call people out. We see that as taking the confrontation to an unnecessary high level. As such, we limit our discourse, and become uncomfortable when people demand things of us that we see as their "baiting" us into a confrontation we don't want.

As an example : If I don't like the way my sister is raising her kids, (I think she's a great parent, but let's just say...) I'm not going to openly condemn her as part of my trying to help the kids get raised properly. I simply don't see that as being conducive to resolving the conflict, no do I feel that I have an authority higher than my sister's. She might know that I don't like how she's raising her children, and she might try to limit my access to the kids so that I don't give them undue inlfluence, or undermine her authority, but will still invite me around for dinner, or let them accept the presents I give them, or let them come visit me without her supervision. But as soon as I openly denounce her, I risk whatever influence I already have.

In North Korea, when the US denounced KJI, and criticised the South's "Sunshine" policy that agreed to deal with him and his regime, there was a significant loss in US influence over the NK regime as well as in SK. Many of the demonstrations against the US in the South are because of the US using undue influence in oposing reunification, which is seen by many as a primarily Korean affair. With relations between the US and Saudi Arabia already as strained as they are, making a Rose Garden declaration condemning any aspect of Saudi rule might force the US to lose what influence it presently has.

But I agree that wholly caving to one's opponents isn't wise. I know that some on the Left don't have a problem with this, while others have a totally hands-off "Politically Correct" approach that personally makes me sick. I can't speak for those people, save that they're sort of like the pascifists who'll left someone kill them rather than bloody their own hands in self-defense. I don't understand that mentality, so perhaps what I have to say is not relevant to them.

But to sum up, I don't think its so much that the Left is inconsistent in their approach, but that they're self-limiting. Which might be just as bad. In avoiding "unnecessary" confrontation (a subjective decision) or trying not to overstep one's authority, there is always the risk of being too resigning, too capitulating, or otherswise ineffectual. But I don't think that that's the provenance of the Left alone.

I think one of the best ways for the US to influence Saudi Arabia would be to condemn those US companies, such as Halliburton and Boose Allen Hamilton, who have de facto policies of not sending their female employees to work on-site for Saudi contracts. That those companies (Halliburton being Big Oil, BAH employees being over 80% ex-US Intelligence agents and having such contracts as developing civil police forces, training the military, and "advising" on policy) check their values at the border irks me almost as much as Saudi Arabia's policies themselves. In fact, I see that as being a greater inconsistency -- condeming a policy publically, but capitulating to it in private. (not that Haliburton or Boose Allen Hamiliton have spoke out against Saudi Arabia in any way, even though they are very Right-wing companies)

Still, I do see your point in that limiting the extent to which one esposes their views can be seen as an inability to stand up for what one sees as being right.

The only other comment I can make is that in America, the Left sees itself as having the civil authority to make their pronouncements (the whole We The People are Sovereign thing) while they recognize that they do not necessarily have that authority overseas, and so limit themselves accordingly.

How exactly have I demonstrated a lack of empathy in this discussion or previous ones?

Derek, I always chalked it up to the nature of online conversation, but the truth is, I always thought you came across as a hardass. Not always; chiefly when it came to political discussions. I'd also like to say for the record that I'm confident that you're a charming individual in the flesh.

As with, say, the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia. I don't like it, and I'll speak out against it, and I'll do what I can to convince Saudi Arabia to change its mind...

This is the inherent incoherency I've been trying to point out.

If you truly thought their point of view was as legitimate as your own, you wouldn't speak out or try to change their mind. You'd live and let live, right?

If you're speaking out against something, you're saying it's wrong, that it needs to be a different way, are you not? You're not saying, "The Saudi societal treatment of women is equally legitimate as one where women are given basic rights."

And just because you wouldn't invade them doesn't mean you're not making a value judgement.

I get the feeling that both Yaga and Kenny, in response to the way women are treated in Saudi Arabia, would admit that they don't like it, but wouldn't actively speak out against it...

Hrm. There's speaking out against it, and activly taking a role to change it. Which I agree are two separate things. Which is perhaps another trait of the left; we'll talk a thing to death, but we're reticent to take invascive action to bring about the sort of change we're talking about. Which, bringing us back to Iraq, is why the Left was for the slow process of UN Inspections and the Right was for invasion to "enforce disarmament." I use quotes, because both approaches had the same goal -- removing WMD from the Iraqi regime persuant to UN Resolution.

As with, say, the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia. I don't like it, and I'll speak out against it, and I'll do what I can to convince Saudi Arabia to change its mind, but I won't advocate invading Saudi Arabi and overthowing their "oppressive" regime to "liberate" its women, ie; change their mind for them. (Not that I'm saying you're advocating this, I'm just drawing my own line between what I would and wouldn't do)

In short, I don't like a lot of repressive cultures, but I'm not going to repress an exisant culture to espouse my own. And largely this is because for all I dislike the Saudi Arabian government, I recognize the historical and social positions that gave rise to them. I recognize those same influences in my own culture (before sufferage, the status of women during Victorian times, and generally pre-WWII) and believe that leading by example is the best way to affect rea change. Afterall, it worked to overthrow the USSR, so why not Saudi Arabia?

