Today at the Forum: Oh, those 'stupid' liberals

Sunday, October 01, 2006

Oh, those 'stupid' liberals

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey caused a stir shortly before he retired in 2002 with this comment: "Liberals are, in my estimation, just not bright people," he said. They don't think deeply; they don't comprehend; they don't understand."

The blunt-talking Texas Republican's words are typical of what American political debate has devolved into: Insult your opponent's intelligence, even his humanity. Both sides do it; it doesn't solve anything except to whip up your own side's true believers.

But Armey's view of liberals' level of understanding is getting some thoughtful support from one quarter -- Arnold Kling, a self-proclaimed "former far leftist" turned libertarian with a Ph.D. in economics from MIT. Writing on the technology-oriented Web site TCS Daily, Kling in essence says that liberals just haven't matured. When they grow up, they become libertarians.

That may sound like the dreary old saying, often attributed to Sir Winston Churchill, about a young conservative having no heart and an old liberal no brain, but Kling's argument is considerably more nuanced than that.

Having gone through the process himself, he believes that liberals, particularly those on the "far left," haven't learned to compensate for what social psychologists call the Fundamental Attribution Error - "to attribute behavior to a person's character when this behavior is in fact based on context." In other words, conservatives advocate certain policies simply because they're bad people, backed by inherently evil forces such as corporations.

That leaves no room to consider that, say, a conservative might advocate abolishing the minimum wage because he wants to help lower-income workers, might oppose illegal immigration because he is not a bigot, or might favor tax cuts because he believes they
lead to more growth and opportunity for all segments of society.

The left, Kling says, should "study the consequences of policy, not simply the motives and intentions of those who advocate the policy." He says he has come to believe that government power is corrupting no matter who holds the reins, and that it's the free market that actually keeps us aimed toward social justice.

Kling may be onto something. I'd add that conservatives have their own issues with the Fundamental Attribution Error, and it seems to be a chronic condition among journalists as well.
Maybe we all ought to stop thinking about politics and government as a matter of "good guys vs. villains." You can't arrive at good policy, or even debate it rationally, if you start with the assumption that the other side is irredeemably evil or stupid.

Heck, maybe we should all grow up and become libertarians.

25 Comments:

at 10:04 AM, October 01, 2006

Anonymous said...

Since Peter Bronson left the Newspaper staff, the Cincinnati Enquirer has turned far liberal with your editorial opinions. You need to restore a balance by adding conservative thought.

at 11:32 AM, October 01, 2006

Anonymous said...

The notion that the Enquirer is "far left" in its editorial content is amusing. Only some so far to the right that they have completely lost sight of the other end of the political spectrum could say that. It's true that the Enquirer has moderated the consistency of its conservative editorializing, has opened the letters column more to other points of view and on occasion will publish syndicated columnists who are not rigidly conservative. But to characterize the Enquirer as "far left" is to demonstrate that the writer has no idea what "far left" is.

Cooklis is right, we'd all be better served by focusing on the exchange of ideas and an honest debate about policy than by endless attempts to assinate the character of political opponents. Unfortunately that has become the dominant mode of operation by both ends of the poltical spectrum today.

at 7:23 PM, October 01, 2006

Anonymous said...

Ray, you present a wonderful thought and also present how it should be but we all know the extreme right wing agenda is to keep hounding the Democrats are unAmerican, unpatriotic, and most of all immoral. Nevermind we consistently see evidence of immorality by the Republicans and nevermind the most unAmerican thing happening today is this administration's constant attack on our Constitution from the Shiavo incident to warrantless searches to torture. Unfortunately, by the time the two parties wake up and realize it is important to drop this cherade of good versus evil being defined partisanly, it will be too late, in my opinion. The only way we are going to go back to some real debate and checks and balances is to vote in a Democrat Congress. Hanity and some other right wing spokesmen have come to this conclusion. Thank God.

at 7:37 PM, October 01, 2006

Anonymous said...

Ray Cooklis concluded: "Maybe we all ought to stop thinking about politics and government as a matter of "good guys vs. villains." You can't arrive at good policy, or even debate it rationally, if you start with the assumption that the other side is irredeemably evil or stupid."

So true.

I participate in two political chat forums, one populated largely by persons of the Democratic Party persuasion and the other weighted toward the Republican beliefs. the Demos view themselves as liberal, while the Repubs fancy themselves conservatives.

They do seem to despise one another, which probably underlies why we amazingly don't have a united front as a nation against a truly radical and evil enemy that wants you, me and all our loved ones dead.

It's a riot to post at each forum because the liberals jump on me for being conservative, while the conservatives pounce on me for being liberal.

Actually, I don't much care if I'm "conservative" or "liberal", or even one of Ray Cooklis' "libertarians", whatever or whoever they are.

Fact is, I hate attaching labels to people because most of us are so complicated, not to mention unknowingly conflicted, in our values, thoughts, and approach to life that arbitrary labels are usually wrong about most folks other than the absolutely mindless diehards. (Hmmm ... there's a touch of irony in that concluding clause to think about.)

