Ace of Spades HQ

« What a Shock: Yanukovich to Challenge Ukrainian Election Results | Main | Keith Olbermann: Still Douching It Up Over Ohio »

December 27, 2004

The Silence of the Left

Via Instapundit, this trenchant observation about the left's continuing lack of interest in democracy and freedom:

But what I noticed was not a story that everybody was linking to and commenting on, but one that was going for the most part unnoticed: the election in Ukraine.
I went to The Washington Monthly, Tom Paine, The New Republic, Joshua Marshall, even Atrios, among several others. Nothing. Only DailyKos bothered to mention it, and then with a dismissive "We've been here before."

What's up with the left? I would think that this is the exact kind of thing to get the liberal blood going. It's certainly brightening my day. I know that this is Christmas week and there is the temptation to take it a little easy between now and the end of the year, but what we have witnessed in Ukraine this past month has to be one of the biggest stories of the year.

We have witnessed, in a former Soviet satellite not only a peaceful revolution and vote, but an event which will have long-range ramifications for Europe, Russia, the US and in fact the world. Russian political reach has been hampered as speculation is already running on the possibility of Ukraine's accession to the EU. Soft support by the United States and European countries showed not only that principled, moral support can propel a people towards self-rule, but demonstrated that America and Europe can still work together on the big issues.

The thousands shivering in makeshift tents in Kiev's Independence Square epitomized the best impulses of human yearning to be free, to choose leaders and to do it justly and peacefully.

...

I'm starting to believe that the modern left is not interested in the march of freedom and democracy so much as heaping petty spite and hateful condescension on the rebellious children of a long-lamented deceased empire. There is a certain nostalgia for the old Soviet Union, to be sure. Throughout the eastern half of Ukraine and into pockets of former client states, tears are still shed for Mother Russia and the Great Soviet Experiment. Kazakstan still considers itself to be "a Soviet Republic" and then there's Turkmenistan, home to Turkmenbashi, the Last of the Red Hot Dictators. But what about the left in the west?

It's an uncharitable interpretation, to be sure. But can someone on the left provide a more charitable one?

It's a curious thing. I will concede that the left probably is interested in freedom and democracy. The problem is, that interest seems to be subordinate to rooting against US interests, and when the two come into conflict, it's the latter impulse that wins out.

The result? As Jonathan "The Duke" Mardukas said of John Wesley Walsh, "You have only two modes of expression: silence, and rage." (To which observation Walsh raged silently, of course.)

posted by Ace at 02:11 PM

Comments

I will concede that the left probably is interested in freedom and democracy.

Don't be so hasty, Ace. Let's examine some proof, first.

Cordially...

Posted by: Rick on December 27, 2004 02:19 PM

FWIW, I did hear extensive reporting on the Ukraine elections this weekend on NPR ("National Pinko Radio") news.

Posted by: Alex on December 27, 2004 02:32 PM

If you can think rationally for a moment and try to avoid making a joke about how weak the left and French are, you can actually see that the left DOES care.
Maybe its not good for your schtick to admit the left cares about freedom and democracy. But its true. 56 million + voters cared enough 2 months ago.

I am beginning to see why the US is going to remain a divided country for the foreseeable future. Its because there are many people like you who wear your philosophical/political sunglasses that blind you from understanding the POV of the left. They are not a bunch of tree hugging, cry baby sissies who don't care about freeing oppressed nations and the democratic process. Just like the right is not a bunch of gun toting war mongers who want to destroy the environment.

Posted by: Ryan on December 27, 2004 02:45 PM

Ryan, I'm guessing your preferred mode would be "rage."

Posted by: Rocketeer67 on December 27, 2004 03:05 PM

They're a buncha damn commies, of course they don't care about Democracy. At least not for the past 40 years.

Posted by: blaster on December 27, 2004 03:52 PM

While you Republicans are mired in the war for democracy we are doing quite well, thank you, in the fight against Christmas and the Boy Scouts.

Posted by: Robert on December 27, 2004 04:12 PM

I am ENRAGED.............grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Posted by: Ryan on December 27, 2004 04:28 PM

Can you do "silent" too?

Posted by: Rocketeer67 on December 27, 2004 04:31 PM

Yes Rockette69. Yes I can. Will I? Ummm.....no. That would make me one of those lefties who "don't care" and will let humorless righties like you keep them down.

