Liberalguy

B(ar)ack to Sept. 10th, 2001 By Arnold Ahlert (bio)

As Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama made clear on Tuesday, he believes combatting international terror should be viewed as a “law enforcement problem” rather than a war. Preposterous? Not if you’re a modern-day liberal. Why? Consider two basic beliefs that inform liberals like Barack Obama. The first is moral relativity, aka there is no black and white, only shades of gray, also known as “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” The second is multiculturalism, aka no one culture is better than any other. Plug international terror into this mindset. First, moral relativity. When one bestows the same rights and privileges on non-citizen, non-uniformed, stateless jihadists as those granted to American citizens, we have elevated their status, and, as a result, legitimized their grievances. They may be morally deficient–but so are we, therefore they’re entitled to the “benefit of the doubt” that a civilian court of law provides. War, as far as liberals are concerned, is far too black and white: good guys trying to eliminate bad guys. In other words, war “forces one’s hand,” aka, you have to pick which side you’re on. For far too many liberals, having to back a “racist, imperialist, oil-scavenging” nation like America–without “hedging”–is a bridge too far. Referring to the fight against jihadism as a law enforcement problem allows them to split the moral difference. Multiculturalism? This is the notion that the sclerotic, stuck-in-the-7th-century cultural mindset that informs most of the Middle East, the one that is a proven incubator for Islamo-fascism, is no less legitimate than our own culture. Endeavoring to understand “why terrorists hate us” takes precedence over eliminating the threat they pose to our existence. That they have no similar reservations about killing as many of us as they can makes little difference. In addition, multiculturalism forces us to believe that which may or may not be true. How many times have Americans been told “moderate” Muslims are no threat to us whatsoever? How do we know that, exactly, and what, exactly, constitutes a “moderate” in a faith that commands “infidels” be treated as second-class citizens under the BEST of circumstances? In the midst of WWll, were Americans bending over backwards to differentiate between Nazis and “moderate” Germans? In a column by Bernard Goldberg in today’s Wall Street Journal, he mentions how the late Tim Russert viewed national security in a post-9/11 world: “It is imperative,” said Russert “that we never suggest that there’s a moral equivalency between the United States of America and the terrorists. Period. I’ll believe that until the day I die.” When terrorists get Constitutional rights, and liberals contend that a war is a law enforcement problem, we’re already there.