Carol Platt Liebau: Hillary's Revealing Resentment

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Hillary's Revealing Resentment

John Podhoretz rightly takes Hillary to task for her comment that she "really resent[s]" the fact that troops may be tied up in Iraq until 2009.

To set aside the frivolous stuff first, her choice of words is interesting, as Podhoretz points out. I'd add that -- if she were as brilliant as she's talked up to be -- she'd know that it's particularly dangerous for women to discuss policy in terms of emotions. What next: The dreaded "I feel" formulation ("I feel this is the right thing to do" or "I feel taxes should be raised")?

More generally, however, her attitude is revealing of the Democratic attitude toward the war on terror generally. We all may regret the fact that Al Qaeda is in Iraq, and that it will take a steady effort, combined with blood and treasure, to defeat it. But Democrats do, indeed, "resent" the necessities occasioned by the war on terror, as it gets in the way of national health care and a host of other liberal initiatives. It also forces the Democrats onto military ground, where they are most uncomfortable.

That's something the electorate should keep in mind as 2008 rolls around. Can people who "resent" the efforts both to stop the spread of Islamofascist terror and to plan seeds of democracy in the Middle East really be trusted to do the job?


Blogger Marshall Art said...

No. They can't.

10:53 PM  
Blogger InklingBooks said...

I suspect that one thing liberal Democrats such as Hillary resent is the fact that many of us have far more respect for our troops in Iraq than we have for our domestic liberal elite. They may feel contempt for many of us, but they still expect us to idolize them and recognize their moral superiority. Most liberals barely conceal their hatred for our troops. Hillary, with aspirations to be President, resents having to swallow her contempt. Still it does leak out. If I remember right, just a few weeks ago she refused to meet with a group of wives and mothers who'd lost a husband or son in Iraq.

Recently I watched an early 1950s movie: Gentleman's Agreement with Gregory Peck in a marvelous role in which he, as a newly hired magazine writer, pretends to be Jewish in order to experience first hand what it means to be discriminated against by respectable New Yorkers.

It was an age when respectable people, while not particularly proud of their prejudices, nevertheless felt no need to change them. Bigotry against Jews was OK as long as it was part of a polite and unstated "gentleman's agreement." In the film they are portrayed as regarding this smug anti-Semitism as part of the natural order.

In the film "liberal" is taken to mean someone that everyone agrees is without that sort of bigotry. Liberals were seen, by one and all, as not agreeing with the mistreatment of Jews. They, alone among the respectable classes, were tolerant toward Jews, although generally quiet about it.

How times have changed! Today, so many people believe (with good cause) that liberals dislike the group to which they belong, that even liberals avoid the word, preferring to be called progressive or mainstream.

And anti-Semitism seems to be working its way through liberal ranks amazingly fast. How many Democratic party leaders have criticized Carter's latest book? How many would dare to outrage the MoveOn crowd by doing that? None that I know about.

--Mike Perry, Seattle
Author of Untangling Tolkien

7:25 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home