David writes: For the record, what I meant was that it’s liberals’ penchant for seeing the other person’s point of view that seems to be bothering you — that you seem to think it’s excessive.

Ah, well apologies then. Thanks for clarifying.

I think you're right. I think empathy is important for understanding the reasons people think and act the way they do, but as I said in an earlier comment, understanding someone doesn't necessarily mean agreeing with them.

I may understand some of the underlying causes of why a man beats his children (e.g. he was abused as a child, he has a drinking problem, etc.) but this doesn't mean I should legitimize his behavior, or that I shouldn't report him to the police.

Since you mention it, though, I will say that if you are making an effort to walk that mile before making your judgments, you could do a better job of demonstrating it.

How exactly have I demonstrated a lack of empathy in this discussion or previous ones?

(And I’d still like to know where you’re finding these pro-Saudi liberals.)

Have you read the other comments in this thread? I'm not accusing anyone of being "pro-Saudi", but I do think there is very much a reticence among many liberals to speak out against the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia for fear that it is imposing a Western value system on them. Do you not get that implication from others here and from many on the Left in general?

I get the feeling that both Yaga and Kenny, in response to the way women are treated in Saudi Arabia, would admit that they don't like it, but wouldn't actively speak out against it, or belong to a group that works actively to bring about increased rights for women in Saudi Arabia, because that would be an imposition of values. That would be saying, "You're way is wrong, and needs to be changed."

Kenny writes: Dude, is it possible for you to avoid taking stuff I say to an extreme? Jeez.. did I ever say you obviously are advocating attacking the entire world? Cmon dude, I want to discuss, don't play stupid inferance games.

My response was directed at talk about "the right to violently enforce" values, which wasn't what I was advocating.

_I_ have _MY_ beliefs as to what is right or wrong. I can take a particular stance on any number of issues. I don't proclaim your beliefs to be wrong because that would assume my version of right and wrong is the universal right and wrong so you must conform to it.

Okay, let's make this a little more concrete. Do you think a woman should have the right to choose to abort a fetus? If you say yes, and another person says no, you can say that you respect the other person's point of view, but your stances are mutually exclusive. In other words, you can't both be right.

In the months leading up to the war in Iraq, I saw plenty of anti-war activists marching all over the place. They thought that going to war in Iraq was wrong, did they not? I don't recall hearing anyone say, "Well, I'm anti-war, but Bush's point of view is equally as valid as mine." I heard many more liberals pointing out that Bush's stance was wrong.

Per your comments on slavery, yes, good side effects sometimes come from horrible events, but that does not justify them. People owning other people as property is wrong, was wrong, and will always be wrong.

When did you become the arbiter of right or wrong? _I_ think those things are wrong, but guess what? Not everyone in the world agrees with me.

I'm a thinking human being. The alternative, which you seem to be advocating, is to have your own personal version of right and wrong, but to never try to promote your views on the basis that you would be imposing your value system on others. In which case, you would never try to change anyone's mind on civil rights, abortion rights, welfare, or any other policy. After all, who are you to say which policies are right and which are wrong?

Nobody :)

Heee!

This whole discussion reminds me of Doonesbury. Yep, it's _that_ amusing.

On slavery, I wonder where the South would be today if, in persecuting the Civil War, the North had not been so zealously destructive of its infrastructure. 150 years on and pretty much everyone recognizes that slavery (which wasn't the main trust of the war; Federalism was) was a horrific institution, yet the rift between North and South remains.

Side-stepping moral relativism, I'll point out that the concept of the separation of church and state is, presently, wholly foreign in Islamic society. (among others) More, the hardcore Muslims, of both sexes, are firmly entrenched in that belief, as much as the Zionist movement believes that being Israeli and being Jewish and being a Zionist are inexoriably linked. They believe they are right, and that dividing the religious structure from the governmental is wrong, and against God's will. So the human-righs issues of the chador and burqua are, to them, political and religious issues.

I'll just throw that out there as a topic; how does a stae separate from its church deal politically with a society that does not recognize such a bifurcation?

Derek writes: Well that was nice and condescending. For the record, I'm very capable of viewing things from others' perspectives.

For the record, what I meant was that it’s liberals’ penchant for seeing the other person’s point of view that seems to be bothering you — that you seem to think it’s excessive.

Since you mention it, though, I will say that if you are making an effort to walk that mile before making your judgments, you could do a better job of demonstrating it. I’m not accusing you of not doing it, I’m just telling you what kind of impression you’re making in your online conversations.

