BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

When bleeding hearts clot

15 comments on When bleeding hearts clot

When bleeding hearts clot

: I really can’t stand Sen. Sam Brownback for a host of reasons (his attacks on free speech and the First Amendment not least among them). Nick Kristof can’t stand Brownback, either. Yet today Kristof writes:

Sure, Mr. Brownback is to the right of Attila the Hun, and I disagree with him on just about every major issue. But ’tis the season for brotherly love, so let me point to reasons for hope. Members of the Christian right, exemplified by Mr. Brownback, are the new internationalists, increasingly engaged in humanitarian causes abroad – thus creating opportunities for common ground between left and right on issues we all care about.

So Democrats should clamber down from the window ledges, roll up their sleeves and get to work on some of these issues. Because I’m embarrassed to say that Democrats have been so suspicious of Republicans that they haven’t contributed much on those human rights issues where the Christian right has already staked out its ground….

Liberals traditionally were the bleeding hearts, while conservatives regarded foreign aid, in the words of Jesse Helms, as “money down a rat hole.” That’s changing. “One cannot understand international relations today without comprehending the new faith-based movement,” Allen Hertzke writes in “Freeing God’s Children,” a book about evangelicals leaping into human rights causes.

I don’t know why the bleeding hearts of the left have coagulated and hardened, but in many quarters, sadly, they have.

That is my complaint with the left and Iraq. Protest the war: fine. Complain about its execution: Sure. Disagree with me on the war: Absolutely. But I have heard too little empathy for the people of Iraq and too little disdain for their dictator. Even when two wonderful gentlemen, just people, just bloggers, came here this month, my fellow travelers tried to fang them just because they were associated with Iraq. That’s just plain uncivilized. I’ve always seen Iraq as a humanitarian issue more than an issue of defense or terrorism but that human aspect is too often lost.

Of course, there are too many other humanitarian issues in the world today and Kristof is warning his fellow travelers that they will be left behind — their historical leadership usurped by, of all people, the fundamentalists they too often disdain — if they don’t wake up and find their moral bearings again.

Liberalism is supposed to be about people, about caring for your fellow man, not just about shouting.

But if you prefer to judge this on a political rather than a moral basis, then heed Kristof’s warning: Don’t let Brownback win this one alone.

15 responses to “When bleeding hearts clot”

  1. Ted Lehmann Avatar
    Ted Lehmann

    Too often, conservative (read Christian) support of various forms of private and public foreign aid is made in support of either conversion or biblical prophecy. For instnace, support of Israel grows from text in Revelation requiring the founding of an Israeli state. Much Christian interest in the third world is organized proseletyzing designed to encourage conversion and to raise large amounts of funds from domestic sources. Try to check out the percentages of such money that actually go to aid needy people in the third world.

  2. Mike G Avatar
    Mike G

    And yet Kristof says:
    Sure enough, looking at the most important national issues – Iraq, terrorism, budget deficits – I can see why liberals feel suicidal.
    Suicidal because Saddam’s out? Because Iraq’s about to have an election? He’s still too blind to see that a democratic Iraq is one of the humanitarian issues liberals are stuck on the wrong side of.
    You can be against how we got to this point and yet contribute to making the best of it for the future of the middle east and the whole world. Until liberals recognize that, they are bystanders if not, indeed, opponents in the key human rights struggle of our age: rescuing the middle east from its nightmare.

  3. Pat M. Avatar
    Pat M.

    Jeff,
    You are 100% right on this topic. Caring for your fellow human beings should not be a partisan issue.
    Pat M.

  4. paladin Avatar
    paladin

    What’s ironic is that Republicans have become liberal and Democrats have become conservative. Who is saying that Social Security needs reform? Hint: it’s not Democrats who say everything is fine and Republicans only want to “dismantle” the New Deal (yeah, the 1930’s is like the 21st century) and take away Granny’s check? Which is the more isolationist party? The anti-war Dems or the neocons who believe US power should be used to promote democracy and freedom? Yes, my friends, the world has turned since the Watergate/VietNam era. Republicans are the “progressive” party, and the Democrats are the party of the status quo.

