In One Eye
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Digby links to the following with the surprising statement that the writer, Peter Daou,
points out the overlooked fact that the left views the war from a moral standpoint—indeed, the left views our relationship with the world from a moral standpoint—while the right sees both those things from a material standpoint. It seems obvious now that he's brought it up, but I've never actually thought about it quite that way before.I respect Digby a lot, but it's shocking that he's "never actually thought" about the fundamental difference between the left and the right. Certainly, this blog has frequently bemoaned the lack of Christian ethics that Dear Leader and his cronies evince while all the time asserting their spirituality. Any Christian who pays attention can see this phenomenon. Perhaps Digby needs to go to church more. Anyway, here's Daou's thesis.
The unbridgeable divide between the left and right’s approach to Iraq and the WoT is, among other things, a disagreement over the value of moral and material strength, with the left placing a premium on the former and the right on the latter. The right (broadly speaking) can’t fathom why the left is driven into fits of rage over every Abu Ghraib, every Gitmo, every secret rendition, every breach of civil liberties, every shifting rationale for war, every soldier and civilian killed in that war, every Bush platitude in support of it, every attempt to squelch dissent. They see the left's protestations as appeasement of a ruthless enemy. For the left (broadly speaking), America’s moral strength is of paramount importance; without it, all the brute force in the world won’t keep us safe, defeat our enemies, and preserve our role as the world’s moral leader ...I may be missing something in Digby's statement, but this (while very well articulated) seems a no-brainer.