(And I’d still like to know where you’re finding these pro-Saudi liberals.)

(wow.. this is almost as long as a Yaga post)

Derek writes... Almost everyone here is making the presumption that I'm advocating conquering the entire world to enforce a particular value set. This is NOT what I'm advocating. Neither Iraq or Afghanistan were about the imposition of values.

Dude, is it possible for you to avoid taking stuff I say to an extreme? Jeez.. did I ever say you obviously are advocating attacking the entire world? Cmon dude, I want to discuss, don't play stupid inferance games.

Derek writes... If you don't believe there is any standard for right and wrong, then you can't reasonably proclaim particular stances on any issue as right or wrong.

Not true. _I_ have _MY_ beliefs as to what is right or wrong. I can take a particular stance on any number of issues. I don't proclaim your beliefs to be wrong because that would assume my version of right and wrong is the universal right and wrong so you must conform to it.

Derek writes... Who are you to say that slavery in America was ever wrong?

I'm sure I'll be hated for this statement, but please read it all the way through and don't over react. Yes, I believe that slavery in America had terrible consequences. I'm glad it was outlawed... but did you ever stop to think what America would be like today without it? That period in our history is what truely began our movement toward becoming an economic super power in the world. Or... diversity. I think having a diverse population is a "good thing." Would we have such a large black population without the initial large introduction of men and women from Africa?

These are "good" things that were accomplished via "bad" acts. I think slavery is horrible and I would never want it to happen to people. At the time though, some people didn't feel there was anything wrong with slavery. Does that make them evil? No, that was a popularly held understanding at the time. Did the universal definition of "evil" change because a group of people in the US decided to make it illegal? Other countries outlawed slavery before the US did... were we evil during that period?

Derek writes.... Well, there are lots of ways to promote particular rights and values other than invading countries. Speaking out is a good start. Our words, and the words of our leaders, can have an affect on others.

I think they do... I certainly do. I say I think those things are bad. However, I'm sure there are plenty of people on the Right who will sit there are say, "All you ever do is talk, let's see some action."

Derek writes.... If you took the moral relativist path, you'd simply say, "Well, that's their culture, you have to respect it."

Yes. It's what I do with you every day. I respect that you have a different opinion, but I disagree with your opinion.

Derek writes... I choose to say that forcing a particular subset of a population to wear particular clothing, not show their face, not drive, not vote, and have little or no legal recourse in a court of law...those are all wrong.

When did you become the arbiter of right or wrong? _I_ think those things are wrong, but guess what? Not everyone in the world agrees with me.

In some religions in OUR country, women do not have the right to be preachers/pastors/clergy/whatever. Is that wrong? Shouldn't women have the right to be clergy? Our constitution says we have freedom of religion. Why aren't you applying that to those men and women in Arab countries?

The problem with a relative moral perspective is that...If you don't believe there is any standard for right and wrong, then you can't reasonably proclaim particular stances on any issue as right or wrong.

Yep. Welcome to the Left. It's not just that many in the Left try to see the other person's point of view, but that they conceede in doing so that their point of view might be wrong, and that our standards might apply only to ourselves. Which begs the question, "By what authority is modern, American democratic governement 'right' that we should espouse it in other countries?" And if it is the end-all-be all, should be persuing the British to scrap its bi-cameral, lords/commons parlimentary system in favor our our Great Compromise system? Should we demand that they abolish their monarchy, and the constitution that goes with it? Hell, we went to war with them 200+ years ago because of British Imperialism, should we be Liberating Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland from the so-called Great Britian and thousands of years of Imperial Rule? No. Of course not. Because projecting our system of governance on the British isn't going to make Britain a "better" democracy or a "better" state. Or to put it another way: What we have works for us isn't necessarily going to work for Britain.

It's the extention of that difference that I believe is at issue here. If US-style democracy isn't nec. the best thing for our closest allies, who speak the same language, share the bulk of our history, much of our common law, and religion, then how can we say that US-style democracy is definitely the best thing for anyone else? And if our system of governance might not be a perfect fit, then what about the prevalent social morality behind it?

There's a huge row brewing right now over whether the American Episcopal Church's acceptance of a gay bishop will cause a schism between the AEC, the Scottish Episcopal Church, the African Episcopal Church, and the Anglican Church (ie, The Church of England, of which the Queen is the titualar head, whihc religion an heir to the thone must be to be crowned British Soverign.) A similar schism occurred in the Anglican community back in the 50s (or 60s, it's been a long night) over the ordination of women, resulting in a few dozen offshoots, which were still around today. The African Episcopal churches are already looking to go their won way, while the American Episcopals have formed a variety of covenants with the Lutherans, and were only a few votes shy of merging the two churches a few years ago.