Rather, I try to look at things (ie., morals, family, social matters, government philosophy, and so forth) from a common sense perspective, drawing upon my own internal mix of knowledge, experiences, values and standards.

So, for example, when Al Gore stepped up a day or so ago and said cigarette smoking significantly contributes to global warming, my common sense contemplated the tiny red spots at the end of a few billion cigarettes taking up maybe 20 square miles of space and then considered the unimaginatively massive sun and its effects over a few billion years as conveyed 93 million miles to Earth, and all I can do is enjoy a chuckle at Al Gore's expense.

Although my internal set of values often gets challenged, and therefore changes a bit over time, I suspect most of my conclusions about things tend to put me on the side that people who care about these things view as "conservative".

However, my set of values and standards often leads to disagreement with those who fancy themselves conservatives, which is probably why I've managed to avoid being considered one of the "good guys" in Republican circles.

All of which results in a dichotomous condition arising from Ray Cooklis' comment that you can't "... start with the assumption that the other side is irredeemably evil or stupid."

You see, both sides think I'm irredeemably evil AND stupid.

Cheers all.

[BTW, a note for the muckety mucks at the Enquirer: After six different rejected attempts to establish a "name" at the "blogger" place - the last four of which were very unusual - I had to go "anonymous" with this post because "blogger" apparently also doesn't like me. Well ... there's always Mom.]

at 1:11 AM, October 02, 2006

Anonymous said...

Liberalism: Not Stupid---Just Wrong.

Modern liberalism is built on a philosophical foundation of intolerance, hate, lack of common sense, and a naive sense of human nature. They generally argue that because America is not “perfect” America is not “good.”

Former House Majority Leader’s Dick Armey was wrong when he said that, “Liberals are just not bright people.” Being wrong has nothing to do with being or not being bright. Political leanings or philosophies have little to do with intellect and everything to do with being sensible. Liberals are mostly just wrong when it comes to their policy agenda.

On foreign policy, for example, modern liberalism is one dimensional---they hate America. To them the United States is the “bad” guy in the world arena. Liberals demonstrate their “love” for America by expressing a strong sense of shame about America. They feel compelled to apologize for being an American.

San Francisco is the mothership for American liberalism. It epitomizes the way things would be if liberals had their way. Want to know how liberals would deal with providing for our national defense? Just take a look at what the San Francisco Board of Supervisors did in March of this year. They voted to block the docking of the USS Iowa in San Francisco harbor, a battleship with nearly a half-century of service in defense of America.

Why? Liberal Democrat City Supervisor, Gerardo Sandoval’s explained why on Hannity and Colmes when he said, "The United States should not have a military. All in all, we would be in much, much, much better shape." His sentiments expose their naïve lack of common sense in foreign affairs, and explain why most Americans do not trust the security of our nation to liberals.

Liberals are suspicious of those who take or express pride in America. They believe that people who honor our flag, history, and traditional values are dangerous. They vilified President Reagan for being a war-monger when he expressed his belief that there really was a difference between America and Communism---we were good, they were evil. He was right and his willingness to draw a line between good and evil enabled us to win the cold war.

Liberals believe that it is a dangerous provocation for an American President to express the idea that there are evil people and nations in the world, particularly when the nations are identified by name. Liberals went nuts when President Bush talked about the axis of Evil. They thought his stating what most reasonable observers know is true was provocative.

Liberals do at times recognize that evil does exist. However, when they do so they usually claim that if evil does exist it is our fault. The notion of “good” and “bad” forces in the world and “good” and “evil” appears very difficult for them to accept.

Liberals argue that preparing for war and having a strong military leads to war. History teaches us that they are wrong. Liberal policies are not likely to avoid war, but actually more likely to lead to more war and terrorism. Their approach to foreign policy defies the lessons of history and flies in the face of common sense.

Liberals are big on viewing policy options through the prism of intentions rather than outcomes. In their world, good motives translate to good policies regardless of the consequences. Like Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of England whose myopic desire for peace led to World War II, liberals seem incapable of understanding that policies of appeasement make the things they fear the most inevitable and the things they desire the most impossible to achieve.

Liberal newspapers like the New York Times see no inconsistency in arguing that there is nothing wrong with having illegal wiretaps on Congressman John Boehner’s private conversations, while at the same time decrying how constitutionally depraved the administration is for wanting to wiretap terrorists. Liberals argue that it’s ok to wiretap a Republican Congressman but not ok to wiretap a terrorist. Amazing, but true.

They are equally oblivious to the impact of their policies on the domestic front. They take good ideas like the notion that a community or nation has a duty to help those who cannot help themselves and achieving social justice should be a priority for America, and turned them into policy agendas that attack core American values and traditions.

For example, they take a the idea that each of us has a duty to help those who are less fortunate and make it the basis for them to advance an “entitlement” agenda that asks little of those who are able to work. No where is the perversion of the liberal agenda more clear than in how liberals approach the problem of open borders and immigration.

