And Now For Something Completely Different - The Liberal Meaning Of Life

Then, later, in a discussion of cultural values and Hollywood: TOMASKY. Parents do worry about what their kids are seeing, what their kids are being exposed to. I'm no prude but sometimes I'm surprised by what I see on television or what I see in commercials. VANDEN HEUVEL. Again, we need to make the case that these are not our values, but without diminishing the liberal belief in free speech. BEINART. Democratic politicians who made this the biggest issue, Tipper Gore and then Joe Lieberman, both faced a fair degree of ridicule from within their own ranks. Neither of them as far as I can tell was advocating censorship. Vanden Heuvel seems to want it both ways. She wants the voters to understand that crude, bottom-of-the-barrel stuff doesn’t represent the values of the left, but isn’t willing to do anything against it. When Gore and Lieberman get little or no support from their own party, and are in fact ridiculed for their efforts by their usual allies, the public will come to the conclusion that the Democratic Party actually supports the rotten stuff. Most folks on the right will find Beinart their favorite in the discussion, but in a section dealing with foreign policy, he makes an odd comment: TOMASKY. I think the war in Iraq was a catastrophic mistake. It was not part of the war on terror. Somebody attacked us. We didn't get him. He's still at large. That's the war on terrorism to me. That's the heart of it. VANDEN HEUVEL. In the context of the war on terror, Iraq was an act of self-sabotage. BEINART. Let me say a couple of things as someone who did support the war in Iraq. There is no question that the war is going very, very badly. But I think two things remain even if we do end up deciding that Iraq was a terrible disaster. The first is that there is an important connection between dictatorship and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. Pardon me? “The war is going very, very badly”? Does that strike anyone else as a bit hyperbolic? We’ve got bin Laden calling Zarqawi to tell him his bombings aren’t helping, successful elections with a ripple effect across the Middle East, Cairo newspapers starting to call the Iraqi insurgents “terrorists,” Saddam rotting in a prison cell, Uday and Qusay ixnayed, the insurgents going after civilians because shooting at coalition forces that shoot back is hazardous to their health, Iraqis demonstrating in the streets against the insurgents, and as an added bonus, Bashar Assad grabbing Joe Klein by the lapels in a panic and begging him to tell the Americans that he’s “not Saddam Hussein.” Have there been mistakes and problems and setbacks? Sure. They happen in war, or in almost any other human endeavor. If the task is worth doing, then it is worth the inevitable things that go wrong. And sometimes things go horribly wrong — innocents caught in the crossfire, Italian agents killed, or prison abuse. That doesn’t mean you ignore those problems. You try to avoid them and fix them when you can. But there’s no maturity or wisdom in a position that says, “I support the war, but only the good parts. I oppose it when it goes badly.” It reminded me of an insightful and profanity-laden analysis on the usually-satirical blog, Ace of Spades. In a radio debate (actually, not much of a debate at all) between Katha Politt and the once-relevant Andrew Sullivan shortly before the invasion of Afghanistan, Sullivan repeatedly asked Politt if she didn't support an invasion and explusion of the Taliban, but also agreed that "something should be done," what, on earth, was she suggesting that "something" be? And she continually dodged the question. Actually, she kept answering she wanted Option C: the option where there is no invasion or military action (or even sanctions!) and yet the Taliban agrees to not only turn over all Al Qaeda suspects within the areas it controls but also peaceably departs to start a new organizational life as traveling hookah merchants. I don't remember any such "Option C" being readily available in October 2001. And the left continues to choose Option C on Iraq. Given that the French and Russians (and to a lesser extent, the Chinese and Germans) were Saddam's patrons and protectors (and business partners), we had only two options. Option A: defy the wishes of the pro-Saddam coalition of the unwilling; destroy a corrupt and brutal regime, freeing millions, but with limited support, and at the expense of alienating world opinion and bearing most of the costs of war ourselves. Option B: join with the coalition of the unwilling, united in opinion, and speak with a single voice, telling Saddam, "You can pretty much keep doing what you're doing and we'll do absolutely nothing at all about it." It's been two years since the process which led us to war in Iraq began, and the left keeps refusing to answer the question. They still want that [expletive] Option C, and they're not going to shut up about Option C until the sun flickers and fades and the earth freezes into a gray and lifeless rock. swhitebull - pretty clear here, isnt it? [Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on April 2, 2005]