If such issues are going to poliarize our democaratic selves, how can we be assured that foisting our past decisions on a totally foreign culture is the "good," "right" thing to do? In short, we might be wrong in demanding that another country adhere to our own societal morays.

The problems with declaring one's standards as "the" standard is that when you push them out by brute force, tnot everyone else if going to be happy with them. Just ask Microsoft.

David writes: Trying to see the other person’s point of view.*

* I think this is the one that’s giving you the most trouble.

Well that was nice and condescending. For the record, I'm very capable of viewing things from others' perspectives.

Understanding someone doesn't mean I have to agree with them. For example, I grew up in an extremely racist environment. I understand the underlying mindset of racism very well, but that doesn't keep me from abhorring it.

Sometimes you walk a mile in another man's shoes and you realize you don't like or agree with him a whole hell of a lot.

Kenny writes: I don't think those values stop at our borders, but the right to violently enforce those values gets very grey at our borders.

Almost everyone here is making the presumption that I'm advocating conquering the entire world to enforce a particular value set. This is NOT what I'm advocating. Neither Iraq or Afghanistan were about the imposition of values.

This whole thread began with inconsistencies I perceive in the underlying value system of the political Left. David has affirmed, presumably, some universal values that he believes are valid. Others here have affirmed moral relativism, which I often associate with the Left.

The problem with a relative moral perspective is that, basically, anything goes. Who are you to say that slavery in America was ever wrong? Or apartheid? Or restricting a woman's right to have an abortion? If you don't believe there is any standard for right and wrong, then you can't reasonably proclaim particular stances on any issue as right or wrong.

It's why I think the Left sits in the grey area about it. We want to help, but our right to invade isn't there... so we dance around the edge.


Well, there are lots of ways to promote particular rights and values other than invading countries. Speaking out is a good start. Our words, and the words of our leaders, can have an affect on others.

Let's take Saudi Arabia as an example. I'm not talking about invading them. I'm talking about speaking out against the way women are treated in that society, and urging our politicians to do so as well. If you took the moral relativist path, you'd simply say, "Well, that's their culture, you have to respect it."

Well, no. I choose to say that forcing a particular subset of a population to wear particular clothing, not show their face, not drive, not vote, and have little or no legal recourse in a court of law...those are all wrong.

I don't care what American Culture tells me is true; I will never wear butterfly-collars, no matter how "retro" they is, nor will I every think that hip-huggers, flares, or capri pants look reasonable. IMHO, they are all evil, and an affront to human decency. Parents who let their children wear them should be visited by Social Services. Low-cut blouses, shorts, and polo-tees are not acceptable work-place wear, and anything over a carat and a quarter is just plain tacky in brilliant cut.

You think I'm kidding, but I'm not.

I'm the co-worker that Derek "quoted" as saying "Well, some of those women like to wear those abayas."

Derek, I wasn't supporting or rejecting this whole thing when I brought up this subject. I was merely telling you about a tv show that I saw on PBS or some station about a New Yorker (woman) and a Muslim woman in Iran. Both were 'educating' the other on their culture and ways. When the female New Yorker asked the Iranian woman how she could stand to have such strict tradition and dress, the Muslim Iranian acted perplexed as to why the New Yorker had such a problem with it when she didn't.

Granted, I don't want to be treated this way, but then again, I lived through the 70s when we had our liberation. Maybe it just hasn't reached them yet, and who am I to tell them that their life is so bad if they don't see it themselves?

I'm agreeing w/ the whole "seeing it from the other guy's perspective" and the lack o' universally accepted good vs evil.

As an example, I give you a forest. There are some who see a forest and think about hardwoods and 2x4s and furniture, etc. Others will spike trees, chain themselves to them, and live in the branches to keep people from cutting them down. Still others will go so far as to destroy logging equipment and/or sacrifice their own lives for the trees. And then you have those who see a forest next to a suburban area and think about putting up a development on the land, or wish it were zoned for a Walmart. And still others who don't see the forest but the animals in it, or they think of the need for public parkland, etc.

So there's no universally "right" or "wrong" way to use the land, even though there are many who say there are. And its not because they aren't invested in it; everyone sees their own future in its use, and projects onto the land their own agenda, be it conservation or exploitation or public use, etc. And while everyone has a heated opinion of what to do with the woods in their backyard, many could care only vaguely about the Amazon, or the Rainforest of the Pacific Northwest, or other trees hither and yon. When the issue does come up, an individual's response will likely be a projection of what they know. As such, if you're from Nevada, you're going to have a very different point of view and/or investure than someone from New Hampshire, just as someone from a rural setting will differ from someone in the city.