Liberals believe that those who live in other countries have a right to receive U.S. Citizenship---they are entitled to it. Citizenship is not something to be earned but rather something that is yours for the taking so long as you can get across our open borders.

They also pervert the idea of advancing social justice to mean that virtually every whacko idea that comes along deserves the full protection of the law. To them social justice comes to mean that 5,000 years of Western Civilization’s embrace of marriage as being a union between a man and a woman must be scuttled; or that sexual orientation is entitled to receive the same constitutional protections as race, religion, and creed.

The problem with liberalism is not that those who call themselves liberals are “dumb” or “stupid.” The problem is that classical liberalism has given way to modern liberalism; something that is founded on the idea that America is not good, nor is it special.

Modern liberals have no tolerance for conservatives. Modern liberal disdain for conservatism is no less extreme than Senator Joe McCarthy’s disdain for Communism. And they are no less intolerant in dealing with conservatives than he was in dealing with Communists.

Yesterday’s Hollywood blacklisting of anyone suspected of being a Communist is today’s blacklist of anyone identified as being a conservative. To disagree with them or to take issue with their policy agenda is to “chill free speech.” Rather than invite debate and discourse they attack the character or motives of anyone who disagrees with them.

As Ray Cooklis points out in his commentary, it is not that the “other side” is stupid or evil. It is important whether their policies or arguments meet the test of intellectual scrutiny and weather the storm of analysis and civil debate.

Liberals do not like to be called liberals and run from the label like a scalded dog, while conservatives generally embrace the label of conservatism with enthusiasm. I watched Senator Mike Dewine and Congressman Sherrod Brown this week on “Meet the Press” and was amused to see Congressman Brown blanch at the idea that he was a liberal. He denied it. Why?

If Congressman Brown is not liberal (He consistently scores in the high 90 percentile when rated by every liberal rating group in Washington) then liberals just do not exist. That someone with a liberal voting record is unwilling to publicly embrace it tells us much of what we need to know about liberals. They do exist and even liberals understand that as far as the public is concerned they cannot be trusted to govern.

at 9:19 AM, October 02, 2006

Anonymous said...

Interesting comments on this excellent topic. I've enjoyed reading them all.

The Founding Fathers of this country did not want political parties. The office of President was not one a gentleman sought in those days, but one that he was asked to undertake by others who approached him. This is how Washington got the job. It wasn't until the Electoral College was changed (don't ask me the exact date, I'm not a date-spouting history major here, just informed of the basics) that political parties were allowed to exist. That was a sad day in this country. Read the history of the Electoral College and you'll see this for yourself.

As an aside, how many of us are fully aware that it is not only legal, but Constitutional, to have a President of one party and a Vice-President of another? It indeed is. However, because of the political parties' maneuvering of the ballot, we have no choice and are forced to vote for the electors of both candidates on the ticket, even though we have the right to choose each office separately. Hmm, they wouldn't want you to know that, lemmings of America. You won't jump off the cliff as fast if you did.

I'm proud to say I'm an American. I'm also proud to say I'm no Republican, and I'm no Democrat, and I'm no Libertarian...I'm the original version of an independent before someone grabbed the name and tried to make it a Party of it's own. I vote for the person, not the party, and I have no party affiliation whatsoever. Feels good, too. I use my brain and public record to choose who is up to the job and who is not. More these days are not, frankly.

We have people on both sides of the political spectrum who would do us a collective favor by ending their careers. Some of them work here, true. They work all over the place. The point is, those who work in DC are there because people didn't vote with their brains and sensible reason. They followed a party line, and jumped over the cliff.

Do yourselves a favor, everyone. Look past the hate politicians spew, and look at what they honestly want to do, from their OWN MOUTHS. Then, make your choice, based on which you feel is best for the job. Use your values to decide (I do, but I'm a weirdo Christ-follower who thinks abortion and capital punishment are BOTH forms of murder) and stop blindly following party rhetoric lock-step.

It's not Communist; it's exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted. It's THE American Way.

Thanks for reading, and God bless you.

at 10:05 AM, October 02, 2006

John in Cincinnati said...

I think Ray has it right, er, correct, that we should be addressing issues in contrast to lockstep party platitudes. In fact there's a growing movement for what's being called Deliberative Democracy -- great idea. The general process is to bring together people of all political persuasions, give them well articulated presentations on the issues, and participate in small group dicusssions on the issues. More information can be found online. http://cdd.stanford.edu/

The problem I have found is that conservatives often won't enter the dialogue. I used to think they were "stupid" -- to use the same word in the Cooklis thought piece -- then realized even conservatives I know with graduate degrees fell into this category. I had to conclude it's not stupdity but ignorance. That is, ignoring facts, and even when confronted with an undeniable truth -- there were no WMD in Iraq in 2003 -- they often retreat to "Well, I support the President."

As a related aside, I also notice that conservatives more often post as Anon and rarely give quotes or links rather than openly identifying themselves and addressing issues.

at 11:34 AM, October 02, 2006

Anonymous said...

