Friday, March 21, 2003
While I don't disagree with that, I'd like to add to the discussion by pointing out the moral superiority most anti-war folks feel towards the rest of us. They feel this way for a lot of reasons - we don't go to the right movies, read the right books, work in the proper professions - but it's primarily because they believe they are part of an enlightened, elitist social class where violence and force are not used to resolve differences. This view is found in (old) Europe, the UN, college faculties across America, and, as Peggy Noonan wrote not too long ago, in the Democratic Party. To these groups, those of us who still believe in the use of force haven't fully developed - we're not viewed as being stupid, we're simply viewed as being more simple.
Thinking this way, it's impossible for them to support this war, or any war. For them to do so, they would have to acknowledge that, depending on the circumstances, there is a place for using force. Unfortunately, that would put them in the position of being, as the joke goes, we would have determined what the lady is and we're down to discussing the price. Supporting the use of force, at any time, would knock them off their morally superior pedestal and into the crowd - a crowd they really, really, really, don't respect.
For it's also impossible for them to respect those who do believe in the use of force. Not being their moral equals (refer again to Peggy Noonan's writings), we are not worthy of their respect, and their condencesation shows. How else to account for those who equate Bush with Hitler? To the anti-war folks, Bush and Hitler are just two men who believe(d) in the use of force. With there being no acceptable reasons for using force, they see no need to make distinctions between the force used to subrogate Iraq and the force used to liberate Iraq. To the anti-war folks, it's all the same, and we're all the same. It's sad, but they really can't tell the difference.