So as an analogy to the politics of human rights, your left-winger is the guy who sees that everyone's use is equally important to them, and is ultimately going to focus on the trees in their backyard vs the Amazon. The right-winger is going to look at the forest as a resource, one that can have different uses but that, if its not being exploited, is going to waste. Both sides have their zealots, whether its the guy spiking trees or the one looking to build a Walmart.

When it comes to human rights in other countries, left-wingers are reticent to project their ideals on others. Some because the recognize that going from a totalitarian regime to a fell-fledged democracy isn't a shake-and-bake sor tof idea. (Which is me, FYI). Other left-wingers seek to 'protect' the indiginous culture, whatever it might be (Those who think that if they want Communism, for example, they should have it) while others wonder why the hell we're spending the money on other countries' and ignoring our own problems. Not all liberal thought is good, and some with the best of intentions can have disasterous results -- to extend the forest metaphor, decades of "no touch" policy in many forests have resulted in huge accumulations of undergrowth which, having died off, make it much easier to have the sort of massive, devastating forest fires. And while many environmental conservationists now agree that the "no touch" policy isn't good, for this reason, there is a lot of bickering over what the best approach is to preserve the integrity of the forest (Iraq) without having to chop the whole thing down and start over. (Regime Change)

Meanwhile, left-wingers see right-wing policy as a sort of controlled forest-fire scenario. (Pre-emption, to extend my analogy just a wee bit further) And many of us are worried about the blowback of such methodology, and fear that despite the best of intentions, and agreeing that something needs to be done, that there needs to be more controls on when and where the fires are started, and who, ultimately, makes the determination of which forests (countries) need the kerosine treatment (invasion) which can just be delt with by clearing the brush out (diplomacy) and which should just be left alone. (Canada) All the while, they're skeptical when the Big Timber (Oil, duh) suggests the need to clearcut 100 acres of hardwood (invade Iraq) is sound conservation. ("Good" vs "Evil")

In otherwords, it's all a question of who thinks who can't see the forest for the trees. Now before my metaphor gets felled like a dead tree in a storm, I'll stop. Does this make any sense?

Derek writes... Perhaps not, but you as an individual have a particular set of values, correct?

Yes, _I_ as an individual have a set of values, but I don't believe that everyone in the world agrees with my specific set of values. I do not believe in a universal good and evil. I think people can be selfish and destructive, but I believe in perspective. The Villian is the Hero of their own story.

Derek writes...The Left purports to value women's rights, civil liberties, etc. What I don't understand is why those values stop at our borders. If you say the woman in the house next to you should have autonomy, the right to vote, and other basic rights, why wouldn't you think a woman in Sri Lanka should have the same rights?

I don't think those values stop at our borders, but the right to violently enforce those values gets very grey at our borders. Think about it this way and cut me a little slack, I know the example will be hard for most people to swallow... assume a radical Islamic nation had the strength to attack the US. They see us "mistreating our women" (allowing them to walk around in public with very little clothes on), they declare war on the US to overthrow this government and put one in that is more inline with their thinking. We would consider than an act of war and call them evil for attacking us. It's just a matter of perspective. Yes, _I_ believe everyone should be equal, everyone should have the same rights. However, not everyone lives in my nation which constitutionally assures equal rights. It's not like that in other countries. I don't _like_ it, but I'm not arrogant enough to think I should be in the arbiter of what is right.

It's why I think the Left sits in the grey area about it. We want to help, but our right to invade isn't there... so we dance around the edge.

Derek writes... What are some things that are good, and others that are bad?

I can't give that to you. I don't subscribe to the concept of universal Good and Evil.

Is stealing bad? Well, the owner is being hurt by the theft, but what if the thief really needs it? As in the proverbial stolen loaf of bread?

Do you see what I mean? I think the Right simplifies the world too much and goes in for the Christian philosophy of Good and Evil. I think the Left looks at the situation and sees these other countries doing "bad" things.. and sees our country doing "bad" things to try to stop it. Do two wrongs make a right, so to speak?

Do you understand where I'm coming from?

So is the problem that I’m mis-generalizing here?

I think so. Though without context it’s hard to read the particular example you gave. I have heard of campaigns in that part of the world, by men, to forcibly extract women from their veils, and they turn my stomach just as much as, if not more so than, campaigns to make women wear them.

I’m not saying you don’t get liberals who are sufficiently confused and self-doubting that they just throw up their hands when faced with anything outside white middle-class America. But I don’t think you should be tarring all liberals with that brush any more than I should be tarring you with the Ann Coulter brush.

Bush’s morality may be simplistic (or it might not be), but I feel like I know where I stand with him, even when I may not agree with him.

Well, you have to understand that most everyone on the left starts from the assumption that anything Bush says is self-serving lying bullshit, and if either any of it turns out to be true, or he actually believes it, it’s only by coincidence. All the talk of Good vs. Evil assumed to be a cynical attempt to maniuplate a naive and ignorant American public.