The thing about conservatives is not that they're stupid but just that they're so easy to full on international issues. My conservative friends are smart, as are my grandparents, but both believed that September 11th was inspired by Saddam Hussein joing forces with Osama bin Laden, while many liberals I know understood that the hi-jackers on the plane were Saudis. Now because of Hugo Chavez' recent words, conservatives say we should boycott Citgo, but why are we not boycotting Saudi Oil is well when they are known sponsors of terrorism and their people are the ones who committed the hijackings? I have yet to meet a conservative who is internationally intelligent enough to give me any answer on that question.

at 11:35 AM, October 02, 2006

Anonymous said...

I would love to have a civilized discussion with a liberal. But in my experience, the few liberals that I know are so adamant in their convictions that you can’t even have a civil discussion with them. It’s like they think it is necessary to turn blue in the face to make everyone agree with them. THIS is the reason that I would not agree to “enter a dialogue” with a liberal, not because I’m ignorant, but because I don’t feel the need to prove a point or justify my opinion with someone who refuses to accept that opinions CAN and will be different. Every time my uncle comes to a family party, he starts talking politics and by the end of the party is yelling, “They’re all a bunch of damn liars!” We all wind up avoiding him. When my liberal friend is present at a get-together, we all avoid raising the subject of anything political because she will just not accept any other points of view but her own.
During the 2004 election, it appeared that Kerry had more supporters. But it wasn’t because the liberals were more numerous, they were just yelling louder.

at 5:08 PM, October 02, 2006

Anonymous said...

I remember Former President Clinton asking if there isn't anyone in the country, besides himself, who likes both Al Gore and George Bush.
Last night on Fox news Newt Gingrich stated in a debate: "I think there's a genuine intellectual fight under way inside the government among professionals over the way ahead. And I think one group is saying, "Stay the course. Hold things steady. This will all work." And the other group of equally serious professionals is saying, "This is much harder than you think it is. You had better rethink your entire strategy."

This is a genuine fight in the intelligence community and a genuine fight at the State and Defense departments. And I think the president, in that sense, has two different camps in the government today over how to do this."

It would be nice if Liberals could be nice like Clinton, and Conservatives could be nice like Gingrich. Let's all be ladies or gentlemen. Perhaps we might improve our own arguments, if we listen and consider the other political view.

at 8:10 PM, October 02, 2006

Anonymous said...

As someone who reads the editorial page and letters to the editor everyday, if I read nothing else in my dead tree version of this newspaper, I have made some observations. Conservatives may not be evil but they certainly come off as selfish and self-centered. They seem to be saying because they made it anyone who hasn't is just not trying hard enough.

Recently a program to help low income students pay for college was derided in letters to the editor from residents of Green Township and Amberley lamenting the fcat that they had paid for their children's college education and insinutaing that if low income people only worked harder they could afford to pay for college themselves.

But the LTTE I will never forget was from several years ago when a brutally hot summer resulted in the deaths of elderly low income people in cities across the nation, most notably Chicago, but also a few in Cincinnati. Shortly therafter it was announced that the highrise senior citizens building in the West End Park Towers, with it's one bedroom apartments, no cross ventilation and nary a tree for blocks among all the concrete would be receiving window unit air conditioners. And lo and behold there was the letter to the editor from a suburban woman complaining about tax payer funds going to air conditioners for elderly black women. The virtuous letter writer informed readers that her family made due with open windows in her house with cross ventilation and probably large trees.

And yet these same enraged tax payers offer nary a peep about missile defense that doesn't even work.

The sheer size of this year's military budget defies comprehension, with almost half a trillion dollars going to Pentagon programs. But more money does not equal more security -- as "missile defense," the most expensive program of all, demonstrates so well.

In his proposed budget for 2007, President Bush requested another $10.4 billion to continue work on a system that has so far cost U.S. taxpayers more than $130 billion without producing a single workable device.

Missile defense rarely makes front-page news. But as the government throws more and more money at this wasteful and unnecessary program, it deserves scrutiny. Spending on ballistic missile programs has doubled during the Bush presidency. Yet the system remains a high-priced failure. The last three tests of the system's ground-based element failed. In two, the interceptor missile didn't even make it out of the launch silo.

Even if it could work, missile defense is irrelevant to the war on terrorism. A terrorist group intent on attacking the United States with a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon would find it cheaper and easier to load the weapon onto a ship, or make it in the United States. It is highly unlikely that terrorists would use a ballistic missile.

The billions lavished on missile defense are better spent on protecting U.S. ports and chemical plants, or locking down loose nuclear materials in former Soviet states and beyond.

So I guess my question is why conservatives reserve their vitriol for low income people? Is it because Ronald Reagan invented the Welfare Queen driving the new Cadillac?

Cadillac Queens.
Over a period of about five years, Reagan told the story of the "Chicago welfare queen" who had 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards, and collected benefits for "four nonexisting deceased husbands," bilking the government out of "over $150,000." The real welfare recipient to whom Reagan referred was actually convicted for using two different aliases to collect $8,000. Reagan continued to use his version of the story even after the press pointed out the actual facts of the case to him.

at 7:13 AM, October 03, 2006

Anonymous said...