Posted by: Ryan on December 27, 2004 04:44 PM

Well at least you're not pigeonholing us humorless righties, Ryan.

(Wait...'Gun-toting warmongers'....you say that like its a bad thing.)

Posted by: lauraw on December 27, 2004 05:07 PM

Me, I'm not humorless. I laugh. When it's funny. That "Rockette69" comment? An example of "not funny," and I even have an overgrown self-deprecation gland. I guess you get points for a really strained attempt, though, but it's just because I'm in a generous mood.

Try to buck up, and remember it's not me or anyone else on the right that keeps the left down, buddy. No need, when Dems keep pointing their noses at the ground and putting the throttle through the firewall themselves.

Cheers, and good for you for Caring, for Fighting the Valiant Fight, for Standing Up To the Man, and Refusing to Let Him Keep You Down.

Posted by: Rocketeer67 on December 27, 2004 05:17 PM

Ryan, the first line of Ace's commentary was a request to someone on the left to provide an example, some proof that the left does in fact care about freedom and democracy. I'm not saying that there isn't any, but the fact that a bunch of people voted for a dem dosen't really answer the question. Find an example of where someone on the hard left, not even wacko left but dedicated left, that shows more of an interest in international democracy than in forwarding their european-style socialist agenda.

Don't just rant about stereotypes, provide some evidence that the stereotype is wrong.

Posted by: francisthegreat on December 27, 2004 06:07 PM

I think a reason that the second election in the Ukraine is going for the most part unnoticed is that it's a success story. No telegraphed, or blogged, reports of outrageous malfeasance with pleas for help; it was a democratic vote that went nicely democratically. Of course we responded, helpfully, we hoped, to tens of (hundreds of?) thousands of pro-democracy protestors in round one; in round two, what's to respond to? All's well in hand, they voted like we do. "Yawn" is a highly meaningful response, and it would be great if no catastrophe shakes us out of that.

Posted by: m on December 27, 2004 07:14 PM

Face it, anyone who is a leftist in this day and age is a total bleeping idiot. I only swing left to get laid. Other than that, rationally, I crap on lefties.

Posted by: leftyparnone on December 27, 2004 07:24 PM

The problem with the Red Left in America today is the same problem the Whites (Czarists) had in Russia up until 1920: They were so busy being against their enemies that they didn't spend any time being for their own principles. Hell, neither group, when pressed, is capable of enunciating and defending the principles on which their politics are based.

The results for both movements will be the same, although in not quite as brutal a fashion, this time around.

Posted by: Mr. Bowen on December 27, 2004 10:50 PM

"Maybe its not good for your schtick to admit the left cares about freedom and democracy. But its true. 56 million + voters cared enough 2 months ago." - Ryan

I thought most of those were "Democrats". You mean they were all Leftists?

Heh. So much for "the Left not representing all Democrats", huh?

"the right is not a bunch of gun toting war mongers who want to destroy the environment" - Ryan

Are too.

Who's been spreading those vicious and unwarranted slanders saying we're not? (00) You take that back right now, y'heah? ;]

*yawn* I'll belive that Leftists believe in freedom and liberty when they actually start supporting it rather than always backing the most anti-libertarian political agendas they can in the name of "Rights". Or the Democrat Party goes the way of the Know Nothings. Til then...

Damn right the US is going to remain a divided country for the foreseeable future. Ya'll got nuthin' I care to unite with.

Posted by: Ironbear on December 27, 2004 10:54 PM

I hear where Ryan is coming from. But I get the feeling he doesn't want to do the work it takes to show you what you want to see. I am also too lazy to give you the prrof you need. But logic tells me that people on the left do care. Many of them are fighting wars for us right now.

Posted by: Ranger on December 28, 2004 10:00 AM

Yeah, if by "many" you mean "around 25%". Sheesh.

Posted by: Mr. Bowen on December 28, 2004 11:45 AM

i have a liberal friend who was an election observer (along with several other liberals, no conservatives) in the first ukraine election. they all went back for the most recent election. she says she didn't meet an american conservative over there. she also works at a democracy promotion organization that monitors democratic elections the world over; to her knowledge, there isn't a conservative person in the place.

maybe you don't hear liberals talking so much about this stuff because they're actually out there doing it instead of blowing hot air.

