A Difficult Decision
January 24, 2005Lib critics of President Bush’s foreign policy vision might be facing what would be a difficult decision for other people — the kind who hold themselves accountable for inconsistencies in their own positions. This potentially difficult decision is whether to attack the president’s democracy/liberty vision or to attack it from a different direction. They might, for the sake of pretending to stay on the side of democracy and freedom, choose to applaud President Bush’s general nod toward these principles, but turn right around and condemn his approach to promote those principles. The LA Times’ Ron Brownstein is perhaps the first to try this different angle of attack.
Brownstein, in his piece today, seems to be saying that President Bush’s goal of spreading democracy isn’t bad, but it will be bad unless we join with other nations to achieve the goal. That’s right, we’re back to the familiar liberal mantra of unilateralism. How convenient this little term has been for them the last few years. They get to act like hawks on the war and still be against the war. Now, they get to use the term to pretend to promote democracy and freedom while still opposing their advance.
Sorry, I’m not buying this tripe anymore than I bought their phony use of unilateralism to oppose the Iraq War. It’s their convenient out to pretend to be for things almost everyone is for — except them — while really not changing their substantive position at all. So from now on, when you read this stuff about working with other nations — including nations that wouldn’t work with us if their sovereignty depended on it — just understand that the libs are using cleverly euphemism to hide their overt obstructionism.
The libs continue to oppose the things that most people favor and to favor those things that most people oppose. Their only chance of making themselves viable in an electoral sense is to use semantic tricks to disguise their true agenda on a whole host of issues, whether on foreign policy as discussed here, or on social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, or the economy. To make their agenda palatable, they must camouflage it. So keep a sharp eye.
