Euston, They Have a Problem

by Mike on April 25, 2006

in Politics

I know its unlikely. After all pacifism seems to run through their bloodstream, but liberals could take tough stands against terrorism. Bill Kristol’s commentary on the Euston Manifesto, a statement of principles by prominent British leftists against tyranny, shows that it isn’t impossible for liberals to take a stand against evil in the world. As noted by Kristol, liberals who fight terrorism or dictatorships who pose a threat are not unheard of. Tony Blair is Kristol’s example. Joe Lieberman would be another. Neither of these outstanding leaders hesitate in their support for terror-fighting measures and operations. Blair and Lieberman are excellent role models to those who otherwise share their ideology.

Liberals have had a problem with the big issues in history. President Carter betrayed the Shah, our key Iranian ally, thereby allowing an Islamofascist revolution we are still dealing with to take hold. They opposed Reagan every step of the way while he implemented a grand strategy to win the Cold War. The Clinton administration actually gave North Korea the nuclear material which was immediately used in their weapons program, articulated but never acted upon a policy of regime change in Iraq and erected a wall preventing the sharing of intelligence between the FBI and CIA. The left carped during the early days of the Afghanistan war, calling it a quagmire. They close their eyes to the good news in Iraq. What’s next? Who knows?

Conservatives and liberals can share both the burden of making tough choices to defend America and the credit for success resulting from those decisions without destroying political gamesmanship. Sure the libs would lose some moonbats in the process but they could attract some of those voters who want to vote Democrat but don’t because of the Democrat’s tendency to appease. Liberals could run on their government-run everything while conservatives run on lower taxes and less government. Each side would win some elections and lose others. (The right would win more but that happens now so the left has nothing to lose).

Bipartisan consensus on confronting evil that threatens the world would not be a bad thing. It might even make the world safer. Blair, Lieberman and certain British intellectuals understand that they can still be solid liberals on numerous issues while confronting evil in the world. Why don’t the rest of them?

{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }

Ryan April 25, 2006 at 5:02 pm

Relativism debunks many liberal arguments the moment that they start with their typical druel.

However, if all things were equal, most Libs would stand strong against an enemy bent on our destruction instead of trying to score cheap political points against a President they STILL believe was “selected not elected,” leaving America divided and weaker as a result.


Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: