Politicizing Tragedy and Perverting History

In the aftermath of the disastrous earthquake that hit Haiti, most in the global community are focusing their energies on relief operations and charitable contributions. But as is almost always the case, some political activists are exploiting the tragedy to make a political point. Pat Robertson inexplicably blames the earthquake on a "pact with the devil," referring to Haiti's independence from France in 1804.

The professional hate-monger, Keith Olbermann, used the tragedy to justify the need for healthcare reform in the United States, while calling Rush Limbaugh a "deranged racist" and wishing he "go to hell."

But another, more insidious, strand of politicization that happens to be a staple of left-wingism is quickly taking root: blaming America and Europe for Haiti's plight.

In a New York Times op-ed, author Tracy Kidder uses the tragedy to make a larger point about why Haiti is more vulnerable to natural disasters than wealthier nations. According to Kidder, "the essence of it seems clear enough":

Haiti is a country created by former slaves, kidnapped West Africans, who, in 1804, when slavery still flourished in the United States and the Caribbean, threw off their cruel French masters and created their own republic. Haitians have been punished ever since for claiming their freedom: by the French who, in the 1820s, demanded and received payment from the Haitians for the slave colony, impoverishing the country for years to come; by an often brutal American occupation from 1915 to 1934; by indigenous misrule that the American government aided and abetted. (In more recent years American administrations fell into a pattern of promoting and then undermining Haitian constitutional democracy.)

Kidder's interpretation of Haiti's history is oversimplified, misleading, and frankly, perverse. While it is true that the Haitian people (as have all people at some point in history) suffered as a result of slavery and occupation, Haiti's current problems stem not from imperialism but from its inability to establish a durable constitutional republic that respects the Rule of Law and is not susceptible to extreme corruption.

The 1804 Haitian revolution and subsequent independence was marked by a reign of terror at the hands of dictator and despot Jean-Jacques Dessalines, who was assassinated only two years later by disaffected members of his own administration. For decades later, Dessalines was reviled by Haitians for his cruel and autocratic rule, and only began to emerge as an emblem of Haitian nationalism in the 19th century, when generations who suffered under Dessalines died out (one might compare this phenomenon to the recent surge in Joseph Stalin's popularity among Russians).

Since its independence, Haiti has seen over 30 coups, as numerous political factions and dictators vied for power. Contrary to Mr. Kidder's assertion, the United States did not always "aid and abet" indigenous misrule. As a matter of fact, in 1986, the United States arranged the exile of the hated tyrant "Baby Doc" Duvalier, whose family terrorized the Haitian people since 1957.  In 1994, U.S. forces peacefully entered Haiti under "Operation Uphold Democracy" to restore the ousted, but democratically elected, Jean-Bertrand Aristide as President. Aristide's administration was inept and corrupt, but not as tyrannical as that of his predecessors. In subsequent years, more coups followed, with the United States often playing the reluctant role of a mediator having to choose the least evil alternative.

Mr. Kidder willfully disregards these facts because they contradict his leftist world view, which holds the West responsible for the plight of third-world countries. He mentions "indigenous misrule" only in passing and in the misleading context of America's "aiding and abetting" such misrule, while irresponsibly downplaying the pervasive tyranny and corruption in Haiti. His message is simple: Haiti and its people are hapless victims. Implicit in Mr. Kidder's thesis, is the notion that Haiti bears absolutely no responsibility for its systemic economic and political failures. As I explained in The Left's Moral Absolutism, victimhood is a dominant theme in the left's world view. You're either the oppressor or the oppressed (master or slave), and if you're the oppressed, your fate is essentially sealed. Of course, this sophomoric explanation doesn't explain why some societies that went through periods of colonialism and slavery (again I stress that all societies have been colonized, oppressed, and enslaved at some point) enjoy more freedom, prosperity, and stability than others. This disparity in wealth despite a similar history is perhaps best illustrated by Haiti's next door neighbor, the Dominican Republic, which is far more prosperous and stable than Haiti.

