Do Democrats Really Want Us To Lose In Iraq?

Adam G. Mersereau writes an absolute must-read at American Thinker on why the Democrats genuinely seem to want to lose the war in Iraq . If you're like me, you've questioned how any self-respecting American can actively and consistently work to end our war effort in Iraq in failure (which is exactly what the current Democrat leadership has undeniably done). Mersereau presents a fantastic explanation that makes a whole lot of sense. Guess what it all comes down to? Liberalism.

His article contains far more details than I can adequately summarize here, so go read the whole thing. For the short version, here are the key points:

Defeatist Democrats oppose the war in Iraq, not so much because they fear failure, but because they believe failure is inevitable.  They believe the Bush Administration's goal of helping Iraq establish a democratic government is a fool's errand.  They believe that the Western values on which democratic government is based -- and the Judeo-Christian truths from which those Western values are derived -- are not valid for Iraqis.

The Democratic Party is the home of modern liberalism, and modern liberals are deconstructionists.  As this appellation suggests, deconstructionists are engaged in an effort to philosophically disassemble traditional Judeo-Christian truths.  To the modern liberal, the very idea that traditional Judeo-Christian truths might be true for all men is oppressive, limiting, judgmental, discriminatory and outdated.  The deconstructionists will not rest so long as anyone in our society believes that traditional Judeo-Christian truths might actually be universals.  They desire a post-modern (and post Judeo-Christian) America, in which almost all traditional values and morality are reduced to the status of mere personal preferences, rendering it nonsensical to extend them beyond one's self or one's own community. 

My translation of this brilliant point is: liberals worship tolerance of everyone and everything except Judeo-Christian values (even though that is by definition intolerant).  This changes their starting point to something totally different than mine.  F or example, I believe freedom is a God-given right for all people everywhere in the world; liberals don't.  In fact, by definition, they can't believe that.

Mersereau goes on to talk about how those Judeo-Christian values are the core of Western society, and that the American Founders believed those values were valid for everyone in the world, not just Western Christians.  Liberals found comfort in the Communist Soviet Union because it presented an alternative to Judeo-Christian philosophy.  This led to 'multiculturalism'.  They really propped up the Communist regime despite its obvious flaws because as long as it remained strong, it proved their point that Judeo-Christian values are not the only way.  Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, though, multiculturalism had firmly taken root, and with some serious ramifications:

Going beyond the mere study of other cultures, multicularalism seeks to indoctrinate people with the notion that (almost) all cultural values are equally valid.  This helps deconstructionists promulgate their claims against Western civilization.  After all, if the non-Western world is thriving without Western values, those Western values cannot possibly be true for all people. To elevate other cultures, the multiculturalists inevitably must strain to find beauty in many cultures that are not so beautiful; some in which children were sacrificed, in which violence is a way of life, in which discrimination is systematic, in which women are treated as property, and in which totalitarianism, ignorance and occultism have resulted in great human suffering.  The more lovely they can make other cultures appear, the smaller and less significant appear traditional Western values.  This is the multiculturalist agenda.

So, applying these concepts and motivations to Iraq, Mersereau argues that deconstructionist liberals view it as an impossible task for Iraqis to embrace Western-style government (and if they do, it would be disastrous for their worldview).  Since the modern Democrat party is the seat of this liberalism, it is the Democrats who trumpet non-Western cultures and denigrate every pro-American or pro-Western culture or value.  His conclusion:

But in fairness, the Democrats are not unpatriotic.  They love America.  They simply define America differently than most Americans.  Their America is a very small place.  They do not believe that America's greatness is found in the truth of its founding principles, but in their own enlightened leadership, and in a deconstructed brand of "freedom" that more and more resembles license.

Ah-hah!  So that's why they consistently support our enemies!

This is what I mean when I talk about getting back to the principles of the Founding Fathers - believing that all are created equal, that freedom is an inherent desire of all people, etc.  The way to ensure those principles is to put the power and emphasis on the people rather than the government, which is a small group of 'enlightened' leaders.  Fundamentally, it is conservatism that reflects those principles.

This is an absolutely outstanding article.  I believe Mersereau truly captures the essence of liberalism and why liberals take the side of America's enemies.  Simply brilliant.

There's my two cents.