The Enemy At Home Read Free

intervention.
    How, then, can we explain the mystery of liberal opposition to American foreign policy acting to secure liberal principles abroad? Superficially, the left’s position can be explained by its attachment to multiculturalism. In other words, liberal antagonism toward the beliefs and mores of traditional cultures is moderated by its conviction “Who are we to judge these cultures?” This concept of withholding judgment is a product of multiculturalism and cultural relativism, both of which are based on the theory that there are no universal standards to judge other cultures. Our standards apply only to us.
    But again, this multicultural rhetoric is a smokescreen. Liberal activists mercilessly condemn other regimes and cultures when they are friendly toward the United States. In the past liberals showed no hesitation to condemn the Philippines under Marcos, Nicaragua under Somoza, and even Saddam Hussein’s Iraq (as long as America was allied with Hussein during the 1980s). Today liberal congressmen and talk show hosts are quick to deride pro-American despots like Egypt’s Mubarak and the Saudi royal family. As a practical matter, liberal multiculturalism inhibits liberal condemnation and liberal judgment only when the regime in question is a sworn enemy of the United States. The suspicion of treason, although distasteful, is inevitable. What else could account for this bizarre double standard? Why would so many liberals oppose American foreign policy actions even when they would advance liberal principles abroad?
    Treason is not the problem. To see what is, let us consider two revealing exhibits. The first is a short article by a left-leaning writer, Kristine Holmgren, that appeared shortly after 9/11. Holmgren wrote, “Even in my waking hours, I am afraid.” Was she afraid of a second 9/11-style attack? Not at all. “Nor am I afraid of planes striking my home or my children dying in their beds.” What, then, was the source of Holmgren’s trepidation? “My fears are more practical,” she explained. Here in America, Holmgren wrote, the forces of Christian fundamentalism are gaining strength. They are threatening abortion rights and civil liberties. “My local school district is so afraid of adolescent sexuality, drug use and music videos that they are willing to suspend civil rights to proselytize for Jesus Christ.” Holmgren concludes on a grim note: “Fascism crept up on post–World War I Europe with the same soft, calm footsteps it is using these days in the United States.” 5 Here in clear view is the cultural left’s mind-set. Just two months after 9/11, with its memory still fresh in the national consciousness, Holmgren candidly confesses that she is less scared of bin Laden than she is of Christian activists on her school board. In her view, bin Laden might do episodic damage, but the Christians are on their way to establishing a fascist theocracy in America!
    For my second exhibit I offer excerpts from Senator Robert Byrd’s recent book
Losing America
. In an early chapter, Byrd faults President Bush for his repeated references to the Islamic radicals as evil. “Presidents must measure their words and look past such raw simplicities,” Byrd opined. “The notion of ‘evil’ and ‘evildoers’ tends to set one faith against another and could be seen as a slur on the Islamic faith. Bush’s draconian ‘them’ versus ‘us,’ ‘good’ and ‘evil,’ serves little purpose other than to divide and inflame.” 6 On the face of it, this passage seems to suggest Byrd’s high-minded objection to using crude terms like “good” and “evil” to describe the world we live in. Byrd’s point is that even if those labels are superficially descriptive, we should avoid them because they create unnecessary hostility and division.
    A little later on in Byrd’s book, however, we find Byrd comparing President Bush to Hermann Goering and the Nazis. Byrd accuses Bush of “capitalizing on the