Andrew Klavan's column in today's Wall Street Journal might be putting the cart before the horse. It's a great column except for one thing. One might get the impression from it that leftists' inevitable inclination to promote really bad ideas is some sort of misguided intellectual exercise that is ultimately aimed at finding a truth.
'The tragedy of bad ideas unfolds from a moral flaw in a worldview or philosophy as inevitably as classical tragedy unfolds from a flaw in individual character. Tragedies of bad ideas are the most common, pervasive and destructive man-made mass disasters. Yet our thinking class has become powerless to oppose them or even recognize them for what they are.
The reason is that too many of our intellectuals are themselves ensnared in a bad idea. That idea is multiculturalism -- the notion that no system or government is inherently better than any other, that the rules of morality are just a doctrine written by history's winners. Thus there are no enduring human truths, only "narratives" by which almost any beastliness can be explained away if committed by a people with a claim to having been victimized by a dominant culture.'
Lefties are interested in power. Individual liberty is at odds with power. The individual is empowered at the expense of leftist governing classes. On the other hand, the individual is lost in the multicultural tug of war. There is no such thing as an individual in lefty parlance. With lefties it's all about group rights, and when the individual can be crushed on behalf of a favored group, power has been achieved.
Lefties always have rotten ideas because those ideas have only one purpose -- to disenfranchise the individual. As Iranian citizens are murdered in the streets of Tehran, where are the lefties? Why they're busy praising Obama's restraint, until they can't anymore. Here is E.J. Dionne trying to figure out how to keep gushing over Obama's contortions.
'In fact, Obama was right to exercise caution, both because the United States should not imply false promises to the regime's opponents that we won't be able to keep and because our embrace could, indeed, hurt them. And, paradoxically, European political leaders have been outspoken in criticizing the Iranian government's abuses precisely because Obama's restraint gave them room to act independently.
But if Obama, as the leader of the U.S. government, has to exercise great care in calculating his moves, rank-and-file progressives and liberals outside the government should be unwavering and unabashed in championing the Iranian push for freedom. Writing last week in the New Republic about how to deal with Iran's repressive ruling class, political philosopher Michael Walzer nicely summarized the proper division of labor: "For liberals and leftists -- opposition and nothing else; for state diplomats -- handshakes and negotiation."'
As always, the liberal media is there to offer cover. Obama will be free to extent the open hand of diplomacy because liberal and leftist sycophants pretend outrage on his behalf at the crushing of dissent in Tehran.
'Obama's initial caution served the interests of freedom by making clear that the revolt against Iran's flawed election is homegrown. As the struggle continues, we cannot pretend that we are indifferent to its outcome.
It's not easy to walk the progressive path. But Obama has always said that he knows how to deal with complexity. This is his chance to prove it.'
Yes, there are complexities to walking the progressive walk. How does one maintain an aura of infallibility when events force so many reversals in position? Actually, Obama's been working on that very thing for the last two years. It comes natural to him.
Comments