(Me, I’m starting to get the idea that Bush really does believe he’s on a mission from God, even if the people around him don’t. Personally I find that prospect even more frightening.)

What are some things that are good, and others that are bad?

Not an exhaustive list, obviously, and not speaking for anyone but myself, but, off the top of my head:

Good: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Caring about other people. Giving people a second chance. Trying to see the other person’s point of view.* Letting people do what they like so long as they’re not harming anyone else. Getting together to tackle the problems none of us can tackle alone. Trying to make the world a fairer place.

Bad: "Looking out for Number One". Treating people like things. Hating and fearing the unknown. Dictating what people do with their private lives. Using wealth and power to help those who are already wealthy and powerful at the expense of those who aren’t. Believing people deserve what they get and get what they deserve.

* I think this is the one that’s giving you the most trouble.

Derek - Based on that it's hard not to see your exhortations on us Lefties to explain ourselves and our lack of an immediate desire to blast foreign regimes for human rights abuses as anything more than a veiled attempted to get us all in here so you can better yell at us and call us names.

If it's your co-worker that you don't think highly of then keep your ranting focused there. If it's Bill Clinton's lack of moral character (Mr Clinton, BTW, Ain't no Lefty), then focus there. But a blanket call-out of people whose politics you first profess not to understand and then dismiss because of your preconcieved notions? C'mon, that's chicken.

I look forward to intelligent debate over policy on your journal. Not statements that amount to "my morals/ethics disagree with yours and therefore you're a bunch of booger-heads."

If you want to know my political impulse it runs like this:
>Instinct to help other people - good;
>the belief the U.S. government can do that by overthrowing/blocking oppressive regimes - Meh. Our track record isn't very good given the level of blowback we have and are facing.;
>Should we continue to try and get better at that whole helping thing - sure.
>who do I trust to lead our government and troops to it? not sure. but based on what I've seen, it isn't #43.

David writes: Where are you finding “liberals” that Sri Lankan women don’t need civil rights or that the situation of Saudi women is just hunky-dory?

Well, I just had lunch with a co-worker who was arguing along the lines of: "Well, some of those women like to wear those abayas."

I can't quote you chapter and verse, but the Prime Directive seems like a deeply-ingrained aspect of liberal thinking ("Who are we to tell them that women should have basic human rights?").

So is the problem that I'm mis-generalizing here?

I would like to make a distinction, however, between the question of whether a regime is evil and whether, as you say, it’s productive for the President of the United States to be calling it evil.

I guess what I was trying to get at in this post is a discussion of values and morality, not how values and morality are implemented in policy.

Bush's morality may be simplistic (or it might not be), but I feel like I know where I stand with him, even when I may not agree with him.

The Left, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have any particular moral center. In fact, it seems to me that liberals often mock Bush's seemingly simplistic morality. Clinton almost seems like the embodiment of the amoral, purely political creature, governing via polls, sleeping with interns, and so on. This is not to say that this form of governance is inherently bad (in fact, it may actually be more democratic).

I guess I'm just angling for a better explanation of liberal values, because they seem confusing, conflicting, and incoherent to me.

Eschewing the word "evil", what are some true liberal values? What are some things that are good, and others that are bad (or are value judgements of any kind anathema to the liberal mindset)? Can these things even be discussed without prefacing or ending with a reference to how awful Bush is?

I probably spend more time thinking about North Korea than I do about 95% of the world’s oppressive regimes, but I guess I assume that everyone else already knows what kind of a state it’s in.

See, I just don't make that assumption. Fact is, it's a fucking nightmare land over there, and I guess I think people wouldn't talk about it so blithely and abstractly if they really knew what was it was like.

Where are you finding “liberals” that Sri Lankan women don’t need civil rights or that the situation of Saudi women is just hunky-dory? Are we just talking about outbursts on the order of that professor that claimed to hope Baghdad would turn into “a million Mogadishus”, or are you actually finding a broad spectrum of pro-chador and pro-purdah leftists out there? (For what it’s worth, by the way, Sri Lanka isn’t a particularly good example. The situation of women there is generally significantly better than it is in most of the Subcontinent proper.)

We already had the “evil” argument and I’m not going to start it up again. I was trying to use it as a shorthand; if that gets us into another argument about language, it was a mistake. I would like to make a distinction, however, between the question of whether a regime is evil and whether, as you say, it’s productive for the President of the United States to be calling it evil. Productive being the key word.

As for why you’re not hearing about North Korea in any other context than US policy towards it, I’d say it’s because US policy towards North Korea is the only part of the North Korea question that’s actually news. I probably spend more time thinking about North Korea than I do about 95% of the world’s oppressive regimes, but I guess I assume that everyone else already knows what kind of a state it’s in. Furthermore, from a realpolitik perspective North Korea’s a hell of a lot more dangerous than Iraq or even Iran. I would probably have supported “regime change” in North Korea — if we’d been able to get China and South Korea, minimum, to buy in on the idea; without that it would be pointless. And I wouldn’t support it now because the US military is already way overcommitted.

