Dual Perspectives

I occasionally read Very Small Doses, which is a couple turns to my right and puts a lot more Jesus on my plate than I ordinarily prefer to stomach. However, it's well-written and intelligent, and its author recently brought up a point that I wanted to expand upon. He pointed out that political debate in America has polarized to such a degree that most people subscribe to one of two specific ideology (liberal or conservative) and each paints the other side as totally out of touch with reality.

I mentioned this in the "Two Truths" post, way back in the day. However, I feel like this is somewhat different. It's ceased to be a method of political discourse these days, and people actually buy into it with the zeal of religious fanatics (which, of course, a bunch of them are.) I basically get the same thing from my MoveOn.org e-mails and George Esseff's "What I Am" ad in the Washington Post. The orthodoxy of each side automatically portrays the other guy as misguided and uninformed- and that's using polite terminology.

The best example I've seen of this has been that poor woman protesting outside of Bush's ranch in Texas. As he continues his streak of being the hardest-vacationing president in history, Cindy Sheehan- whose son died in Iraq- arrived with an enormous media entourage to demand an audience with him and ask why her son died. In a move that shocked me, the Bush administration actually sent National Security Adviser Steven Hadley and Deputy Chief of Staff Joe Hagin out to meet with her. (In a move that did not shock me, Bush stayed inside.)

Essentially, this woman demanded to know why her son had died, and wanted all the troops brought home so that the killing would stop. I mean, this woman has pretty much made up her mind about what we're doing in Iraq (it's not worth it) and what we course we should take (get the hell out of Dodge.)

Of course, Steve Hadley and Joe Hagin had made up their minds as well. According to Sheehan, they were "very respectful" but gave her the "party line" about Iraq. For those of you keeping score, the party line is that we are keeping America safe by building an Iraqi democracy (which I don't totally disagree with,) we have to defeat the terrorists (yes, and it would help if we admitted that they wouldn't be there if we weren't) and that Saddam had to go because he was a threat to the free world (which is crap.)

Let's try to break this down. I think Sheehan does a pretty good job of representing the liberal side of the issue, and Hagin & Hadley do a good job of representing the conservative. Forgive me if I add a little more geopolitical detail to this, but here's how the whole thing looks to me.

Liberal: A lot of American troops are getting killed in a war that should never have happened in the first place- we went after WMD that didn't exist and we basically did it alone, because the rest of the world (rightly) told us we were crazy. Keeping our guys there is an attempt to establish an American stronghold in the Middle East, with strategic airbases and access to oil. Our interests would be best served by withdrawing from Iraq, which would free up resources to secure our homeland from terrorists and stop the loss of American troops.

Conservative: American troops are defending freedom in Iraq. WMDs didn't matter. Saddam was a threat to the free world and we've liberated a country. Those who criticize the war are undermining our national unity, and dishonoring the memory of the men and women who have died to advance the cause of freedom. Leaving Iraq before the job is done would send a message to terrorists that, given enough bloodshed, the United States can be intimidated.

I had a hard time even writing that conservative bit, because I simply don't understand the logic of it. For example, a lot of conservatives tell me that while I disagree with the war, the soldiers are fighting to preserve my right to say it. That's garbage. They're fighting because Bush sent them there on false pretenses. Even if Saddam had chemical- no, biological- no, NUCLEAR weapons, and he had lobbed one of them into downtown Manhattan, he wouldn't be threatening my right to say exactly what I felt about it. If the troops were actually defending my right to free speech, I'd grab a helmet and an M-16 and join them.

This is basically turning into Vietnam, with one horrible twist. Middle- and upper-class kids aren't getting drafted, so there is no widespread protest, no swarm of outrage on college campuses. If 3,000 working-class kids die in Iraq, there aren't going to be mass protests to bring them home, because no one with a good job or educational opportunities is left with the military as their only option. The lives of the soldiers in Iraq are no more expendable than the lives of the Bush twins, who Cindy Sheehan recommended be sent to Iraq.

This has been a little disjointed. However, if you have any other point-counterpoints on liberal/conservative issues that simply talk past each other, please e-mail me and let me hear them. I'd be interested to hear what you have to say.