Day By Day© by Chris Muir.

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Great article about compassionate conservatives

If you want some good ripostes next time a liberal accuses you of being a heartless conservative, you'd better check out Jay Nordlinger's ruminations on the utter falsity of that charge. For example

And shall we get started on Vietnam? I don't think so. Why is it that, when I was younger, I heard about the boat people, the reeducation camps, and so on only from the lips of "right-wingers"? Has anything changed? And burned into the mind of every conservative is the New York Times's headline, when the Khmer Rouge took over in Cambodia: "Indochina Without Americans: For Most, a Better Life." Nice going, guys.
It's hard to get liberals interested in the Sudanese, massacred as they are — because they are not massacred by the "right" murderers — and you really can't get them interested in Arabs. They care about Palestinians to the extent that they can cast Israel as a monster, and the United States as the monster's Frankenstein (Great Satan/Little Satan). What the PA does to Palestinians is of no interest to virtually any liberal. You couldn't get liberals to care about Kuwaitis, except to mock them as rich and languorous. They left the impression that they thought Kuwaitis deserved invasion, rape, and subjugation. (Do you remember Alexander Cockburn, from December 1979? "If any people deserves rape, it's the Afghans.")
Or how about
About the Afghans: There are liberals who would rather homosexuals be stoned to death than that they be freed by George W. Bush and the U.S. military. The latter is the greater insult.
One gets the feeling that, subject to exceptions Nordlinger willingly acknowledges, conservatives care about people (not power, as the liberals allege), and liberals care about whatever is the liberal cause de jour, and not about people at all.