A place for me to pour out my rants without clogging the inboxes of my friends and family. Also a place to give info on myself and Mary, our family news and events.
An opinion piece.....
Published on November 21, 2005 By Rightwinger In Politics
Why does the Left, that entity which claims to so admire things like freedom of speech, the press, thought and things like Human Rights, why do they always seem to embrace the totalitarians and tyrants? The dictatorships and despots?
Why do they, these arbiters of unfettered personal expression, always find ways to explain away their favorite tinpot Hitler's oppressive indescretions and apologize for their abuses?

I've seen these questions debated again and again here on JU; why do the dictatorships get a pass, while the democracies, the ones they SHOULD be supporting, always seem to come under their fire?
Like when they do things such as impose sanctions against dictators and their nations, and especially when they increase their building of arms to stand against the oppression symbolized by the totalitarians. Instead of working to free the oppressed, it seems the liberals are more than happy to let their favorite tyrants go merrily about their business unmolested.

For example, as Jimmy Carter spent four years coddling the Soviets and schmoosing Fidel Castro, all the while ignoring, and even lending tacit support to, Leftist stirrings in Central Amercia and Africa, democracy lost ground the world over. We got weaker by the day.
Ronald Reagan went into office and, eight years later, against the warning cries and apologizing of Democrats in the House and Senate, and that of liberal elements among our "allies" (all of whom would have been much more than content with some level of peaceful co-existence with the USSR), had virtually ended forty years of Cold War, advancing the frontiers of democracy everywhere.
Leftwing elements the world over decried his policies as fascist, militaristic and oppressive. This, even as he funded the upgrading of Voice of America and Radio Liberty and supported and nutured the fledgling, suppressed Solidarity movement in Poland to the chagrin of the Polish government, the USSR and the "Democratic" Republic of Germany (East Germany).
And what of his aid to the beseiged Mujahedeen in Afghanistan? Those people, he backed against direct Soviet aggression.
Where were the cries of "militarists!" and "oppressors!" from demonstrators outside Soviet and Eastern Bloc nation's embassies?

The Bush 41 Administration attacked Iraq to the derisive cries of the Left, who kept imagining, or perhaps wistfully envisioning, another Vietnam quagmire. Instead, sadly for them, the war was over in 100 days; their blustering, beloved tyrant Saddam's tail was tucked firmly between his legs until January 1993, when Slick Willy the (Barely) Closet(ed) Socialist came into office and let America be pushed all over the place by the UN and their anti-American mafia of grafters and rabid Internationalists.
He spent the next eight years squandering or frittering away America's newfound, rightly-claimed status as Sole Superpower.

Then came Bush 42 and 9-11....liberals the world over, though "saddened" by the great loss of life, understood completely how the Islamics could come to hate us for our arrogance and riches, and to strike us so coldly and callously. Some of the more pure-biled lefty America-lasters even cheered.
In 2002, it became clear, as it had for about a decade, that Saddam just may have been dabbling in a WMD program. Senators and members Congress from both sides agreed, again, as they had for about a decade, that the intelligence data was well-represented, and that something must be done. Soon.
So, off to war we went.
As time progressed, however, it became apparent that the sought-for WMDs were not presenting themselves as promised; so, like the sore-loser, cowardly weasels they are, the Democrats started carping against the Bush Administration, forgetting the data they all agreed on as being correct, in a thinly-disguised effort at payback for "stealing" the election from their robocandidate, Aldroid Gore.
And, true to form, the Left always finds ways to excuse Saddam for his behavior, and to apologize to everyone for and explain away, ignore or gloss over, the rape rooms, torture chambers, the mass graves, the multiple, opulent, czarist palaces....etc, while at the same time berating the US for it's "poor behavior" and "torture"; like giving terrorist prisoners "pink bellies" (slapping their bellies until they become pink.....like the bully in 3rd grade did to you).
What's next? Decrying the noogies and swirlies inflicted on the poor prisoners? What about pants-ing? Would that be considered torture, too?
Nothing the US is doing in Iraq is right or good, especially the toppling of a tyrant and the attempted installation of a free, democratic government. Who wants that, right?
Not the Democrats; they want:

1. Bush to be impeached. Why? Because; they don't like him.
2. The US to lose in Iraq; mainly so we can be embarrassed, and if all goes well, maybe a strong man can take control again, and lord his will over the entire country. That they can understand and support, after all. "Of the People, by the People"?.....too messy.