Regarding the lack of a true international police force, there's an old post-WW2 Heinlein story (title of which escapes me), which has a discussion over the dinner table between a young man belonging to some new international peacekeeping force and his American family. International peace is kept in this story by a series of orbiting nuclear warheads (or radiation dust, or something badass like that). Any country starts anything, the international police force takes 'em out.

During the conversation, the mother makes some kind of remark about how this force would never take action against the US, and the son corrects her, saying that if the US provoked something, they'd be treated the same as any other country (ie, death from above). This upsets the family quite a bit.

Now, that's what a true international peacekeeping force would do: it'd be above every other country (even the US) and would treat them all the same (even the US). Don't destabilize your neighbors, don't invade them under any pretext, etc, or else.

The UN, obviously, is not this. I'm fairly happy that this sort of organization doesn't exist now, if for no other reason than the obvious "who watches the Watchmen?" question. However, during the Cold War, when both the US & the USSR maneuvered for advantage with each other overseas, I bet many other countries wished that sort of thing existed. We (like the Soviets) didn't just buy goodwill through overseas aid; we (like the Soviets) also destabilized peaceful (albeit communist) governments and installed tyrants just because they were on our side.

In short, overseas interference has done wonders for us, but not so much for the rest of the world at times. And I think that's why so many liberals are suspicious of it: there's always the question of, "we're going to go into this country, kick out the thug in charge, and set up a happy new lifestyle for all these people with our soldiers' lives and tax dollars? why? what's in it for us?"

Cynical, but there you go.

Kenny writes: The US is not the arbiter of what is right in the world.

Perhaps not, but you as an individual have a particular set of values, correct?

The Left purports to value women's rights, civil liberties, etc. What I don't understand is why those values stop at our borders. If you say the woman in the house next to you should have autonomy, the right to vote, and other basic rights, why wouldn't you think a woman in Sri Lanka should have the same rights?

Whether or not we use force to bring about change is a matter for debate, but would you at least agree that a woman in Saudi Arabia should have the same basic rights as any other human being?

Obviously, in the world scenario the UN is the police department.

I'd agree with Jon here. There is no police department. Look at UN involvement in Bosnia, or any other country where genocide, civil war, warlordism, or any other host of troubles have taken place. They've been worse than ineffective. Most often they've sent piecemeal contingents whose only function was the calm the consciences of the UN reps who sent them, and most guarded tiny pieces of land or stood by while atrocities swirled around them.

Please give me an example of the UN acting effectively as a police body.

David writes: The argument isn’t about whether these regimes are evil.

Really? Seems like there are a lot of people on the left side of the spectrum who scoff at the use of the word "evil", who argue Bush's use of the word is counterproductive. Seems to me there is an awful lot of argument about whether or not these regimes are evil.

And I'm not accusing anyone of supporting human rights abuses. What I find troubling is a perceived lack of concern for grotesque human rights abuses in other countries.

For example, I've ranted copiously about North Korea here. I read a fair number of blogs and read and watch a pretty good hunk of media. And it seems that when I hear liberals talk about North Korea, it's always in the context of how Bush is doing something wrong.

For some reason I don't hear outrage at the nightmarish police state that North Korea has become.
There are forced labor camps, people picking insects out of the grass to eat, a country where the majority of children are grossly malnourished (reminiscent of Stalin's use of starvation as a political weapon). And yet I hear liberals most often talking about N. Korea in a detached, philosophical manner, some going so far as to defend their behavior and paint them as some sort of victim of the Big Bad United States. And frankly it makes me sick.

Disclaimer: I take no responsibility for radical nutjobs.

But the moderate left isn’t pro-Hussein or pro-Taliban or pro-Kim Jong Il. It’s just really goddamn cynical about powerful folks in the West using evil elsewhere in the world to justify doing what they wanted to do anyway. The US government in particular has a terrible record of supporting and even installing regimes as bad as any of those guys — so long as those regimes are pro-US; and we have a terrible record of dropping the ball. I was in favor of the Afghanistan war, but only with the stipulation that we not screw up the peace which I fully expected us to do, and which we are cheerfully doing.

The argument isn’t about whether these regimes are evil. The argument is about whether the US taking them out, and all the consequences thereof, will make the world a better place. And even if the answer to that turns out to be yes then there’s the question of whether we could do even more good by doing something else — like, say, rebuilding Afghanistan.

But anyone who accuses me of supporting human rights abuses had better do it from a long way away.

Obviously, in the world scenario the UN is the police department.

Actually, I'd say there are no police, and the UN is more like the neighborhood association.