Posted by: catherine on December 28, 2004 10:31 PM

Wow. Do you mean to say that maybe there are democrats/liberals/lefties out there who care? I am flabergasted. I can't believe its true. According to all Ihave read only republicans/conservatives/righties gave a damn.

Maybe they both do? Hmmmm

Posted by: Ryan on December 29, 2004 10:09 AM

I didn't say that I don't think that there is anyone on the left that cares. I happen to think that there is. But coming in here and whining like a bitch isn't the same as "coherent argument", which is what I was trying to draw out. Ryan, unfortunatly, appears to prefer to keep whining. Catherine, that's a good example, but I was looking more for someone in a leadership/high-profile position.

Posted by: francisthegreat on December 29, 2004 06:13 PM

Amazon.com Widgets

Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]

Top Headlines

Ryan Long goes to the No Kings rally to pick up young liberal hotties and is greatly disappointed in the quality of the mish
thanks to stevey

You know we "joke" about the GOPe just "conserving" leftist things?
David French just posted:

Populists ask what conservativism has ever conserved?
Well its about to conserve birthright citizenship!
Posted by: 18-1

I couldn't hate this queen of the cuck-chair more if it paid seven figures and came with a corner office.

TJM definitively ranks the films of John Boorman.

Kid punks CNN chump by speaking truth to retard

Podcast: CBD and Sefton talk birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment and SCOTUS, no boots in Iran, Artemis II and refocusing NASA, the NBA's hatred of everything non-woke, and more!

In more marketing for Project Hail Mary, scientists say they've found the biosigns indicating life growing on an alien planet. It's not proof, just signatures of chemicals that are produced by biological metabolism, and it could be nothing, but scientists think it's a strong sign that this planet is inhabited by something.

In a paper published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, a team of scientists announced the detection of dimethyl sulfide (along with a similar detection of dimethyl disulfide) in the atmosphere of an exoplanet called K2-18b. This is actually the second detection of dimethyl sulfide made on this planet, following a tentative detection in 2023.
Tons of chemicals are detected in the atmospheres of celestial objects every day. But dimethyl sulfide is different, because on Earth, it's only produced by living organisms.
"It is a shock to the system," Nikku Madhusudhan, first author on the paper, told the New York Times. "We spent an enormous amount of time just trying to get rid of the signal."

He means they tried to prove the signal was caused by things other than dimethyl sulfide but they could not.

Artemis moon shot a go, scheduled for 6:24 Eastern time tonight
Great marketing arranged by Amazon to promote Project Hail Mary. Okay not really but it does work out that way.

TJM talks John Boorman, director of Excalibur

Good rickroll

What? Skeleton of the most famous Musketeer, D'Artagnan, possibly discovered in Dutch church closet.
Dumas picked four names of real musketeers out of a history book, D'Artagnan, Athos, Aramis, and Porthos. So there was an actual D'Artagnan, though he made most of the story up. (Or, you know, all of it.)*

Charles de Batz de Castelmore, known as d'Artagnan, the famous musketeer of Kings Louis XIII and Louis XIV, spent his life in the service of the French crown.
The Gascon nobleman inspired Alexandre Dumas's hero in "The Three Musketeers" in the 19th century, a character now known worldwide thanks to the novel and numerous film adaptations.
D'Artagnan was killed during the siege of Maastricht in 1673, and there is a statue honoring the musketeer in the city. His final resting place has remained a mystery ever since.

A lot of Dumas's stories are based on bits of real history. The plot of the >Three Musketeers, about trying to recover lost diamonds from the queen's necklace, was cribbed from the then-almost-contemporaneous Affair of the Queen's Necklace. And the Man in the Iron Mask is based on real accounts of a prisoner forced to wear a mask (though I think it was a velvet mask).
* Oh, I should mention, Dumas says all this, about finding the names in an old book, in the prologue to his novel. But authors lie a lot. They frequently present fictions as based on historic fact. The twist is, he was actually telling the truth here. At least about these four musketeers having actually existed and served under Louis XIV.
Fun fact: You know the beginning of A Fistful of Dollars where the local gunslingers make fun of Clint Eastwood's donkey and Eastwood demands they apologize to the donkey? That's lifted from The Three Musketeers. Rochefort mocks D'Artagnan's old, brokedown farm horse and D'Artagnan is incensed.

