August 30, 2005

“The Enemy of My Enemy is My Ally.” This has been an axiom of war and politics for millennia, but it does not always hold true. In fact, it often is proven false - we can see numerous examples in the world today, and in recent history: Democrats are (considered, at least) enemies of the GOP which is now in power almost across the board in the FedGov, but that hardly makes them allies of libertarians. Both cops and homeowners are enemies of home-invaders and rapists, but that hardly makes them allies, much less friends, in many communities across the Union.

Another axiom is “don’t do the right thing for the wrong reason.” Else, your actions will backfire on you. If you oppose something for the wrong reasons, it may be good that you oppose it, but the thing can still go ahead if the relatively minor objection you had is corrected. We see that today in states fighting the Real ID Act on the grounds that it is an unfunded mandate, instead of the idea that it is anathema to liberty to do so.

These are two of the reasons that every time I hear Mrs. Cindy Sheehan, or hear about her, my stomach roils. She is called a “peace mom” and an “antiwar mom” and is praised for daring to beard the lion in his den (attack Bush at his ranch) and for causing antiwar activists and activities to coalesce around her. I am subjected to a constant barrage of articles in praise of her, and of libertarians asking me why I don’t support her: after all, I’m told, she is expressing the same antiwar sentiments that most libertarians do.

I don’t support her, to put it simply, because she is wrong. I believe she has every right to spout whatever nonsense she does, but I find it sickening to see the damage she is inflicting on the causes she supposedly supports.

Let me divide it into three categories: (1) I oppose her because of what she believes and is promoting. (2) I oppose her for the way she is proceeding. (3) I oppose her because of the impact she is making on the nation and the antiwar movement.

What Mrs. Sheehan believes.
Far from being a “peace mom” or antiwar, Mrs. Sheehan has made it clear that it is THIS war, the occupation of Iraq, that she is opposed to, “because you lied, Mr. President.” Clearly, she is not opposed to the war on true moral grounds, such as the fact that the US engaged in an unprovoked, and therefore, aggressive attack against a regime known for talking much and often doing little. She does not object to the war because it did not have UN sanction, or because Congress approved it without actually declaring war, but because the President lied about why the war was needed. Although I would not support her if she was opposed to war just because it was war, that would certainly be a position I could respect more than her idea.

Her reasons for opposing the war (now that she has come out in opposition to it) are NOT those of libertarians, but those of the liberal element which has so damaged this nation for decades, as are her tactics. She does NOT oppose the war because “preventive aggression” is as wrong as any other aggression: she opposes it because she believes the president lied about the reasons for attacking Iraq. And as a result, libertarians have no reason to back her in this, lest we be accused of the same moral relativism she herself displays.

In addition to this, Mrs. Sheehan’s recent remarks tell us a lot more about what she believes, and it is nothing that makes sense for a libertarian to support: she believes that “Christians” (she did not specify “some”) are evil, she believes that the United States is and has always been evil, and she believes that anyone who does not agree with all her views is evil. How can I support a person like that?

How Mrs. Sheehan goes about advocating for the end of the war.
She uses emotion as liberals always seem to, as a replacement for reason and understanding of issues. She attacks the president “ad hominem” when she should be attacking on clear issues and leaving personal attacks out. She makes absurd claims, and she makes crude language a trademark of her tirades. She dishonors her own son by twisting his service and death, when it is clear that he very much knew what was happening, and (right or wrong) supported the effort in Iraq. She panders to the press and conveniently ignores facts which might inconvenience her case. In many ways, as even media have pointed out, she is a throwback to the 60s and 70s: NOT a good thing in itself.

Like so many of the Democrats who (although cheerfully voting for the invasion in the first place, though they had the same facts (or lack of facts) that the Administration had) now oppose the war, Mrs. Sheehan seems more motivated by her hatred for Bush and the Republicans than by a principled stand against an immoral, aggressive foreign policy. If the new antiwar movement is built on this thin foundation, it will flounder quickly against a new administration of either party, and leave us worse off than before. As a result, she has reinforced the view of many Americans that opposition to the occupation of Iraq is nothing but a partisan squabble to be tuned out.

I have found that her methods and tactics in her campaign are abhorrent. Just a few examples:

Her language. She sets up a strawman in this article about her profanity, which is clearly a stock part of her performance. It is not that profanity should be used because it might offend those on the fence, as she claims, but because it is wrong. It is wrong because (like much else of what she and the liberals in general do) it replaces clear and rational thought, and understanding of issues, with emotions in the most vulgar way. She ignores the fact that her language offends those who agree with her general (and even her specific) position. And her profanity, like much else, is enshrining emotion and ignoring reason - on purpose, as far as I can see.