I've lived all over this country and thought I'd seen most "left/right" attitudes displayed. But nowhere has the inability to listen to the other side been as stronly demostrated as right here in Cincinnati. If you do not share the views of the speaker, you are an idiot. I find no attempt to compromise toward common goals here at all; rather, people looking for the opportunity to vilify the "liberals." (Note what is considered liberal here is middle of the road elsewhere). When will we learn that we all basically want the same things (good health and education for our children, etc) and must work together and, yes, compromise, to get something done. Attitudes here make me want to move elsewhere where people aren't feeling so threatened if their world view is questioned.

at 6:05 PM, October 03, 2006

Anonymous said...

at 2:11 AM Anonymous said...
Liberalism: Not Stupid---Just Wrong.

Modern liberalism is built on a philosophical foundation of intolerance, hate, lack of common sense, and a naive sense of human nature. They generally argue that because America is not “perfect” America is not “good.”

Please put down the Ann Coulter and turn off Fox. You have no idea what liberals think and all your points are mere supposition.

When I claim that the Iraq War is the biggest foreign policy debacle since Vietnam I back it up not with cable news shouters and pundits but experts. And please note the following was written in 2004. We are currently spending in deficit dollars 11.9 million dollars an hour in Iraq. Rumsfeld has said that the insurgency could last 8-10 years.

But, according to the US military's leading strategists and prominent retired generals, Bush's war is already lost. Retired general William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, told me: "Bush hasn't found the WMD. Al-Qaida, it's worse, he's lost on that front. That he's going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too. It's lost." He adds: "Right now, the course we're on, we're achieving Bin Laden's ends."

Retired general Joseph Hoare, the former marine commandant and head of US Central Command, told me: "The idea that this is going to go the way these guys planned is ludicrous. There are no good options. We're conducting a campaign as though it were being conducted in Iowa, no sense of the realities on the ground. It's so unrealistic for anyone who knows that part of the world. The priorities are just all wrong."

Jeffrey Record, professor of strategy at the Air War College, said: "I see no ray of light on the horizon at all. The worst case has become true. There's no analogy whatsoever between the situation in Iraq and the advantages we had after the second world war in Germany and Japan."

W Andrew Terrill, professor at the Army War College's strategic studies institute - and the top expert on Iraq there - said: "I don't think that you can kill the insurgency". According to Terrill, the anti-US insurgency, centered in the Sunni triangle, and holding several cities and towns - including Fallujah - is expanding and becoming more capable as a consequence of US policy.

"We have a growing, maturing insurgency group," he told me. "We see larger and more coordinated military attacks. They are getting better and they can self-regenerate. The idea there are x number of insurgents, and that when they're all dead we can get out is wrong. The insurgency has shown an ability to regenerate itself because there are people willing to fill the ranks of those who are killed. The political culture is more hostile to the US presence. The longer we stay, the more they are confirmed in that view."

at 9:35 AM, October 04, 2006

Anonymous said...

Eight years ago I was a considered a moderate, leaning towards conservative. Even I disdained those who were labeled "liberals." Today, I am labeled a Liberal. Yet, not one of my beliefs, values, or morals has changed. It's amazing how far to the right the mainstream has shifted in such a short time - supported by the media. It will be our undoing as a nation if it's not corrected.

I am proud to be labeled a Liberal by today's standards since it seems that being a Liberal means things like caring for hurricane victims, not pre-emptively attacking foreign countries, supporting our military in practice and not in propaganda (and not sending them to die needlessly), respecting citizens' rights of speech and privacy (not limiting them to the new "free speech zones"), protecting the Constitution, and being the guardians (and leading by example), of protecting basic human rights and condemning atrocities against humanity such as torture.

If that's being Liberal, then it is imperative to us all that Liberalism prevails.

at 11:25 AM, October 04, 2006

Anonymous said...

To Janice...

You want ONE instance? How about this? Liberals ignored Winston Churhill's warnings about the Nazi's. In fact, they called him a warmonger for having the audacity to suggest that Hitler really meant what he said. Over 62 million people died in World War II (37 million civilians and 25 million military). It was the most deadly war in human history. Maybe the liberals should have listend to Churhill.

at 11:39 AM, October 04, 2006

Anonymous said...

It's comments like "All they are is wrong" (in the previous post) that prove that "some individuals" cannot see through their own self-importance to accept the ideas of others. This is the same philosophy that extremists have, and we all know what extremism can lead to...

HC Goddard is right on!

at 8:54 PM, October 04, 2006

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
To Janice...

You want ONE instance? How about this? Liberals ignored Winston Churhill's warnings about the Nazi's. In fact, they called him a warmonger for having the audacity to suggest that Hitler really meant what he said. Over 62 million people died in World War II (37 million civilians and 25 million military). It was the most deadly war in human history. Maybe the liberals should have listend to Churhill.

12:25 PM

Um, the use of the term liberals and they consists of a straw man argument. Could you please be specific. Surely you are not referring to FDR.