Why do they do this? Why do they love dictators?

I think I know; I think we all do......

The Left loves Big Government.

What represents the purest, most unalloyed form of Big Government than an omnipresent dictatorship, one which holds all the cards and controls and manages the very lives of the people it rules, even down to what can and can't be purchased or owned?
Dictatorships (especially Socialists) own everything, and decide who gets what and when. This is an ideal which appeals very much to the Socialist in every Democrat/liberal.
Unfortunately, since many of them serving in the House and Senate now were radicals and long-haired hippie demonstrators in the 60s, this ideal is very attractive to them.

Also, a dictatorship doesn't have to stand for opposition to its tenets from dissidents and naysayers who point out its faults, as the Left has to in the Democracies.
The nitpickers and faultfinders in a dictatorship are jailed or killed outright for their opinions, rather than debated and/or tolerated. Wouldn't the Clintons and Kerry have loved to do either to such complainers and troublemakers Limbaugh and Hannity, Coulter and Sowell? You betchya they would.
Freedom of expression is wonderful, so long as you're not the target, and with its ongoing implosion, the Democratic party has been the bullseye for many a sharply-thrown dart from the Right.


So, That's why I think the Left loves its tyrants. You're free to disagree, however.....after all, Communism is dead.
Thanks for that, Mr. Reagan.

Comments (Page 2)
5 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Nov 21, 2005
I might also add, Kingbee, that the Left has its own sad history of supporting or enabling dictatorships. It all pretty much started with Roosevelt at Yalta; he liked and trusted old "Uncle Joe" Stalin, and completely trusted him, against Churchill's judgement, to keep his word to pull out of Eastern Europe after the fall of Hitler's Germany. He doomed tens of millions to 40 years of Communist domination.

Kennedy upped the ante in Vietnam by sending more advisers to help the Diem government against the Communists. We all know what happened next.

Conservative leaders, by and large, have only given the casual nod to the dictators they supported out of necessity. They weren't on the best of terms with them.

Roosevelt genuinely liked Stalin.

Carter took pitching lessons from Castro, for crying out loud.
on Nov 21, 2005
I might also add, Kingbee, that the Left has its own sad history of supporting or enabling dictatorships. It all pretty much started with Roosevelt at Yalta; he liked and trusted old "Uncle Joe" Stalin, and completely trusted him, against Churchill's judgement, to keep his word to pull out of Eastern Europe after the fall of Hitler's Germany. He doomed tens of millions to 40 years of Communist domination.

Kennedy upped the ante in Vietnam by sending more advisers to help the Diem government against the Communists. We all know what happened next.

Conservative leaders, by and large, have only given the casual nod to the dictators they supported out of necessity. They weren't on the best of terms with them. Ask Manuel Noriega.

Roosevelt genuinely liked Stalin.

Carter took pitching lessons from Castro, for crying out loud.
on Nov 21, 2005
I hate dictatorships. I would love it if every nation on earth was a perfect democracy. I just wish it was as easy for the powers that be to remove them as it was for them to install them.
---UBob

Agreed.
on Nov 21, 2005
A thought just hit me, and I have to get off here and hit the sack.