What I don't get is the Left's foot-shuffling and excuse-making for horrid human rights abuses committed against foreigners, by foreigners.

It's a question of domain. Is A killing B? Does that mean A is wrong? What if B started killing A first? What if B starting killing A because A took B's land? etc..

The US is not the arbiter of what is right in the world. The US does not have the right to invade other countries because we feel they are violating human rights, just like I do not have the right to break into my neighbor's house because I think he's abusing his children. I have to call the cops and the cops are allowed to go in to protect the children. Obviously, in the world scenario the UN is the police department.

I think the feet shuffling is a stance of indecisiveness. We want to fix it because it's a problem, but we understand that we aren't in charge of the world. If there wasn't a conflict about it, the left minded people would be all the way to one side saying Hussein had the right to do whatever he wanted.

I think the conservative minded people simplify the issue too much and can therefore heartily stand behind an extreme viewpoint (i.e. the unauthorized invasion of a sovereign nation). I don't think it is that simple.

Derek - I can't speak for everyone, of course. For myself: i've been a pretty vocal critic of North Korea from time to time, and I remain outraged by (among other places) Myanmar, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, and China.

But I also got a degree in political science with one of my major areas of emphasis being foreign policy, taught largely by people from the 'realist' school; and I dislike it when someone criticizes country [x] for doing what any rational country in its position would do, and what any realist would assume it would do.

I am happy to criticize North Korea for being an evil oppressive regime that starves its own people and has imposed one of the most terrible police states in the world. I am not willing to go along with criticisms of its attempt to obtain nuclear weapons; given its relations with the rest of the world, doing so is perfectly rational and only to be expected. Yes, we should stop them, because a nuclear armed North Korea would be a terrible thing for the world; no, their attempt to obtain them does not by itself make them bad.

I think it's important to criticze people for the right things.

As for the 'it is off topic' explanation, it is fine as far as it goes. But it lends itself to the explanation that being attentive to human rights violations is only important so long as you can beat up your political opponents.

Liberals suck at foreign policy. I think that's the bottom line. Socially Left-Wing people are too often of the "why can't we all just get along" variety who think that giving a plate of warm food to a homeless guy will make him a Better Person.

When it comes to foreign policy, fiscal policy, and the general interconnectedness of all things, The Socially Left-Wing get apolectic. Much of this is because they project the conflict in Iraq on their own issues. They say things like "If we spent that 70 Billion on healthcare instead of on Irq, every cute little baby would be safe from measles, mumps, and rubella." That is, they don't see Iraq as a humanitarian crisis, they see it as the Socially Right-Wing spending money on war instead of Headstart Programs and the like.

But where they often do get it right is when they point out things like the Bush Administration's claim that deposing Saddam was a good thing, morally, because of his oppression of everyone but himself, yet in doing so the Administration has aligned itself with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Quatar, which aren't exactly paragons of morality. Then you have Liberia, where we're aligning ourselves with Mugabe, and NK where we're relying more and more on China. Granted that Saudi Arabia, the Phillipines, China, and them aren't as bad as NK or Iraq, but there is very much the feeling of robbing Peter to pay Paul when we ally with Pakistan to invade Afganistan.

Finally, I think the Socially Left-Wing Liberals take a stance that we should put our own house in order before getting involved in foreign countries inner-workings. They point to the fact we have the largest prison population (and I think the largest per capita) in the world, they point at the homelsssness and the poverty, and want the Gov't to focus more on the domestic situation rather than the international ones. Which is a valid point, but just as the present administration is pretty much gung-ho on the War on Terror, to a fault, so too are the liberals blithely willing to ignore the rest of the world in preference to their agenda.

At least, that's my take on it.

Speaking purely for myself, addressing the human rights violations of leaders of nations we, the USA, are having diplomatic problems with frequently seems irrelevant to the specific issue being discussed.

Kim Jong Il's abuses in North Korea are quite irrelevant to the matter of stopping him from violating UN resolutions. Saddam's abuses in Iraq aren't really related to determining whether or not the Bush administration willingly misled the American people....

It's not that it hasn't happened, or that I approve or disapprove, it's simply that we're not talking specifically about that. Three years ago if you had asked me "Should we attack Afghanistan and take out the userpers and establish democracy?" I would have said Fuck yeah!!! The Taliban were/are abhorent and if we actually care as much about human rights as we claim to we should have either forced them to be nice to the people or forced them out of power.

So really... I haven't voiced condemnation here because it hasn't come up. Instead of asking "Do you think Saddam should no longer run Iraq" (to which I would say, "well of course") you ask questions like "Why shouldn't America go in and force Iraq to disarm and potentially take Saddam out of power for those violations." So basically, I try to stick to the matter at hand and keep my tangential thoughts to my own journal.