However it does sound like you may be referring to "Mr. Conservative" Robert Taft.

Franklin Roosevelt and his fellow liberal internationalists had sounded the first alarms about Hitler, but conservatives had stubbornly—even suicidally—maintained their isolationism right into the postwar era. Senator Robert Taft, “Mr. Republican,” and the right's enduring presidential hope, had not only been a prominent member of the leading isolationist organization, America First, and opposed the nation's first peacetime draft in 1940, but also appeared to be as naive about the Soviet Union as he had been about the Axis powers. Like many on the right, he was much more concerned about Chiang Kai-shek's worm-eaten Nationalist regime in China than U.S. allies in Europe. “The whole Atlantic Pact, certainly the arming of Germany, is an incentive for Russia to enter the war before the army is built up,” Taft warned. He was against any U.S. military presence in Europe even in 1951.

and

Churchill understood history with a depth and breadth shared by few world leaders then or since. No contemporaries instinctively saw the evils of Bolshevism as soon as he did, and the same was true when it came to Hitler.

"Most people who opposed the struggle against Hitler were not necessarily his sympathizers." Instead, like U.S. Senator Robert Taft, they had convinced themselves that Communism and the Soviet Union were a greater danger than Hitler. And the prime reason that Taft advanced for this view was that Communism appealed to the many, Fascism to the few. Or, in the words of one of Taft's modernday supporters, "Nazism had no eschatology."

America First and the antiwar movement

The America First Committee, created in September 1940, was not only against entry into the war. It also opposed aid. Its program was simple. Since the United States, if properly armed, was impregnable against German attack, there was no reason to help England. Aid would not only fatally weaken America‘s own defenses. It would also draw the country into the conflict.[2] The leaders of the AFC claimed they were motivated by concern for American lives. For some, this was no doubt true. For others, humanitarian rhetoric hid different motives. Many joined the AFC as a way of attacking President Roosevelt and the New Deal. Still others had more sinister reasons. The evolution of the America First movement in the eighteen months of debate preceding Pearl Harbor revealed xenophobic and anti-Semitic sentiment both within the AFC leadership, and among its supporters. This study of the America First Committee is thus a cautionary tale. It is a reminder that anti-war movements are not always, or entirely, the humanitarian movements their supporters claim them to be. But it is also a moral tale, asking an important question in international relations - that of what one democratic nation owes another in times of mortal danger.

Americans had been largely indifferent to the beginning of Nazi dictatorship in 1933. Opinion had begun to change only after kristallnacht, the first important anti-Jewish pogrom in Germany in November of 1938, and the occupation of the Czech lands the following March.[3] By the summer of 1939, when war between Germany and the western democracies seemed inevitable, most Americans had assumed it would be a long struggle, in which a British naval blockade would eventually strangle Germany into submission. Opinion in the United States was overwhelmingly in favor of staying out of the war. At the same time, an October Fortune magazine poll showed 85% of Americans hoped Britain and France would win.[4]

Assumptions about the course of the war changed in the spring of 1940. The sudden collapse of France, arguably the greatest surprise of the European conflict, left England to face Germany alone. An even larger number of Americans as a result came to believe Hitler would eventually attack them They were more anxious than ever to make sure Britain would not lose, and wanted to supply the munitions necessary to preserve the last important democracy in Europe.[5] Pro-British organization like Friends of Democracy, founded in 1937, and the Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies, created in May of 1940, enjoyed increased support.[6] A more stridently interventionist group, the Fight For Freedom Committee, followed in April of 1941.[7] Still, as late as November of 1941 only one American in four favored an immediate declaration of war.[8]

This kind of anti-war sentiment was not enough to reassure America First. Its leaders remembered how most Americans had wanted to stay out of the First War. Wilson’s 1916 electoral slogan claimed “He kept us out of war.” In the end none of it had mattered. Less than six months after being re-elected, Wilson had brought the nation into the fight. America Firsters were certain Roosevelt would do the same. The greatest weakness of the anti-war movement before 1917 had been widespread sympathy for Britain and France. It remained so in 1940. The central task of the Committee therefore became to reduce support for Britain. Building on the fears of the electorate, its leaders set out to convince Americans that aid was synonymous with war. But America First did much more. It claimed the nation could work peacefully and profitably with Germany. It consistently minimized or ignored Hitler’s crimes in Europe. At the same time the Committee’s unceasing criticism of the British Empire helped convince at least some voters that democratic England was not only an unworthy recipient of American aid, it was also undeserving of American sympathy.