In case someone would want to ask why Roosevelt, as a Democrat, was so hot to defeat the Fascist dictatorships...I say this:

Fascism is a phenomenon of the extreme Right. 'Nuff said?
on Nov 21, 2005
well said rightwinger. I have nothing to add, just wanted to lend some support.
on Nov 21, 2005
In the Cold War, the democracies took allies wherever they could find them. This included backing and installing pro-American strongmen...dictators.


which democracies? at least 3/4 of the tyrants i listed replaced elected heads of state. most of them weren't any more anti-communist than gus hall. they were cruel thugs who preyed on their own countrymen and played yall for fools in order to enrich themselves.
on Nov 21, 2005
; he liked and trusted old "Uncle Joe" Stalin, and completely trusted him, against Churchill's judgement, to keep his word to pull out of Eastern Europe after the fall of Hitler's Germany.


thats patent nonsense.

Kennedy upped the ante in Vietnam by sending more advisers to help the Diem government against the Communists


do you know anything at all about how the west betrayed vietnam back into colonial slavery after wwii in order to placate that good ol rightwing monarchist charles de gaulle? do you know how de gaulle managed to pull that off by playing the commie card?
on Nov 21, 2005
I really don't think behavior like that is exclusive to the left. Both sides have been guilty of digging up dirt on people that didn't deserve it.


Too True Davad, but while both sides will "bring up dirt" on the other, it seems like the dirt becomes a badge of honor for the left but a mark of shame for those on the right. Can you name the last prominant liberal whose popularity wasn't raised by accusations of misbehavior?
on Nov 21, 2005
In case someone would want to ask why Roosevelt, as a Democrat, was so hot to defeat the Fascist dictatorships...I say this:

Fascism is a phenomenon of the extreme Right. 'Nuff said?


Father, forgive him for he knows not what he says!
on Nov 22, 2005
I know you guys don't like polls around here too much, but if you take a look at them you'll see the GOP losing ground to the democrats at a very alarming rate.


Davad

Could you provide a link or two to polls saying that the Democrats are gaining ground in the 2008 elections. Because the polls I have seen shows that nothing has changed in the last few months. Link

You will notice that the leading Democrat Hillary Clinton is beaten by both the leading Republicans by generally 10 points. That is not even comparing the rest of the Democratic pack.

While President Bush and his crowd maybe down and looking bad, people are still willing to back a Republican over a Democrat in the next election.

James Carvel was on a talk program recently and stated that many of his friends are just mystified why Republicans look to be in such bad shape, yet the Democrats have gain almost nothing. They could not understand with all the mud that they have thrown against the GOP recently, how the Democrats still are in the dog house.

Carvel just replied "It don't matter how much smelly mud you throw on them, no one like a person who shovels it into another persons face in the first place. Just put down the shovel and start building something instead, we may just win some support, for a change." I'm just paraphrasing here.

I'm not doubting your polls Davad, I would just like to see how they are worded.
on Nov 22, 2005
Frankly, I believe it is because they think the average human is stupid and can't rule themselves. That's why they think we need the Great and Powerful Oz to protect us, educate us, pay for our insurance, make sure we raise our kids correctly, etc.

That's the dishonesty inherent in socialism, imho. They don't want government run by the "people", because if the people were fit and able to rule themselves there wouldn't be a need for government fostering at all. Therefore when they pretend that the government owning the means of production in a society is really the "people" owning it, it is bullshit.

What they want is the stigma of socialism and a heavy-handed dictatorial government making sure we aren't all ignorant savages. The "people" don't own the oil industry in Venezuala, Chavez and his cronies do. If someone really respects the rights of the "people" and want the "people" to own industries, they'll embrace capitalism and the free market economy and let "people" handle things themselves.

So, while socialism is better for them, at least under a dictator the unwashed masses aren't actually making decisions for themselves. Dictators can always lie, and tell them that they are suspending the consitution, summarily drafting laws, crushing dissent, etc., in the hope that it will bring about Utopia. Liberals tend to believe idiotic lies like that, believe it or not...
on Nov 22, 2005
Frankly, I believe it is because they think the average human is stupid and can't rule themselves.


how does that explain decades of support for people like the somozas, mobutu, the shah, batista, duarte, the greek colonels, etc.? rightwinger seems to believe all their sins were mitigated by being 'anti-communist'.

without meaning to elevate chavez, all of the above make him look relatively benign by comparison.
on Nov 22, 2005
You answer yourself, kb. The difference is we aligned ourself those leaders, begrudgingly, IN SPITE of their system of rule. We didn't see their naations as a model for how we should run our own.