A commenter asked which should be read first, The Hobbit of LOTR?
Easy, no question -- read The Hobbit first. It's actually the start of the story and comes first chronologically. It sets up some major characters and major pieces in play in LOTR.
Also, the Hobbit is Beginner-Friendly, which LOTR isn't. The Hobbit really is a delightful book, and a fast read. It's chatty, it's casual, it's exciting, and it's funny. In that dry cheeky British humor way. I love that the narrator is constantly making little asides and commentary, like he's just sitting next to you telling you this story as it occurs to him.
LOTR is a very long story. Fifteen hundred pages or so. The Hobbit is relatively short and very punchy and easy to read. If you don't like The Hobbit, you can skip out on LOTR. If you do like it, you'll be primed to read LOTR.
Oh, I should say: The Hobbit is written as if it's for children, but one of those smart children's stories that are also for adults. Don't worry, there's also real fighting and violence and horror in it, too.
LOTR is written for adults. (It's said that Tolkien wrote both for his children, but LOTR was written 17 years later, when his children were adults.) Some might not like The Hobbit due to its sometimes frivolous tone. Me, I love it. I find it constantly amusing. Both are really good but there is a starkly different tone to both. LOTR is epic, grand, and serious, about a world war, The Hobbit is light and breezy, and about a heist. Though a heist that culminates in a war for the spoils.

The Hobbit Challenge: Read two more chapters. I didn't have much time. Bilbo got the ring.
I noticed a continuity problem. Maybe. Now, as of the time of The Hobbit, it was unknown that this magic ring was in fact a Ring of Power, and it was doubly unknown that it was the Ring of Power, the Master Ring that controlled the others.
But the narrator -- who we will learn in LOTR was none of than Bilbo himself, who wrote the book as "There and Back Again" -- says this about Gollum's ring:
"But who knows how Gollum had come by that present [the Ring], ages ago in the old days when such rings were still at large in the world? Perhaps even the Master who ruled them could not have said."
In another passage, the ring is identified as a "ring of power."
I don't know, I always thought there was a distinction between mere magic rings and the Rings of Power created by Sauron. But this suggests that Bilbo knew this was a ring of power created by Sauron.
Now I don't remember when Bilbo wrote the Hobbit. In the movie, he shows Frodo the book in Rivendell, and I guess he wrote it after he left the Shire. I guess he might have added in the part about the ring being a ring of power created by "the Master" after Gandalf appraised him of his research into the ring.
I never noticed this before. I know Tolkien re-wrote this chapter while he was writing LOTR to make the ring important from the start. And also to make Gollum more sinister and evil, and also to remove the part where Gollum actually offers Bilbo the ring as a "present" -- Bilbo had already found it on his own, but Gollum was wiling to give it away, which obviously is not something the rewritten Gollum would ever do.
But I had no memory of the ring being suggested to be The Ring so early in the tale.

Finish the job, Mr. President!
Melanie Phillips lays out the case for the total destruction of the Iranian government and armed forces. [CBD]

TJM acts like he knows anything about John Wick and screenwriting. It's embarrassing, really.

Podcast: Sefton and CBD talk about how would a peace treaty with Iran work, Democrats defending murderers and rapists, The GOP vs. Dem bench for 2028, composting bodies? And more!

Oh, I forgot to mention this quote from Pete Hegseth, reported by Roger Kimball: "We are sharing the ocean with the Iranian Navy. We're giving them the bottom half."

Batman fires The Batman
Batman is disgusted by the Joachim Phoenix version of Joker
Batman tries to fire Superman
Batman is still workshopping his Bat-Voice

Forgotten 80s Mystery Click: Red Leather Suit and Sweatband Edition
And I was here to please
I'm even on knees
Makin' love to whoever I please
I gotta do it my way
Or no way at all

Tomorrow is March 25th, "Tolkien Reading Day," because March 25th is the day when the Ring is destroyed in the book. I think I'm going to start the Hobbit tomorrow and read all four books this time.
The only bad part of the trilogy are the Frodo/Sam chapters in The Two Towers. They're repetitive, slow, and mostly about the weather and terrain. But most everything else is good. Weirdly, the Frodo-Sam chapters in Return of the King are exciting and action-packed and among the best in the trilogy. (Though the chapters with everyone else in Return of the King get pretty slow again. Mostly people talking about marching towards war, and then marching towards war.)

Sec. Army recognizes ODU Army ROTC cadets for their bravery and sacrifice in private ceremony
[Hat Tip: Diogenes] [CBD]