Posted by
Andrews on Friday, April 10, 2009 12:31:16 PM
Jonah Goldberg's most recent column is a perfect example of how the right continues to lose ground to the left. Oh, not the entire column. In fact, most of the column is unobjectionable. I have myself
written posts about how "pragmatism" is often merely
a way to smuggle in an implicit ideology (as thoroughgoing "pragmatism" is impossible,
having no guiding principle at all). But, much as I agree with the article, a single paragraph shows how the right can so quickly give up in struggles with the left.
The problem is not that Goldberg
me too's the left, as so
many on the right do, at least not knowingly. But read this quote:
Now, as an unapologetic moralist in foreign policy, I have absolutely
no objection to the intent here. The U.S. should condemn such
persecution, full stop. It may be open to debate whether gays should
marry, but no decent person can believe that homosexuals should be
beheaded.
On the surface it is unobjectionable. I agree that homosexuality should not carry the risk of execution. However, in saying that, I have to differ with Goldberg about the propriety of signing on to the UN resolution.
You see, the UN resolution is yet another example of a problem I first noticed in congress. In congress we will often find a bill named something like "The Bill for Protecting Widows and Orphans". And, in the bill it will do just that, promising a billion, trillion dollars for every widow and orphan. The problem is that in Appendix F, Section 128, Subsection 345, Paragraph Z there is a clause reading "As guns hurt widows and orphans, all guns will be banned everywhere in the US."
It is a cagey approach to legislation. Not only does it mean that inattentive congressmen may vote for a bill they would normally despise, being misled by a nice name into voting for a bill they failed to read carefully, but it also provides ammunition at election time. A challenger can say "Congressman X voted against women and children". Congressman X can explain all about the gun control paragraph, but such explanations are too long for good soundbites, so it will never make the news. And instead we are left with the impression that those voting against gun control are voting against women and children*.
And that is precisely what such UN resolutions end up doing, though in a very different way. The UN does not hide specific clauses in their resolutions, instead they create vague terms that can mean anything to anyone. So they create a committee to enforce "Human Rights", then they
redefine "Human Rights" to include things such as a "right to education" or "right to a job", and thus turn unobjectionable "rights" into a tool for enforcing socialist reforms. (Let us ignore for a moment that the group entrusted with protecting human rights is made up of many of the worst abusers. Even if the Declaration were enforced as written, it would still be a tool for socialism more than freedom.)
And that is the problem with even agreeing with "the intent" as Goldberg does. The "intent" is not to prevent the beheading of homosexuals, the Arab block has enough votes they will likely avoid censure with only token reforms, it is to criticize western nations that do not follow a sufficiently enlightened agenda. Doubtless the US will be censured repeatedly for not allowing gay marriage. And so, even to make such a weak concession as agreeing to "the intent" is to grant moral authority to what is, in the end, simply a tool for forcing the western Democracies to follow the left wing agenda of the UN.
But, as we are so often mislead by the name, or the nominal purpose, of such resolutions, we have the regular spectacle of conservative giving credence, or even ascribing moral authority, to groups and resolution which are, in reality, nothing but the latest tool with which to beat up western Democracies which refuse to adopt the left wing agenda. And that, in a nutshell, is how the right continues to surrender to the left, often without even realizing it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
* In interesting alternate approach is to attach some legislation the opposition desires to something they hate. For example, attach tax cuts to a bill mandating nationwide gay marriage. When conservatives vote against it, the left can then say "We offered a tax cut bill, but you defeated it", and thus score points in the sound bite wars, as, once again, the explanation takes too long to fit on the evening news, while the misleading accusation makes a perfectly wonderful sound bite.