The Humane Thing to Do
Yesterday I noted a post by National Review’s Jay Nordlinger about the Chinese National Anthem Switcheroo and his commentary on dictatorial regimes. Today, he has a follow-up with a comment I also find worth consideration:
It should be pretty uncontroversial to knock the Chinese Politburo in an American publication. Something has gone screwy in our country.
And I am reminded, once more, of a big reason I migrated from the Democratic to the Republican party, years ago: To the Democrats (the ones around me), anti-Communism was stupid, hypocritical, dangerous, or other bad things. And to me — it was simply humane.
Since I’ve started blogging, I’ve noticed that the posts which tend to generate the most ire from progressives aren’t the ones that criticize progressive politics or politicians but the posts that criticize tyrannical regimes. This honestly baffles me and, at times, makes me hesitant to post. It strikes me as sad to know that there are a considerable number of people out there whose reaction to any criticism of tyranny is to say “Yes, but America’s just as bad”.
These days, such responses make me angry. There is no moral equivalence between the Communist Chinese government and ours. Mad Mahmoud and the Mullahs do not live on the same moral plane as the free nations of the West. I oppose tyranny for the same reason that Jay Nordlinger opposed Communism – it is simply humane.
Other Posts of Interest:
Category: Cool Columnists and Wicked Writers, No More Tyrants
Yep, this one baffles me also.
But what is worse is they actually are calling for heads in the US. They fantasize about the assassinations of Bush, Cheney, etc. And they actively pursue prosecution of all the supposed evil-do-ers in the US. No way do they feel the same about the Communist dictators around the globe. Which is strange….seeing how they consider themselves world citizens & all.
"There is no moral equivalence between the Communist Chinese government and ours…."
This is very true in general, and I would agree with it fully (well, except that the Chinese are Communists in name only). But no progressive is claiming that equivalence on a
whole basis. What I and and other progressives have claimed is moral equivalence on specific issues. You can criticize all you want when Iran institutes harsher penalties for women flaunting their hair. I'll defend you in that case, because you would criticize that policy even if Bush instigated it. But when you criticize countries for torture, it rings very hollow. We progressives have long been opposed to inhumane acts, but we are against them across the board. If you don't believe me, take a look at Human Rights Watch's web page. You will see scathing criticisms of Iran, China, Russia, and many other countries the conservatives love to demonize. But they don't stop there, they criticize inhumane acts of all countries.
Consider this: Country X is a theocratic dictatorship, they supply money and weapons to Hamas and Hezbollah, they force the female half of their population into subjugation, and they ruthlessly control all of the media in their country. Is this country an inhumane and tyrannical country, or is it a country that exhibits responsible behavior worthy of military aid? A progressive can answer that question easily (and correctly, in my opinion): Country X is tyrannical. The conservative can't answer the question without
additional information. He needs to know whether Country X is an ally or enemy. After all, the description above is accurate for both Iran and Saudi Arabia. Knowing which country, the progressive won't change his opinion. But the conservative will describe the country as humane, peaceful, and deserving of military aid if that country is Saudi Arabia. But if it's Iran, he will describe it as evil, violent, and deserving of a good bombing. The difference has nothing to do with human rights, and everything to do with whether the country is an ally or not. While conservatives routinely demonize Iran (correctly), they either ignore or defend Saudi Arabia. Progressives rightly condemn both.
Before you claim that I'm battling straw men, I'll give you a very clear example. In 1988, Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against rebellious Kurds (they thought Saddam was too
busy with Iran, and they were very wrong in that thought). It was the most deadly single chemical weapons attack in history. Democrats in Congress insisted on a resolution condemning Saddam's action, and rightly so. Despite lively opposition from the Republicans, they got it passed. And president Reagan vetoed it (he had previously tried to blame it on Iran, and had to retract). And the Republicans sustained the veto. Reagan then sent Don Rumsfeld to reassure Saddam Hussein that the US still supported him and the Congressional resolution was meaningless and defeated. Fast forward to 2002, and Don Rumsfeld is using the very same incident, that he had defended at the time, as a reason why Hussein should be removed from power. And in both incidents, all the conservative pundits stood right with Rumsfeld. For conservatives, the Halabja attack was perfectly fine when Hussein was an ally, but it became an evil act when Saddam became an enemy. The progressives, on the other hand, always thought it was a war crime. And Human Rights Watch condemned that atrocity at the time. While it's nice to see you conservatives catch up to us progressives, we would prefer that you apply the standards of humanity more consistently in the first place.
But what really angers me and other progressives is when conservatives use inhumane actions that they support to criticize countries they dislike. Consider the "Palestinian Hanging." This technique is called by many names and is used in many places, and I'm using the Khmer Rouge name (odd name for the Khmer to use, I know). The technique involves drawing the prisoner's hands behind their back and then lifting the prisoner by his hands. He's lifted to a height such that he can only touch ground by standing on the tips of his toes. The intent is to create the pain in breathing problems of crucifixion. In fact, if the prisoner dies, it really is a crucifixion. The technique varies a little in that the position of the hands can be tied together, kept at shoulder separation, or drawn apart in the biblical crucifixion position (but with the arms rotated 180 degrees). But the results are the same and usually result in
sufficient pain to induce unconsciousness. The prisoner is then usually revived by drowning, but sometimes electrocution is used. And then the cycle begins again. After a long time, the prisoner's shoulder joints become permanently damaged (think John McCain). A progressive will call this technique what it is: torture. But a conservative has to ask who's doing it. The technique was used by the North Vietnamese, the South Vietnamese, the Khmer Rouge, and now the United States. Conservatives have rightly condemned the tactic when used by the North Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge. But when used by the South Vietnamese or the United States, conservatives support the technique. And by support, I mean passing and signing legislation to legalize it (oh, and practicing it). This is unconscionable to me, but a glorious day for conservatives. For the record, progressives have condemned the technique regardless of who uses it.
Given these double standards, it's really hard for us progressives to take you seriously when you speak of human rights. For us, the issue of human rights is genuine and must be applied to all countries equally. For conservatives, it is merely a tool to use when there is need
to criticize an enemy. But that tool has two edges and can come back on you (and has, in lost wars). If you want any credibility on human rights, you need to be willing to criticize not just our enemies, but our allies and ourselves.
As for Communism, it's a shame conservatives couldn't come up with anything better than just opposing Communism. In their opposition to Communism, conservatives were willing to support Anarchism in Mozambique, Fascism in Cambodia, Feudalism in Vietnam, Kleptocracy in Indonesia, and Theocracy in Saudi Arabia (among other unconscionable governments). And that's what you call humane? Communism sucks for sure, but it's still better than Feudalism. Unless you're a conservative, of course. But there's no such thing as a conservative serf.