Why does the Left love dictatorships and their rulers?
An opinion piece.....
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
Why does the Left, that entity which claims to so admire things like freedom of speech, the press, thought and things like Human Rights, why do they always seem to embrace the totalitarians and tyrants? The dictatorships and despots?
Why do they, these arbiters of unfettered personal expression, always find ways to explain away their favorite tinpot Hitler's oppressive indescretions and apologize for their abuses?
I've seen these questions debated again and again here on JU; why do the dictatorships get a pass, while the democracies, the ones they SHOULD be supporting, always seem to come under their fire?
Like when they do things such as impose sanctions against dictators and their nations, and especially when they increase their building of arms to stand against the oppression symbolized by the totalitarians. Instead of working to free the oppressed, it seems the liberals are more than happy to let their favorite tyrants go merrily about their business unmolested.
For example, as Jimmy Carter spent four years coddling the Soviets and schmoosing Fidel Castro, all the while ignoring, and even lending tacit support to, Leftist stirrings in Central Amercia and Africa, democracy lost ground the world over. We got weaker by the day.
Ronald Reagan went into office and, eight years later, against the warning cries and apologizing of Democrats in the House and Senate, and that of liberal elements among our "allies" (all of whom would have been much more than content with some level of peaceful co-existence with the USSR), had virtually ended forty years of Cold War, advancing the frontiers of democracy everywhere.
Leftwing elements the world over decried his policies as fascist, militaristic and oppressive. This, even as he funded the upgrading of Voice of America and Radio Liberty and supported and nutured the fledgling, suppressed Solidarity movement in Poland to the chagrin of the Polish government, the USSR and the "Democratic" Republic of Germany (East Germany).
And what of his aid to the beseiged Mujahedeen in Afghanistan? Those people, he backed against direct Soviet aggression.
Where were the cries of "militarists!" and "oppressors!" from demonstrators outside Soviet and Eastern Bloc nation's embassies?
The Bush 41 Administration attacked Iraq to the derisive cries of the Left, who kept imagining, or perhaps wistfully envisioning, another Vietnam quagmire. Instead, sadly for them, the war was over in 100 days; their blustering, beloved tyrant Saddam's tail was tucked firmly between his legs until January 1993, when Slick Willy the (Barely) Closet(ed) Socialist came into office and let America be pushed all over the place by the UN and their anti-American mafia of grafters and rabid Internationalists.
He spent the next eight years squandering or frittering away America's newfound, rightly-claimed status as Sole Superpower.
Then came Bush 42 and 9-11....liberals the world over, though "saddened" by the great loss of life, understood completely how the Islamics could come to hate us for our arrogance and riches, and to strike us so coldly and callously. Some of the more pure-biled lefty America-lasters even cheered.
In 2002, it became clear, as it had for about a decade, that Saddam just may have been dabbling in a WMD program. Senators and members Congress from both sides agreed, again, as they had for about a decade, that the intelligence data was well-represented, and that something must be done. Soon.
So, off to war we went.
As time progressed, however, it became apparent that the sought-for WMDs were not presenting themselves as promised; so, like the sore-loser, cowardly weasels they are, the Democrats started carping against the Bush Administration, forgetting the data they all agreed on as being correct, in a thinly-disguised effort at payback for "stealing" the election from their robocandidate, Aldroid Gore.
And, true to form, the Left always finds ways to excuse Saddam for his behavior, and to apologize to everyone for and explain away, ignore or gloss over, the rape rooms, torture chambers, the mass graves, the multiple, opulent, czarist palaces....etc, while at the same time berating the US for it's "poor behavior" and "torture"; like giving terrorist prisoners "pink bellies" (slapping their bellies until they become pink.....like the bully in 3rd grade did to you).
What's next? Decrying the noogies and swirlies inflicted on the poor prisoners? What about pants-ing? Would that be considered torture, too?
Nothing the US is doing in Iraq is right or good, especially the toppling of a tyrant and the attempted installation of a free, democratic government. Who wants that, right?
Not the Democrats; they want:
1. Bush to be impeached. Why? Because; they don't like him.
2. The US to lose in Iraq; mainly so we can be embarrassed, and if all goes well, maybe a strong man can take control again, and lord his will over the entire country. That they can understand and support, after all. "Of the People, by the People"?.....too messy.
Why do they do this? Why do they love dictators?
I think I know; I think we all do......
The Left loves Big Government.
What represents the purest, most unalloyed form of Big Government than an omnipresent dictatorship, one which holds all the cards and controls and manages the very lives of the people it rules, even down to what can and can't be purchased or owned?
Dictatorships (especially Socialists) own everything, and decide who gets what and when. This is an ideal which appeals very much to the Socialist in every Democrat/liberal.
Unfortunately, since many of them serving in the House and Senate now were radicals and long-haired hippie demonstrators in the 60s, this ideal is very attractive to them.
Also, a dictatorship doesn't have to stand for opposition to its tenets from dissidents and naysayers who point out its faults, as the Left has to in the Democracies.
The nitpickers and faultfinders in a dictatorship are jailed or killed outright for their opinions, rather than debated and/or tolerated. Wouldn't the Clintons and Kerry have loved to do either to such complainers and troublemakers Limbaugh and Hannity, Coulter and Sowell? You betchya they would.
Freedom of expression is wonderful, so long as you're not the target, and with its ongoing implosion, the Democratic party has been the bullseye for many a sharply-thrown dart from the Right.