The America First Committee initially had seemed only the latest and most extreme example of isolationist opinion in the United States that had grown up in the 1920s, and which had become stronger during the Great Depression. There had been a widespread belief in America since 1919 that the country had gained nothing out of the First War. That this was not true had little effect. The earliest important anti-war organization, the Keep America Out of War Congress, had been created in 1938 by Socialist Norman Thomas with the help of liberals like John T. Flynn, Oswald Garrison Villard, the former editor of the Nation, and Harry Elmer Barnes, revisionist historian of the First World War.[9] Anti-war organizations on American campuses were similarly led by liberals, Socialists and Communists. The Committee itself had been created by two Yale students. (One, Robert Douglas Stuart Jr., a 24 year old Princeton graduate, and son of the senior vice president of the Quaker Oats Company, was a law student sympathetic with New Deal reforms.[10] The other was Kingman Brewster.[11]) America First therefore appeared neither particularly conservative, nor pro-German. It was not surprising that Thomas and Villard soon joined the executive board.[12]

However, most AFC supporters were neither liberal, nor Socialist. Many simply wanted to stay out of the war. Since many also came from the Midwest, an area never as sensitive to European problems as the east coast, isolationist arguments was soon buttressed by more traditional prejudices against eastern industrial and banking interests. (Almost two-thirds of the Committee’s 850,000 registered supporters would eventually come from the Midwest, mostly from a radius of three hundred miles around Chicago.)[13] Many AFC supporters were certain industry and the banks wanted war for their own profit.[14] Many other supporters were Republicans who flocked to the AFC for partisan political reasons. Still others were covertly pro-German. Some were German-Americans whose sentimental attachments had not been diminished by the crimes of the Nazi regime. Others, whether of German origin or not, were attracted to Hitler’s racism and anti-Semitism.

at 8:59 PM, October 04, 2006

Anonymous said...

Please pass your posting on to your fellow editorial board member who accused a greiving father of "tarring all illegal aliens as criminals". It is apparent in her editorial that she suffers from Fundamental Attribution Error. Her editorial has no basis in fact and seems to deem this man's actions as just mean spirited, when in fact he is just doing something about what 80% of America feels needs to be done. I hope she has the misfortune of having to attend a municipal court in this area and she will see the crime problem and the illegals associated with it. Or better yet, maybe she will luck into having one of them run into her car so you can discover that they have no license and insurance. If they are here illegally they are criminals. When you write about how much you love spending time with your children, think about the father whose son was beaten to death by a ballbat. Maybe then you will have a bit more empathy for this father and then write your editorial.

at 12:33 AM, October 05, 2006

Anonymous said...

The comments decrying that "some people cannot get beyond their own self importance to accept other people's ideas" underscores the core problem in public discourse. Why in the world would any rational person accept the argument that all ideas are of equal value and there is "no right or wrong?"

Of course there is "right" and "wrong." That is the essence of earnest debate in the formulation of public policy. Under the banner of being politically correct do I really have to accept that religous zelots who preach hate and violence as part of their religion are not "wrong?"

To argue that all political positions, ideas, or policy proposals are of equal value on the scale of "right" or "wrong" is pure nonsense. If a liberal or conservative did not believe that they were advancing their vision of "right" or "wrong" what would be the point of making policy choices?

The philosophy offered by the above commentator is a perfect example of how the world has been turned upside down by the curse of political correctness.

Being "polite" may require that I respect a person's right to their opinion and listen to competing ideas---it does not require me to give all ideas equal weight or respect. Some things are just plain dumb. Conservatives and liberals may define their idea of "dumb" differently but their differences are the essence of democracy---competing for the public's approval and support.

It's ok to say that something is wrong. If there is no "wrong policy" then how is it possible that there can be a "right policy?"

at 11:15 AM, October 05, 2006

Anonymous said...

In talking about right and wrong is all a matter of perspective. Was Hitler wrong in killing Jews? He thought he was doing the world a favor. He wasn’t wrong in his own mind. I don’t agree a bit with his ideas and I don’t think it was “right”, but look how much support he got.
Talking about being open-minded enough to see another’s point of view is a different issue. If someone had stolen, but it was to feed their starving child, even though stealing is a societal wrong, I wouldn’t have so much of a closed mind that I wouldn’t be able to see that it was a matter of survival. Can you always say “Stealing is wrong no matter what”? To say that someone or some group or some idea is “always wrong” or has “never been correct on any issue in history” (as blogger Janice Lee stated) is the same mindset that a “religious zealot” would have.

at 3:50 AM, October 06, 2006

Anonymous said...

The notion that the Enquirer and/or its editorial staff are even a little bit liberal is absolutely ridiculous.

When has the Enquirer endorsed a Democrat, well...ever? Why is there no liberal columnist to counteract the blind conservatism (and just plain horrible writing) of Peter Bronson? Because the Enquirer and the editors are conservatives and have absolutely no interest in fairness or truth.

With conservatives in the majority in every branch of federal government and high numbers or majorities at the state and judicial levels, the only ammunition conservatives have to smear liberals anymore is the ol' "just because they're liberals" attacks popularized by Sen. Joe McCarthy decades ago. Read the cut-and-pasted nonsense by "Anonymous" for a prime example of this.

The Enquirer, its editors, and its staff are, quite frankly, a national embarassment. It has an opportunity to be a great metropolitan newspaper, and squanders it day in and day out with small-town writing and most of the work done by the Associated Press. It's ugly.

Print that.

at 8:38 AM, October 07, 2006

Anonymous said...

