8/17/2004 04:47:33 PM|||Nathan Moore|||

What out there is worth fighting for? Donald Sensing has a good talk on the topic (via Bill Hobbs).

In general discussions with other likeminded individuals, I often bring this topic up concerning the left and those beholden to the progressive agenda. What in their mind would ever be worth fighting for? I come up blank every time. And I'm attempting to treat the issue fairly. For instance, is communism worth fighting against? For those who are on the left side of history, the answer is no - it is to be embraced. Is fascism worth fighting against? The answer is the same, and is more recently borne out by the resistance of those making up the mainstream left to ousting Saddam Hussein.

Whether the lackadaisical attitude toward the concept of the just war is inherent as some subconscious form of pacifism or is a knee-jerk reaction to what the left perceives as a reviled Republican president, the outcome is a sad one. I would find it depressing and catastrophic for one's belief system to say that there is no cause for which one would take up arms. On the most basic philosophical level that if what you believe is not worth a fight, you must carefully evaluate whether the beliefs are worth having. The trite and coined phrase most use is that one should have the "courage of one's convictions". Fighting for one's convictions in the real sense is simply the next logical step. I don't think the left would do it. I think they would rather die as a sacrifice to nothing than a sacrifice to something great.

I hate to think my ideological adversaries would lie down like rats to be slaughtered, so devoid of common sense that strength has become a vice, and weakness a virtue. Of course, these terms would never be used. They are too direct - not sufficiently nuanced enough for the times. Good and bad, strength and weakness - they are too black and white. The real terms of the debate have been skewed, which may be the most telling part of it all. An amorphus belief system is in fact one that I agree is not worth fighting for. When the fight gets too rough, you can simply change your nuance and your set of beliefs morph into something less confrontational. This works fine when playing a child's game, but is extraordinarily dangerous when lives are at stake. Post 9/11, lives are always at stake.

In totaling it all, perhaps the left of today is heir to none of the left of yesterday. The heroes of liberalism past stood for something, and fought for it. Even though the policies OKed by FDR that led to the excesses of LBJ irk me to no end, I can respect the men for fighting for what they believed, even if for political expediencey. The left of today doesn't even have that ideological safety net. There is no belief to be had. I suppose this result could be layed intact in a brown lit lunch bag on the doorstep of Clintonism, but that is no excuse. Especially not in a period where history is moving, and will measure men not by their capactiy for nuance but their ability to act, and to do so decisively.

The philosophy of liberalism is not to act, but to ponder, but not ponder within certain absolute constructs, but in a free-thinking sense incompatible with a world ruled by absolutism, and most importantly, in a world at war with a culture defined solely by an absolutist religion. The right will win because it acts. The left will lose because it refuses to rise to reality.

|||109278063327637496|||What is It Worth?