So, That's why I think the Left loves its tyrants. You're free to disagree, however.....after all, Communism is dead.
Thanks for that, Mr. Reagan.
Why do they, these arbiters of unfettered personal expression, always find ways to explain away their favorite tinpot Hitler's oppressive indescretions and apologize for their abuses?
I've seen these questions debated again and again here on JU; why do the dictatorships get a pass, while the democracies, the ones they SHOULD be supporting, always seem to come under their fire?
Like when they do things such as impose sanctions against dictators and their nations, and especially when they increase their building of arms to stand against the oppression symbolized by the totalitarians. Instead of working to free the oppressed, it seems the liberals are more than happy to let their favorite tyrants go merrily about their business unmolested.
For example, as Jimmy Carter spent four years coddling the Soviets and schmoosing Fidel Castro, all the while ignoring, and even lending tacit support to, Leftist stirrings in Central Amercia and Africa, democracy lost ground the world over. We got weaker by the day.
Ronald Reagan went into office and, eight years later, against the warning cries and apologizing of Democrats in the House and Senate, and that of liberal elements among our "allies" (all of whom would have been much more than content with some level of peaceful co-existence with the USSR), had virtually ended forty years of Cold War, advancing the frontiers of democracy everywhere.
Leftwing elements the world over decried his policies as fascist, militaristic and oppressive. This, even as he funded the upgrading of Voice of America and Radio Liberty and supported and nutured the fledgling, suppressed Solidarity movement in Poland to the chagrin of the Polish government, the USSR and the "Democratic" Republic of Germany (East Germany).
And what of his aid to the beseiged Mujahedeen in Afghanistan? Those people, he backed against direct Soviet aggression.
Where were the cries of "militarists!" and "oppressors!" from demonstrators outside Soviet and Eastern Bloc nation's embassies?
The Bush 41 Administration attacked Iraq to the derisive cries of the Left, who kept imagining, or perhaps wistfully envisioning, another Vietnam quagmire. Instead, sadly for them, the war was over in 100 days; their blustering, beloved tyrant Saddam's tail was tucked firmly between his legs until January 1993, when Slick Willy the (Barely) Closet(ed) Socialist came into office and let America be pushed all over the place by the UN and their anti-American mafia of grafters and rabid Internationalists.
He spent the next eight years squandering or frittering away America's newfound, rightly-claimed status as Sole Superpower.
Then came Bush 42 and 9-11....liberals the world over, though "saddened" by the great loss of life, understood completely how the Islamics could come to hate us for our arrogance and riches, and to strike us so coldly and callously. Some of the more pure-biled lefty America-lasters even cheered.
In 2002, it became clear, as it had for about a decade, that Saddam just may have been dabbling in a WMD program. Senators and members Congress from both sides agreed, again, as they had for about a decade, that the intelligence data was well-represented, and that something must be done. Soon.
So, off to war we went.
As time progressed, however, it became apparent that the sought-for WMDs were not presenting themselves as promised; so, like the sore-loser, cowardly weasels they are, the Democrats started carping against the Bush Administration, forgetting the data they all agreed on as being correct, in a thinly-disguised effort at payback for "stealing" the election from their robocandidate, Aldroid Gore.
And, true to form, the Left always finds ways to excuse Saddam for his behavior, and to apologize to everyone for and explain away, ignore or gloss over, the rape rooms, torture chambers, the mass graves, the multiple, opulent, czarist palaces....etc, while at the same time berating the US for it's "poor behavior" and "torture"; like giving terrorist prisoners "pink bellies" (slapping their bellies until they become pink.....like the bully in 3rd grade did to you).
What's next? Decrying the noogies and swirlies inflicted on the poor prisoners? What about pants-ing? Would that be considered torture, too?
Nothing the US is doing in Iraq is right or good, especially the toppling of a tyrant and the attempted installation of a free, democratic government. Who wants that, right?
Not the Democrats; they want:
1. Bush to be impeached. Why? Because; they don't like him.
2. The US to lose in Iraq; mainly so we can be embarrassed, and if all goes well, maybe a strong man can take control again, and lord his will over the entire country. That they can understand and support, after all. "Of the People, by the People"?.....too messy.
Why do they do this? Why do they love dictators?
I think I know; I think we all do......
The Left loves Big Government.
What represents the purest, most unalloyed form of Big Government than an omnipresent dictatorship, one which holds all the cards and controls and manages the very lives of the people it rules, even down to what can and can't be purchased or owned?
Dictatorships (especially Socialists) own everything, and decide who gets what and when. This is an ideal which appeals very much to the Socialist in every Democrat/liberal.
Unfortunately, since many of them serving in the House and Senate now were radicals and long-haired hippie demonstrators in the 60s, this ideal is very attractive to them.
Also, a dictatorship doesn't have to stand for opposition to its tenets from dissidents and naysayers who point out its faults, as the Left has to in the Democracies.
The nitpickers and faultfinders in a dictatorship are jailed or killed outright for their opinions, rather than debated and/or tolerated. Wouldn't the Clintons and Kerry have loved to do either to such complainers and troublemakers Limbaugh and Hannity, Coulter and Sowell? You betchya they would.
Freedom of expression is wonderful, so long as you're not the target, and with its ongoing implosion, the Democratic party has been the bullseye for many a sharply-thrown dart from the Right.
So, That's why I think the Left loves its tyrants. You're free to disagree, however.....after all, Communism is dead.
Thanks for that, Mr. Reagan.