I agree with the writer who correctly pointed out that the anti-war movement in America prior to World War II was led primarily by "conservatives" like Ohio Senator Robert Taft, but---what's his point? Just because "liberals" and "conservative" seem to have switched philosophical sides in recognizing that trying to isolate America from world events is foolhardy. It was wrong when the "conservative" did it prior to World War II and it is wrong when the "liberals" do it today.

European politics was a different matter at the time. Churchill, a conservative, was lined up against the European "liberal" establishment and uniformly rediculed for his "war-mongering" when he suggested that people should listen to what Hitler was saying and understand that Hitler really does believe it.

Today's liberals are similar to the European liberals prior to World War II---they cannot bring themselves to understand that those who hate America (Iran, terrorists, etc.) actually mean what they say when they say they want to destroy us and "kill all infidels."

Today it is the "liberals" who have lost their way when it comes to national defense. The writer is correct to point out that prior to World War II it was American onservatives. When it comes to dealing with the threats to our national security the conservatives have got smarter and the liberals have got...well let's just say they have regressed.

at 1:42 PM, October 07, 2006

Anonymous said...

at 9:38 AM Anonymous said...
I agree with the writer who correctly pointed out that the anti-war movement in America prior to World War II was led primarily by "conservatives" like Ohio Senator Robert Taft, but---what's his point? Just because "liberals" and "conservative" seem to have switched philosophical sides in recognizing that trying to isolate America from world events is foolhardy.

So-called liberals who believed Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time are not advocating isolationism. Rather they advocated a law enforcement approach. There is absolutely no comparison between the Axis and loosely allied individuals in a host of countries. Saying death to the infidels and having the ability to make that a reality are 2 very different things. The London bomb plot was prevented by a law enforcement, not a military approach and happened because a moderate Muslim became aware of and ratted out some associates who were in the planning stages of a bomb plot.

Today's liberals are similar to the European liberals prior to World War II---they cannot bring themselves to understand that those who hate America (Iran, terrorists, etc.) actually mean what they say when they say they want to destroy us and "kill all infidels."

I also understand that white supremacists openly state that their goal is to live in an all white Unites States. But I also understand that this goal is unattainable. Much like the oft cited goal of establishing the "caliphate."

To compare the miltary infrastucture of Germany, Italy and Japan to extremists who have no million man armies, no battle ships, fighter jets or missiles is ludicrous. "They" are not coming "here" to fight us as illustrated by one or Curt Weldon's (R) more delusional comments:
“We either fight them there, or we fight them in the supermarkets and streets here.”

Unless he was referring to our food supply, chemical plants and ports all of which are exceedlingly ill protected 5 years after 9/11.

I will leave the author with one of the more plain spoken arguments for why the comparison to WWII is so faulty.

Wes Clark said:

We are not going to win the War on Terror just by killing people abroad, even if they are terrorists. It's not enough.... It's not like we can single out, if we could just kill, it's
not World War II where there were certain number of enemy formations, or factories to produce aircraft and once you eliminated these you could be pretty sure that the situation would appear different to the enemy
leadership. This is not that kind of a conflict.

When we kill people, we make enemies! And when we kill the wrong people, it's even worse and less defensible. 09/06/05

I would also point out that every civilian in Iraq who experiences the death of a family member due to collateral damage is a potential recruit for the terrorists. Think of how you would feel were it you.

"Of particular concern has been the conflation of al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq as a
single, undifferentiated terrorist threat. This was a strategic error of the first order because it
ignored critical differences between the two in character, threat level and susceptibility to U.S. deterrence and military action. The result has been an unnecessary preventive war of choice against a deterred Iraq that has created a new front in the Middle East for Islamic terrorism and diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable al-Qaeda.” - Strategic Studies Institute of the Army War College

at 6:00 PM, October 07, 2006

Tyler Davidson said...

Someone should sgtudy history a bit more.

"To Janice...

You want ONE instance? How about this? Liberals ignored Winston Churhill's warnings about the Nazi's. In fact, they called him a warmonger for having the audacity to suggest that Hitler really meant what he said. Over 62 million people died in World War II (37 million civilians and 25 million military)."

In fact at the time conservative Republicans were isolationists and felt the US had no business getting involved in Europe's war. Unless conservatives are now claiming Roosevelt as theirs, this argument makes absouletly no sense.

at 11:58 AM, October 08, 2006

Anonymous said...

Some will say this is an ad hominem attack, but conservatives seem to put ideology before facts. Perhaps this is why they are so quick to believe industry funded spokepersons, or politicians financed by industry rather than experts who have no ties to any financial interests. If Big Tobacco can find scientists to insist for decades that smoking did not cause cancer is it any surprise that Big Business would be behind misinformation regarding the enviornment?

My question would be, are you willing to bet your grandchildren's life and wellbeing that James Imhofe (R) is the most knowledgable person on global warming? If you are I think I can probably sell you an Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere.

Previous Posts

Sunday, October 01, 2006

Oh, those 'stupid' liberals

25 Comments: