One of the most painful aspects of growing up is the recognition that the world is not arranged in ways that we would prefer or fantasize. Adolescent idealism is an admirable trait which can fuel passionate engagement with the world; in the best of situations, it gradually, albeit sometimes grudgingly, gives way to the imperfect version of reality that we inhabit together.
When a young idealist cannot accept the necessary, partial, erosion of his dreams for a perfect world which can ultimately lead to dreams of a better world, the results can be troublesome.
A generation came of age in the 1960's at a time of greater material well being than any before. The best and the brightest were told repeatedly that they were the best and the brightest. The world seemed to many to be perfectible, and, if it were perfectible, than those who stood in the way of perfectibility were enemies of a peaceful, loving future for all.
The bitterness of those now old, once idealist adolescents, as they feel their vitality, their ideas, their dreams, slipping away at an accelerating pace, is profound, perhaps mad more poignant so by their seeming lack of awareness of their own blindness. Dr. Sanity posts a link to a very powerful article by Norman Podhoretz, The Panic Over Iraq, and then adds her always insightful commentary:
Podhoretz is absolutely correct. Certain segments of our society are in a panic. I would say they are in the middle of a full-fledged panic attack. Why? Because if Bush's policies are successful in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East--these groups know that they will be frozen out of power for years to come.
Who would listen to the MSM after they have worked overtime in the last four years to make Iraq into another Vietnam for their own glory and power?
Who would listen to the wimpy Democrats who have whined and vacillated and had to be dragged, kicking and screaming piteously (and still are to this day) to do the right thing to protect our country?
Who would listen to the lunatic Left and the remnants of the old communist/socilist religions, who have willingly aligned themselves with the enemies of freedom, and hidden their murderous 20th century ideolgies under the cover of "anti-war" and "peace" slogans. The only thing they are "anti" is American. The only "peace" they want is a piece of the action when a new set of thugs come to power. They have thrown their lot in with the enemies of civilization itself, rather than to take responsibility for the enormity of the suffering and human misery brought about by the implementation of their political views over the last 100 years or more.
Amir Taheri writes of one of the rich and famous who seems trapped in her adolescent idealism, which causes her to completely miss the reality that appears directly in front of her face:
The FPA [Foreign Press Association] had decided to award its very first prize for a dialogue of cultures to Akbar Ganji, an Iranian investigative reporter who is on a hunger strike in Tehran's Evin Prison.
Together with several colleagues, I had been trying for months to persuade the Western media to take an interest in Ganji, a former Khomeinist revolutionary who is now campaigning for human rights and democracy. But we never got anywhere because of one small hitch: President Bush had spoken publicly in support of Ganji and called for his immediate release.
And that, as far as a good part of the Western media is concerned, amounts to a kiss of death. How could newspapers that portray Bush as the world's biggest "violator of human rights" endorse his call in favor of Ganji?
.....
Hundreds of editorials have been published in major Western publications in sympathy with the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib. But, to my knowledge, there has been none in support of Ganji or the thousands of political prisoners held by the mullahs.
So, it was heart-warming to see the FPA honor Ganji as a champion of freedom. An audio-message from Ganji's wife, smuggled out of Iran, was broadcast, creating the evening's highest moment.
But then things went pear-shape as a petite middle-aged lady dressed all in black was invited to come on stage to make a symbolic offer of the award to an absent Ganji. (The mullahs had not even allowed Ganji's wife to travel to London to attend the occasion.)
The lady in question was introduced as one Bianca Jagger, whose title is UNICEF Ambassador. What her day job is, however, is a mystery to me.
She started by telling us about her recent trips to Tehran and Damascus, presumably the two capitals of human rights that she likes best, and how she had been told "by officials and others" that she and other Westerners had "no moral authority" to talk about human rights and freedom.
She then proceeded by saying it is all very well to remember Ganji but that should not prevent us from remembering "those held in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, and all other secret prisons" that the United States is supposed to be running all over the world.
The rest of the little speech had nothing to do with Ganji and everything to do with the claim that the United States is drawing an almost sadistic pleasure by practicing torture. I couldn't believe my ears.
I make the assumption that Bianca Jagger is reasonably bright, and certainly, well meaning, and she is surely not psychotic in the Psychiatric meaning of the term, yet she cannot see that there is a difference between how the United States treats those who, given the opportunity, would gladly kill all of us, and the Iranian mullahs, who proudly and repeatedly proclaim their desire to commit genocide.
Dr. Sanity's post suggests that the MSM, the Democrats, and the left are primarily interested in regaining power and that their increasingly unhinged reactions (see Howard Dean proclaiming, based on his genius as a military historian, that we cannot win in Iraq, or John Kerry trying to parse his comments that American troops in Iraq are terrorize Iraqi women and children, a job Iraqis should be doing according to the Senator, for examples) are in the service of such goals. I would add to her explanation that these "deep thinkers" truly believe that a Utopian Peace on Earth, Good Will to All, (sans any reference to God, of course) would spontaneously flower if only the dreaded militarists of the Republican party and the neo-cons would be swept out of power. With such beliefs, how can anyone begrudge them their efforts to regain their power? Sadly for them, they are likely to see their relevance diminish with every passing day as more and more people see the danger in their vision, and like all who fanatically hold onto a Utopian ideal well past the time its passing should have been mourned, they are doomed to become more and more bitter and angry as they descend into senescence.
Recent Comments