  5. Bill Avatar
    Bill

    It seems that a majority of Iraqis (including the majority Shia) do not want US troops in their country. This is not surprising because the US invasion and occupation has given them a large number of dead Iraqi civilians; a severely damaged infrastructure; and a large increase in infant and child malnutrition. It is difficult to take seriously calls to sympathize with the Iraqis that completely ignore Iraqi views (particuliarly when it comes from someone with no demonstrated knowledge about Iraq, but who attacks those whom the evidence shows actually know what they are talking about).

  6. Lou Avatar
    Lou

    Just wondering if you have read the book, “The Pentagon’s New Map”, by Thomas PM Barnett, a self described democrat no less.
    C-SPAN dedicated almost all of this past monday night on this traveling slide presentation that became the book, after a very well received article in Esquire a couple of years ago.
    Just a heads up, but he has a new article in the Feb’05 issue of Esquire, due on stands mid Jan.
    This guy has some really great insights and vision into how the Pentagon needs to accelerate its internal rate of change, and how the other major Depts. need to change, ie. State, Tressury, maybe Commerce.

  7. Karl Avatar
    Karl

    Certainly, the Iraqis would prefer that the U.S. not occupy Iraq. Of course, President Bush agrees, so it’s not like there’s a lot of debate on that point. On the other hand, 63 percent of Iraqis said that the withdrawal of American and allied forces would not be in the best interest of Iraq and undermine the work towards security and control of the country, according to a poll taken in Baghdad, Mosul and Dehok and published in Iraq on October 25th.
    Another current poll of Iraqi opinion shows that nearly 54 percent said Iraq is generally headed in the right direction – compared with 42 percent in late September and early October. And that more than 70 percent strongly intend to vote.
    The civilian deaths in Iraq unintentionally U.S. troops and those intentionally caused by the terrorists are tragic. As was Saddam’s slaughter of 200,000 Shia and 50,000 Kurds in the late 1980s and early 1990s alsone. Not to mention the tens of thousands of children starved to death by Saddam’s diversion of oil-for-food money to his friends in France, China, Russia, etc. And it turns out that the story about malnutrition increasing after the invasion does not hold up under inspection.
    Americans can also be proud of the efforts being made in Iraqi reconstruction. The first major sewage plant to operate in Iraq in over 12 years went on line in June; Baghdad’s sewage sytem, which barely functioned before the war, is being restored to almost 100 percent capacity. In August, U.S. engineers helped place seven generators on line, bringing the national electricity capacity to more than 5,300 megawatts

  8. Heath Avatar
    Heath

    I think this is an important point, one I’ve tried to impress on everyone I know who did not/does not favor the war. We can’t change the past. America has invaded Iraq, caused (severe/minor) damage to it’s infrastructure and left it devoid of a government. As a nation, no matter which side of the politcal fence you stand on, we must shoulder the responsibility of rebuilding Iraq as efficiently as possible. From whichever angle you look at it, it falls to us, U.S. of A. If we don’t rebuild, we risk creating a worse threat in the area. If you have any concern whatsoever for universal human rights, then you know that this nation is too devestated to recover without help. Altruism or self-preservation, both lead to the same answer. Finish what was started, even if you didn’t support it.
    I hope things reach a lasting improvement over there, though at this juncture I think it is far too premature to say we’ve succeeded in anything other than (currently) temporary improvements. I hope these can be made permanent.
    While the possibility of a better Iraq can and should pluck the heart-strings of the humanitarian in all of us, I am still angry at the Bush administration for the Iraq war. Not out of a lack of alutristic zeal, but rather because of too much zeal. A good accomplishment it is, but how about a greater one? I guess my question really is, what about Sudan? While we sit over here in America rightly patting ourselves on the back for improving the lot of the Iraqis, Darfur is bearing witness to (last I heard) an average of 1,000 deaths a week. In the 17+ years that civil war has raged, an estimated 2 million people have died. If Iraq was a tragic picture of tyranny, what do you call this? So of all the big problems I’ve had with the Iraq war, this is the biggest. We’ve turned away from a genocide to free a nation that, while not good, was at least stable, not hemorrhaging death like a hemophiliac. And with our current involvement stretching into what will no doubt be a lengthy and highly expensive one, it sure looks like Darfur will have to rely on some where else for their miracle.