To deny that political and economic institutions play a vital role in shaping a nation's destiny is to deny history. Yet by blaming America and Europe for Haiti's abject poverty and political instability, and by essentially exonerating Haiti of all responsibility, that is precisely what Mr. Kidder does. He cannot muster enough intellectual honesty to admit that Western institutions, most notably the Rule of Law, property rights, and capitalism, are integral to freedom and prosperity. To Mr. Kidder, institutions are of secondary importance, almost incidental. It's as if sustainable political and economic systems emerge naturally so long as they're not hindered by imperialism and insufficient aid, which are the real culprits:

The usual excuse, that a government like Haiti’s is weak and suffers from corruption, doesn’t hold — all the more reason, indeed, to work with the government. The ultimate goal of all aid to Haiti ought to be the strengthening of Haitian institutions, infrastructure and expertise.

Mr. Kidder is right in the sense that foreign aid should be used to strengthen institutions, but his prescription for rescuing Haiti is too vague to be meaningful, since we have no idea what kinds of institutions Mr. Ridder has in mind. Based on his inability to grasp the root cause of Haiti's plight and his attributing all of Haiti's problems to colonialism and slavery, we can only assume that Mr. Kidder is in favor of perpetuating some form of third-world despotism.

As the United States devotes unprecedented military and civilian resources, on top of massive treasure, to relieve a tragedy-stricken foreign country, the "blame America first" folks like Mr. Kidder cannot even write a single sentence in praise of America's contributions. Rather, Mr. Kidder uses the tragedy as an opportunity to condemn colonialism, imperialism and slavery as the sole causes of Haiti's suffering.   




         

The Art of Politicization

It wasn't long after the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack that leading conservatives doubled down on questioning the wisdom of President Obama's anti-terror policies, including the closing of Guntanamo Bay and trying terrorists in American criminal courts. Much of the criticism was tempered, addressing legitimate points of controversy over how to keep America safe.

Notably, Barak Obama's foremost critic on national security matters, former Vice President Dick Cheney, was quite harsh in his criticism:

As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of Sept. 11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.

He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core Al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office.

Predictably, Dick Cheney's blunt statement sparked wide outrage among liberals, who accused Dick Cheney and other critics of "politicizing the war on terror." I have written in the past that a favorite left-wing talking point is that Republicans use the "politics of fear" to win elections. I explained that this charge is hypocritical, since virtually every left-wing message--from global warming hysteria to blocking social security reform--is primarily grounded in fear.

The charge that Dick Cheney is politicizing the war on terror is equally hypocritical. Take for example the unhinged and notorious Bush-hater, Mike Lupika's, latest column in the NYDaily News:

As usual it starts with a has-been like Dick Cheney acting as if that war is some party issue, as if the country is somehow more vulnerable to fanatics because Democrats have the White House and the Congress, as if all those who hate America and want to kill Americans see this tremendous opening to do that because Barack Obama is in charge now...Cheney looks at a near tragedy on Christmas and sees opportunity. When he does, he doesn't just sound like some old crank in the park. He sounds like a bum.

So there you have it: Dick Cheney is out of line for suggesting that Obama is making America less safe and using the incident as an "opportunity" to attack the President. But Lupika's indignation belies the fact that the left has consistently and unrelentingly politicized every element of George Bush's national security agenda, arguing that Guantanamo Bay has made us less safe and more vulnerable to attack, as has The Iraq War, the NSA Surveillance program, CIA interrogations, etc. In fact, in a stroke of brilliant irony, Mr. Lupika repeats some of these charges in the same breath as he declares that "war isn't a party issue":

He [Cheney] acts now as if the last administration were some kind of triumph, as if the economy collapsed on somebody else's watch the way the towers of the World Trade Center did.

