I think the Darfur genocide is deplorable. Our government has deplored it. In fact, I think the United States is the only state that calls it genocide. I think the Chinese should get out of Tibet. (Not that the Tibetan people will be any better off under their traditional monastic dictators.) But I am not sure the United States should do anything about either of these situations. Well, I'm certain we should not do anything about Tibet, I am less sure about Darfur.
What I think is interesting is that the American left has kind of adopted these two great injustices as their causes. They even have bumper stickers that say "Free Tibet" and "Stop Darfur Genocide". What neither of the bumper stickers say is how either of these goals should be achieved. Considering that, in each case, it is a state committing the injustice, and those states impose their will and commit the injustices with the force of their arms, I suppose the American left is saying we should invade China (!!!) and Sudan. That is what I suppose because I am pretty sure the American Left knows the rulers of Sudan and China don't feel very threatened by stickers on Subarus.
So, really, come on American Left. What are you saying with those stickers. Do they just make you feel good because you can point to the bumper stickers and say "We care. We're good people."? Well, let me tell you something. As long as you think it is okay to kill babies I won't believe you are moral at all. And I certainly don't want to invade China. It was hard enough the first time, and they didn't have nuclear weapons then.
10 hours ago
7 comments:
Good post! I agree. There's a huge contradiction in complaining about the killing in Darfur, and yet licencing the killing of the unborn right there in their own home. But intellectual honesty never was a hallmark of the left.
Kill babies? Bad post, I disagree. You can either kill unborn babies, or you can abuse them all their life. The choice is yours. Intellectual honesty?
That's kind of a straw man argument. On one end of the spectrum lies doing nothing. On the other end of the spectrum lies military invasion. In between lies a whole host of possibilities ranging from diplomacy to sanctions.
Most of the people with the Darfur and Tibet bumper stickers mostly want the US to stop doing such things as giving China MFN trading status until the human rights abuses stop. One can argue about the efficacy of such actions, and I would do just that as I think most sanctions only serve to empower the regime in power at the expense of its citizens, but to assume that those against human rights abuses support military intervention is something of a stretch.
Also, so far as I can tell, the only groups serious about overturning the Sudanese government is the neocon faction of those who consider themselves to be conservative. John McCain, as one example, would invade Sudan in a heart beat /if/ he thought the US had the resources to do it /and/ he thought success was attainable.
Atlanta, I don't understand what you are saying. Maybe that is because you didn't understand what I said.
Lee, thank you for commenting. I don't remember ever seeing your name in the comments before. I don't really think the American Left wants to wage war on China or Sudan. I don't think they like to do things that are really that difficult. It is much easier just to put a sticker on the Subaru and and feel good about wanting to free Tibet or stop Darfur genocide.
You don't state your opinoin about MFN for China, but I think I would like to see it ended. Of course, we have a problem in that China holds so much of our national debt and our "prosperity" depends on them buying more of it. Of course, the other thing to consider is this, should we only trade with people we like? That is an important question, because there are an awful lot of countries that abuse human rights. (The Socialist countries of Europe and the restricted speech zone known as Canada come to mind.)
I'm not making lightof this issue. I am just trying to point out that it is much more complicated than a Bumper Sticker, and I still hold that the bumper stickers are more about identifying the displayer's credentials as a caring person of the left.
Andrew, I read the excerpt of your book. It is on my list now. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Matt:
I'm not against MFN status for China per se because it isn't really `most favored', more like `no arbitrary restrictions.' When it comes to trade, I take a more or less a free trade sort of outlook because I think it has a track record as being the best way to bring down authoritarian regimes. Granted, it does take quite some time. But if you look at the record and compare regimes the US has had increasingly open relationships (China, Russia, etc.) and compare it to regimes that we've continued to isolate (Cuba, North Korea, etc.), I think it fairly easy to identify which policy has the best results. Just compare China and Cuba where they were in the early sixties to where they are now.
But as for the bumper stickers being `the easy thing.' I would agree but I would also point out that it isn't something that only the left does. Pro-life, and even Jesus fish, bumper stickers abound but most folks that put those stickers on their cars and minivans don't take much action.
As an aside, I think Atlanta's point was that many of the women getting abortions would end up as abusive mothers. Consequently, I think she would argue, that it isn't as if preventing these women from getting abortions would stop abuse, but only mitigate it. Hence, it is fair to say that in many ways, the right wing tends to be intellectually dishonest on this topic. While I myself do end up agreeing that many in the religious right are intellectually dishonest (just as many on the rabid left are), I don't know that I'd agree with her assessment vis a vis abortion versus child abuse.
I do think that the situation is much more nuanced than most people like to admit. Christian opposition to abortion goes back to the earliest generations of Christians. But on the other hand, we have no record of Christians petitioning to outlaw abortion during those first few centuries and most (not all) of the canons and texts that address the issue don't see abortion as a sin that is as heinous as infanticide. That we live in a democracy does cloud the issue. The oldest Christian texts don't really address the role of a Christian as a citizen in a participatory form of government and, worse, much of what passes for `Christian' political philosophy is really just modernism reformulated. I don't know I'd go as far as Karl Barth who once opined that in principle a Christian political party was an abomination to him, but I can't help wonder if it really ought to be the role of the Christian to work to legislate Christian mores.
Matt, Lee is a longtime internet friend. I posted this article on my Facebook as you know, so he may have found it there, and came here. Lee is right. Many women who would be forced to bear children out of wedlock if abortion were illegal would end up abusing their children. Now only that, I have an 80 year old Russian Orthodox friend on Facebook who believes abortion should be legal, that doesn't mean he supports it. He is happy to talk to any of my friends who might want to talk to him. If you are interested, I will let you know who he is. I was raised pro-choice, and am still pro-choice. I would not have an abortion or advise someone else to have one, but I also would not do something that would force me to consider having an abortion nor am I quick to associate with people who would be in the position of being forced to think about having one.
Post a Comment