Eeyores v. Poohs

Eeyores v. Poohs

: Fred Wilson has a good post today responding to the notion that the silence from much of the left on the Iraqi election is the response of Eeyores. Fred’s not an Eeyore. Neither is Hoder, who wrote a similar post the day before. And here’s why…

The problem I have with the Eeyores is that for all intents and purposes, they refused to see the positive in the election and the start of a new democracy; they refused to think first of the human rights of the Iraqi people and instead thought of their own political agenda and political anti’s. That’s Eeyoreism. The worst of them — the rabid Eeyores, the Coles and Altermans — exhibited utter disdain to the point of hate toward anyone there who dared to say positive things about their freedom and America. That is decidely illiberal to me.

But that is not what Fred and Hoder and others have said. They said that they are, indeed, happy to see the Iraqi people exercising this new freedom but they are concerned about what is next and how America will approach the another dictatorship, another confrontation. That is a most reasonable position. And I agree with them.

Reasonable people can agree. Reasonable people should agree that the exercise of freedom and democracy in Iraq is good for the Iraqi people. Reasonable people should agree that we must be cautious about intervening in nations but should also take steps to defend the human rights of our fellow man when we can. Reasonable people can disagree about this war and its aftermath and its duration.

Reasonable people.

They’re not Eeyores. I prefer to think of them as Poohs.