I've ceased getting into web site pissing matches as they get really tedious really fast. So let me deal with this briefly as possible. Chad Schuldt says that I accuse "anyone to the left of the Pope of being 'unpatriotic.'" It's an odd charge, one filled with historical irony, to suggest that anyone would accuse people of being a bad Americans because they don't agree with the German Pope who lives in Vatican City. Throughout American history the opposite has been the case, that those who agree with the Pope were considered unpatriotic. Oh well.
The precipitating event of Mr. Schuldt's accusation seems to be this post. In it I link to and reproduce in part James Q. Wilson's argument that things are going better in Iraq than many suggest. I then said, "The idea that we are winning in Iraq will make much of the Left angry." I was careful in my language; perhaps too careful as Mr. Schuldt seems to have missed the subtlety. I said "much of the left," not all of it. If Mr. Schuldt does not consider himself angry at reports of success in Iraq, then the passage did not pertain to him. But there is the "Michael Moore left" that compares the Iraqi terrorists to the American revolutionaries. Michael Moore did say that he hoped more Americans would die in Iraq so George Bush would look bad. This same Michael Moore was given a place of honor at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, so one assumes that he and his views have some significant support among those on the left.
If Mr. Schuldt can produce evidence that I have questioned anyone's patriotism, let him air it. In this post I reproduced Glenn Reynold's accusation of lack of patriotism, but said that Reynolds was likely going to far. I did call Reynold's charge "intellectual food to chew on." Why? First, Glenn Reynolds is no idiot and so one takes what he says seriously. Second, one must admit that there is such thing as unpatriotic behavior. Well, what would that behavior look like? Reynold's had an opinion, from which I distanced myself. But it does get one thinking about what might actually characterize "unpatriotic" behavior. In an update I then favorably posted John Hinderaker saying "I don't recall ever having called anyone unpatriotic, and I don't
intend to start now." In this post I linked to and reproduced a section of a Mark Steyn column challenging the intestinal fortitude of some anti-war critics. I indicated agreement with the larger point of Steyn's column (that some anti-war critics, Jay Rockefeller to be specific, are unserious about American foreign policy), but at the same time called Steyn's rhetoric "overheated." In this post I linked to another Instapundit piece that said, in part, "1) Criticism of the war is not by itself unpatriotic 2)
Similarly, answering anti-war critics is not challenging their
patriotism." I then challenged the notion that anti-war critics were harming the troops. I said:
I'm not a big fan of the "it's hurting the troops" argument. Although,
in the abstract, it is possible that verbal arguments can hurt the
troops, the argument rings about as hollow to me as "it's for the
children." Whenever you hear "it's for the children" you can almost
guarantee it's about something else (and you'd also better hold on to
your wallet). Given that "it's hurting the troops" is the rhetorical
big gun, one had better be very discrete in how one throws around that
accusation.
I still hold this view, despite this report:
Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by
Democratic senators hurts troop morale -- with 44 percent saying morale
is hurt "a lot," according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even
self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts
morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale.
Most people think criticism hurts the troops. I think most people are wrong. I think those who disagree with the war should go on publicly disagreeing and explaining why they think the supporters of the war are wrong. And then those of us who support the war should go on publicly supporting it and explaining why those who oppose the war are wrong. The Washington Post story continues:
The results surely will rankle many Democrats, who argue that it is
patriotic and supportive of the troops to call attention to what they
believe are deep flaws in President Bush's Iraq strategy. But the
survey itself cannot be dismissed as a partisan attack. The RTs in RT
Strategies are Thomas Riehle, a Democrat, and Lance Tarrance, a veteran
GOP pollster.
Their poll also indicates many Americans are
skeptical of Democratic complaints about the war. Just three of 10
adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they
believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq. A majority believes the
motive is really to "gain a partisan political advantage."
I agree that many Democrats are challenging the war, and especially President Bush's motives, simply to "gain a partisan advantage." It is not so surprising that a political party should look for political advantage. But many Democrats are re-inventing history to explain away their own votes in favor of the war now that they think the political winds are moving in another direction. I think that is deeply irresponsible, but I have not and will not call it unpatriotic. If Mr. Schuldt attacks the President and opposes the war out of deep conviction rather than to "gain a partisan advantage," then so be it and he is not the subject of my or anyone else's criticisms on that matter.
One reason not to respond to blog attacks is that most of them are on the level of "You are wrong, and my evidence that you are wrong is that you make me mad." This website continues to vigorously support the war and challenge those who oppose it on flimsy grounds. And until those anti-war folks start actively rooting on the terrorists, we have not and will not challenge their patriotism.
By the way, Seth, Fred Phelps of "God Hates Fags" infamy is a registered Democrat, not a Republican.
Recent Comments