  9. Krusty Krab Avatar
    Krusty Krab

    The posts by Karl and Heath are keepers, as is the one by Bill, if for no other reason to that to remind us how ideology destroys brain cells. Sorry for the snark there Bill, but taking the position of the long-term depressed is not going to help the US, Iraq or the Democratic Party. To an extent, Bill’s post is a reminder that we need to balance our ideological interests with pragmatism. The decision to go to war is long past. We must now pick up the pieces and move forward.
    I was as against the invasion as anybody could be, and to a degree embraced a bit of schadenfreude after things started turning sour. I figured, if for no other reason, a bit of farging up things by the Bushies would stop further such reckless endeavers in the future.
    However, it is not in ours, Iraqs or the worlds best interest to die of shame over this. We need to pick up the pieces, keep the pressure on Rumsfield and other clowns who continue to screw up the big decisions to make them get this right. This is not a war which we or the world can afford to lose.

  10. Rob Avatar
    Rob

    The reason we’re so unconcerned with the Iraqi dictator is that we’re much more worried about the domestic one. Watching him slowly convert America into a one-party theocracy is, well, troubling. Particularly so since he just spent all of my grandkids’ tax revenue in knocking one of these down. Go figure.

  11. Karl Avatar
    Karl

    …and there you have it. George W. Bush is worse than Saddam Hussein. Kinda proves Jeff’s point, doesn’t it?

  12. Matt Avatar
    Matt

    If Bill Clinton or Al Gore had initated and were now prosecuting the war in Iraq, how many conservatives would feel the same way they feel about it now? Where was the compassion for Bosnia and Kosovo muslims in the 80s and 90s? Pardon me if the new found conservative empathy strikes me as just a little too politically convenient.

  13. Matt Avatar
    Matt

    If Kerry were to become president, is it not utterly predictable that americans would switch positions on the war? Democrats would suddenly defend the actions of Kerry and the military, while republicans would all criticise Kerry and the military. Haven’t we all seen this happen? Conservatives are letting Bush get away stuff in Iraq that you would have killed Clinton for. Everyone’s credibility is shot.

  14. Karl Avatar
    Karl

    Is there always hypocrisy in politcs? Fish, meet barrel. However, Sen. Jesse Helms supported the Balkan campaigns, and he was a Republican, iirc. Same for John McCain. Ditto for Lugar, Hagel, DeWine, Hatch, Voinovich and Coverdell. And John Warner. And neocons like Bill Kristol and Bob Kagan argued that “Republicans should be supporting the military action, warning that the Clinton administration is likely to do too little, not too much, and pressing for additional policies that will lead to victory.” Also, iirc, Bob Dole served as President Clinton’s envoy to the Balkans.
    As for Iraq, let’s not forget that President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, which made regime change in Iraq official U.S. policy. The House passed the bill by a vote of 360 to 38, with 157 Democrats joining 202 Republicans and the House’s one independent to back the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime. The act, with bipartisan cosponsorship of two Democrats and six Republicans, also passed the Senate by unanimous consent. So the Republicans have been pretty consistent on Iraq. Moreover, one of the criticisms some Republicans had of the Balkan campaigns was that going after Saddam should have been a bigger priority.
    None of which is to say you couldn’t find a few GOP hypocrites. However, the question implied in Jeff’s post is whether you (or I, or anyone) should set aside partisanship to support people when you agree with the goal.

  15. Bill Avatar
    Bill

    Response to Karl and Krusty Krab
    Due to last minute Christmas shopping, etc., I only have a little time to work on this.
    Karl’s Failed Propaganda
    Karl you claim: “that the story about malnutrition increasing after the invasion does not hold up under inspection.” Unfortunately, your source betrays you. Your hyperlink in support of your claim is to a David Adesnik post on the OxBlog website on Sunday, November 21, 2004. Yet Adesnik later concedes (in a posting on Wednesday, November 24, 2004) that a major plank of his argument was mistaken.
    Adesnik’s major piece of “evidence” — in both his initial posting and a later one on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 — is the date of the report, which he states is April – May 2003. Adesnik believes that such a date probably argues against the invasion (and by implication the occupation) causing the increase in malnutrition. However, Adesnik was writing about the wrong report: the relevant report was a national survey conducted in April/May 2004. In addition, the 2003 report only focused upon Baghdad. The 2004 report was national.
    Beyond the mistaken dates, Adesnik raises neither methodological nor any other arguments against the study. Instead, he offers an approach that essentially amounts to “that