Is Supporting Freedom “Meddling”?

David C. Stolinsky, MD
June 25, 2009

http://www.jeffjacoby.com/jacoby/pics/large/278.jpg

President Obama’s initial, tepid statement on Iran warned against “meddling” in the disputed election. He did not comment on how almost 40 million paper ballots could have been counted in a few hours. Obama claimed that there was little to choose between “President” Ahmadinejad and Mousavi, the ostensible loser. Meanwhile, the TV showed demonstrators being arrested, beaten and shot.

After Congress assumed the leadership role and passed a resolution condemning the Iranian regime’s suppression of dissent, the President was forced to issue a slightly less tepid statement.

During all the debates between all the Democratic presidential hopefuls in 2008, the words “terrorist,” “terrorism,” “Islamo-fascism” or “radical Islam” were never mentioned − not once, not even by one candidate. Now the global war on terror has been renamed “overseas contingency operations.” There’s a name to strike fear into the hearts of terrorists.

So President Obama’s reticence should not be surprising. It is difficult to speak out against what one cannot even name, much less recognize as evil. And it is difficult to speak out in support of people we see as no better than their oppressors.

Besides, silence is not the same as neutrality. When a criminal is beating a victim, standing by idly is not being neutral − it is favoring the criminal by our inaction. In such cases, doing nothing is evidence of apathy, not neutrality.

Ahmadinejad repeatedly leads crowds in chanting, “Death to America!” But we must be careful not to antagonize him? How much more antagonized could he be? He orders the arrest, beating and shooting of political dissidents. But we must be careful not to anger him? How much angrier could he be? He blames America for whatever goes wrong in the world, including the demonstrations against his regime. But we must be careful not to encourage the demonstrators, lest he blame us? He already blames us, despite our attempts to ingratiate ourselves.

What makes some people too timid to “meddle” when tyrants brutally oppress their people? What makes some people too dense to understand that if a regime treats its own people with brutality, it will surely treat others with brutality − including us and our friends, if we still have any.

What are the reasons for such behavior?

Moral and intellectual cowardice.

Liberals condemn and bully our friends when they disappoint us, but they coddle evil, violent enemies. Thus the U.S. government bullies Israel about the “settlements,” but ignores Iran’s repeated threats to wipe Israel off the map − while developing the nuclear weapons and missiles with which to do it.

In part, this is due to the typical liberal attraction to tyrannical regimes. Perhaps liberals empathize with tyrants − they both share a lust for centralized power, as well as an urge to control every aspect of daily life.

Islamic extremists dictate what women must wear for “religious” reasons, while liberals dictate what light bulbs and toilets we must use for “environmental” reasons, but they both seek to reduce our freedom. Ultimately both tyrants and liberals seek the power of life and death. Tyrants use direct methods and shoot dissidents in the streets, while liberals take a more subtle approach and ration health care. But in the end, you’re just as dead.

Moral equivalence.

Liberals claim to see no difference between those demonstrating for freedom and those who beat them, so why should they speak out for the demonstrators and against the oppressors? If everything and everyone fades into an indistinguishable shade of gray, there are no more causes or people to support − even in words. And there are no more causes or people to oppose − even in words.

A headline in the Los Angeles Times reported the brutal suppression of Iranian demonstrators thus: “Tehran clashes grow more brutal.” The suppression is not described as brutal. No, merely the “clashes” are brutal. The sub-head continues: “Challenger Mousavi won’t relent.” Not “challenger won’t concede,” not “Iranian regime won’t relent,” but “Mousavi won’t relent.” The Times, like many liberals, is unable to distinguish between those who instigate violence and those who react to violence.

For many liberals, tyrants aren’t brutal − “clashes” are brutal. Violence isn’t something perpetrated by evildoers on victims − it just “breaks out,” like acne. Everything is “nuanced,” which has come to mean, “What do I care?”

Fascination with predators.

Animal Planet showed a program involving a retired teacher who left his children and grandchildren and went to live in a cabin in Alaska, where he befriended bears. He got along well, with only an occasional bite.

On day a female bear he knew appeared with a bad limp. Grizzlies, not being social animals, do not take care of one another. On the contrary, another bear attacked the injured female and drove her away from the food. The man could do nothing.

This epitomizes the mindset of many liberals. They sympathize with criminals and invent a myriad excuses for violent behavior, but they have little sympathy left for crime victims. They hold candlelight vigils at prisons when executions are scheduled, but they hold no vigils at the homes of the victims’ families. They are fascinated with tyrants and try in vain to appease aggressors, but they have little sympathy left for the oppressed.

Like the man who preferred the company of grizzlies to that of humans, they subconsciously envy the ruthless and the violent, but they try to cloak this unpleasant trait in the robes of “tolerance” and “understanding.” They never heard the proverb, “He who is kind to the cruel will in the end be cruel to the kind.”

Closet racism.

Of course, we Americans are entitled to freedom. We are entitled to select our own presidential candidates, and not have them selected for us by an unelected “Supreme Leader.” We are entitled to a secret ballot and an honest vote count. We are entitled to worship as we please, or not worship, or change our religion, and not be persecuted or killed. Our women are entitled to dress as they please, and not be beaten in the street. But Iranians must be an inferior species not entitled to these rights. Liberals would never admit to being closet racists, but many of them are.

Recall the words of Martin Luther King Jr.:

I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the…great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is the white moderate…who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for someone else’s freedom…

Liberals claimed that Iraqis weren’t ready for freedom. But Iraqis are in the process of proving the opposite. Now liberals claim that Iranians aren’t ready for freedom. But Iranian men and women are risking their lives to demonstrate for freedom. Who are we to tell others that they aren’t ready for freedom? Talk about paternalism. Talk about egotism. Talk about racism. These faults are said to be characteristic of conservatives, but in fact it is liberals who exemplify them.

Unwillingness to “meddle.”

Is it “meddling” to speak out for those who yearn for freedom, and against those who arrest, beat and shoot them? Perhaps. But if so, we have a moral duty to “meddle.” Pastor Niemoeller learned that from bitter experience. He didn’t speak out against Nazism until it was too late, and he wound up in a concentration camp scheduled for execution.

He was rescued by American troops. Fortunately, they were not afraid to “meddle.” In fact, they “meddled” across Europe and Asia, liberating millions from oppression. In those days, our attitude toward freedom was a bit less “nuanced,” both overseas and at home.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. He can be contacted at dstol@prodigy.net.

www.stolinsky.com