Did you get Lupika's not-so-veiled attack on the Bush Administration, implying that George Bush is accountable for 9/11 because it happened on his watch? Adding that "the America Obama inherited is hated more now than it was pre-Bush," Mr. Lupika is blatantly politicizing the war on terror in an article condemning the politicization of the war on terror.


Does Mike Lupika honestly believe that it's only politicization when the right criticizes the left's anti-terror policies, or is he simply intellectually dishonest? Listening to Democrats feign outrage over Dick Cheney's comments while simultaneously blaming George Bush's policies for making us less safe, I think it's a combination of the two. Clearly, Mr. Lupika has bought into the fallacious platitude that the "politics of fear" is a uniquely Republican tactic. But not even Mr. Lupika can be that willfully ignorant.

Instead of debating the merit of Cheney's argument, the left is attacking him for daring to make the argument in the first place, as if national security matters are beyond the scope of debate. Perhaps for the sake of civility and national unity, Cheney should have offered a more subtle line of attack. But certainly, the Democrats have not afforded Dick Cheney or George Bush that same courtesy.



 

The Politics of Fear

A popular charge leveled by Democrats is that Republicans routinely use the Politics of Fear to advance their agenda and win elections. Used throughout campaigns and policy battles, this charge is arguably the Left’s most forceful and consistent talking point vis-à-vis Republicans. Whenever a controversial issue is debated at the national level—be it immigration, healthcare, terrorism, or education—you can count on Democratic leaders and activists to play the Politics of Fear card.

The transparent hypocrisy of this charge is perhaps best illustrated by the Democrats' efforts to portray mainstream Republican policies as being detrimental to the middle-class, minorities, or some other critical demographic or voting bloc. For example, George Bush's agenda of partial and voluntary social security privatization was disingenuously branded by Democrats as "full privatization" leading to severe cuts to social security payouts. As the anti-reform marketing blitz intensified, seniors became increasingly fearful that social security reform could undermine their livelihood. Similar tactics were used to attack and discredit vouchers for private schools, across-the-board tax cuts, and tort reform. The central theme of the left's opposition to most conservative policies is that bad things will happen to the average American if these policies are implemented. This is glaringly the much maligned politics of fear.

Whereas Republicans rely on fear and other negative emotions (e.g. hate, anger, etc.) to advance policies, Democrats are presumably armed only with the self-evident wisdom of their proposals. This is of course a farce. The global warming hysteria that has come to dominate the United States' energy policy is grounded in fear. Climate Change alarmists tell us that we either have to cut CO2 emissions or face a calamity of biblical proportions. Regardless of whether one views climate change as a serious problem, it is obvious that climate change activists use fear to raise awareness.

Throughout the War on Terror, when George Bush would say that there are terrorists who want to kill us—an incontrovertible fact—he was accused of using fear tactics. As Republicans and movement conservatives solidify their opposition to President Obama’s healthcare proposal, they are dismissed as fear mongers.

Yet when Democrats argue that the War in Iraq and a litany of other Bush-era programs have made us less safe and more vulnerable to attack, we are made to believe that this is straight talk and not an effort to scare Americans into opposing President Bush's policies. However, rightly or wrongly, instilling fear is the precise intent of these Democratic talking points.  

But there is a larger point here besides rank hypocrisy, which is that all politics is grounded in fear. The underlying message of every political movement is that bad things will happen unless the movement succeeds. Fear is at the root of political ideology. After all, it would be difficult to gain a passionate following for a cause if your followers did not believe that the alternative to your movement would adversely affect them. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but rather the nature of politics.

Barak Obama's message during the 2008 campaign was that John McCain's policies would further damage our economy, make our country less safe, and not move our country forward. In short, then-candidate Obama's message was that if you elect John McCain, bad things will happen to you. Of course, President Obama had a positive agenda--as do all candidates for office--but beneath the surface of "hope" and "change" was the central implication that John McCain would be bad for this country. This is undoubtedly the politics of fear.