Go read what folks who support Chavez have to say about him around here. They don't begrudgingly support him, they don't support him in spite of his acts, they openly support him BECAUSE of his acts.
on Nov 22, 2005
do you know anything at all about how the west betrayed vietnam back into colonial slavery after wwii in order to placate that good ol rightwing monarchist charles de gaulle? do you know how de gaulle managed to pull that off by playing the commie card?
---Kingbee

For his part, I will give Roosevelt credit in that he was extrememly anti-colonialist, and wanted an end to the Empires. But, France wanted to try and recapture the Ole Glory of France, and as a former "ally" (though DeGaulle did little to actually help the cause, besides get uder the skin of all the Leaders and generals), so well, let them. As to "playing the commie card", I'd say he played it pretty damn well at Dien Bien Phu, wouldn't you?


thats patent nonsense.
---Kingbee

Take off your lefty blinders and read history as it played out, rather than its revisions; Churchill did not trust Stalin at all, and advised Roosevelt to be careful of him.


Thanks for all these posts, folks...gotta go to work now (no government wants to take care of me). I'll hit all these later.
on Nov 22, 2005
; he liked and trusted old "Uncle Joe" Stalin, and completely trusted him, against Churchill's judgement, to keep his word to pull out of Eastern Europe after the fall of Hitler's Germany.


thats patent nonsense.


Shows what you don't know!....


The friendship that developed between Churchill and Roosevelt was not without its difficulties, and it is important not to lose site of the fact that the primary responsibility of both men was to look after national interests. This inevitably led to tensions, which at times became quite pronounced. Serious differences arose, for example, over the question of when and where to open the second front in Europe, and a host of other issues, particularly with respect to economic matters. Furthermore, as the years passed and victory in Europe appeared more and more certain, Roosevelt began to cultivate a bilateral relationship with Stalin that wounded Churchill's pride and signaled the emergence of a bipolar postwar world, dominated not by the British Empire, but rather by the two new Super-Powers



Roosevelt was criticized for being naïve in his dealings with Stalin, for distrusting Charles de Gaulle and for occasionally overruling his chiefs-of-staff, but his leadership of America from December 1941 to his death in April 1945, was far more of a positive success than a failure and he will go down as the only person to date in America, to win four presidential elections.


Or lastly


It is claimed that the President, in his own mind, decided that Stalin was basically a good man and good leader of his people, and that the Soviet regime and system, based after all on socialism, could be transformed, with Rosevelt’s guidance, into a democracy. The President thought that he could personally handle Stalin. He was convinced that Stalin was not an imperialist. Roosevelt envisaged that he and Stalin, that is the United States and the Soviet Union together, will lead the Allies to the final victory and eventually decide the political and economic structure of the post war world. He was willing to exclude from this, Churchill and Britain (and incidentally France) as imperialists who could not be trusted to create the necessary conditions for democracy and a just peace. In future dealings of the Big Three Rosevelt invariably sided with Stalin.


In pursuit of this policy the President was aided and abetted by only a few members of his administration, notably his personal envoy Harry Hopkins, and his one time (1937) ambassador to Moscow, Joseph Davies. He decided to ignore completely the advice and warnings from such experienced observers of Europe as William Bullitt, Loy Henderson, Charles E. "Chip" Bohlen, George Keenan, Averell Harriman and Gen. John Deane, all experienced diplomats who had spent some time in Moscow.


Right until his death Roosevelt tried to win Stalin’s trust and friendship. All that time Stalin did not trust the President and Soviet Union spies were stealing America’s secrets. Roosevelt was always prepared to make concessions to Stalin (often against Churchill’s advice) and to meet his wishes and requests.
5 Pages1 2 3 4  Last