Her accusations. She accuses Bush of numerous lies, but has no problem with lying by omission and commission both in her own statements and actions. She blames Bush and his administration; she ignores the plain truth that Congress (Democrats AND Republicans) went right along with them, and is just as much to blame, if not more so (for failing to even TRY to uphold constitutional law, in part). She conveniently forgets that some who are now her strongest supporters had access to exactly the same information (or lack thereof) and supported the Bush attack when it was politically convenient. She demonstrates her hypocrisy in another way, as well. She frequently refers to how she is vilified in the press, but to be honest, I’ve seen far more sympathetic to her in the press. Yes, neo-cons and administration-supporting pundits HAVE attacked her, but they are clearly not the mainstream media, which has actually promoted her vigil and other actions very positively, even while publicizing her accusations of mistreatment.

Her ad-hominem attacks. She attacks Bush personally, which is both a very poor tactic (if nothing else because it makes people rally to him) and which is really a moot point: dragging arguments into the mud like this does no one a good service. Her foul language directed at Bush directly may be venting her anger, but it makes her a poor opponent of his policies as a result. (This is something that I've made a fight of for years, and she is just the latest example. She is turning a doctrinal matter into a personal matter, to put it in "church" terms - a path that ALWAYS results in disaster.) I have very little respect for people who use ad hominem attacks, no matter how much I may agree with their position. Part (but not all of this) is being civil to your opponents, but it is also not giving the observers a reason to turn against you.

Her treatment of her son. She dishonors her own son by twisting his service and death, when it is clear that he very much knew what was happening, and (right or wrong) supported the effort in Iraq. She never has said "my son was wrong in going to fight" - instead, she accuses the president of murdering her son. Great sound bytes for the press, but hardly likely to win people to her cause that don't already agree with her position (and likely to drive some away, as are her remarks that "America isn't worth it.")

She panders to the press, not just by conveniently ignoring facts which might inconvenience her case, but in her slashing attacks and “poor-me” victim performance. In many ways, as even media have pointed out, she is a throwback to the 60s and 70s: NOT a good thing in itself. (But something which the press, often steeped in that era, finds exciting.) I've never agreed with those who say that the press is manipulating her - rather, she might be more properly accused of manipulating the media by pressing the right buttons! She is neither the victim of the media (as she and those on both sides have claimed, for various reasons) nor its user: rather, she is a de-facto partner of a liberal media which has shown, in eight years of a Clinton Administration and five years of a Bush Administration, to conveniently ignore any opposition to an American imperial foreign policy that does not match their partisan leanings.

What impact is Mrs. Sheehan having?
An effective campaigner can often be forgiven many things: I myself do not subscribe to this philosophy, but I know that many people do. (I am willing to forgive someone but only AFTER they repent - which includes changing what they do; I’m a horrible parent, I know.) But even for those people, Mrs. Sheehan should be viewed as an expanding disaster.

Her actions are NOT changing people’s minds: all she is doing is mobilizing some of the people that are already against the US involvement in Iraq. Polls show about 1/3 of Americans are opposed, 1/3 support the President’s policies, and 1/3 are neutral. Her vigil and “mobilization” have apparently moved people from “oppose” to “strongly oppose” but has done little if anything to move people from the other columns. In fact, her actions have spawned a backlash that has moved people from the “support” to the “strongly support” to the point that pro- and anti-groups are facing off in a way that never happened significantly in the 1970s.

“But she is mobilizing and motivating people to the cause!” For people who base their opposition to the US invasion and current involvement in Iraq and other parts of the world on moral principles, this is the equivalent of Christian people being urged to recognize Jim Jones as a good thing because he really was good at converting people to his cult and got them to “totally commit” themselves to his cause, to the point of suicide. At best, she might be converting people to a distorted antiwar philosophy based, not on human freedom and liberty, but on hatred and the idea that imperial hegemony is bad not because it is itself evil, but because of the motives. For those who support her warped view of “peace,” they risk compromising themselves by allying themselves with the liberal branch of World Domination, Inc. instead of the neo-con branch.

In the same way, her tactics demean her and those who appear to support her. This is a common problem, just as libertarians have with the “fake” anarchists who are socialist in philosophy: superficially, they have some similarity in agenda, but their ultimate goal is different, and just as bad, their tactics of mayhem and murder are completely contrary and would destroy anything attempted through an alliance with anarcho-capitalists and true anarchists.

She is, in sum, an embarrassment to principled opposition to the Iraq invasion and the current Iraq occupation. She is harming the opposition, harming the nation, and harming those around her. It is, in my opinion, best to have nothing to do with her. And the same thing applies to those who are opposing her: a pox on both their houses.

Archives

Do We See A National ID Coming?

Where Is His Mind

A Baker’s Dozen Tips to Preventing Home-Invasions-

Cop killing continues · can this be allowed to go on?

Bush Begins Second Term

Symbol Over Substance

How to kill a woman in broad daylight

A Diatribe for Memorial Day

Baker’s Dozen- Tips for Rebuilding Dysfunctional Societies

Thoughts on Fathers' Day from a Libertarian

What now?
(Part I – Consequences)

What now? (Part II - Responses that won't work)

What now? (Part III – A Call to Action)

Churches and Concealed Carry

Complete Archives for Nathan Barton