Skeptically Naive

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have never quite understood the mindset of the far Left. You know the sort of folks we mean: Subscribers to The Nation, Z, The Guardian, Mother Jones, Counterpunch, and kindred organs of firmly entrenched leftism. Quite frankly, we consider their political presuppositions baffling.

In general, such radical lefties remain deeply skeptical of the United States government. To their minds, America is an ultra-capitalist, imperialist nightmare that ruins the world through its malign combination of military aggression and neo-liberal economics. Our radical buddies believe that almost all US politicians are at best complicit in the raping of the world.

Now, we don’t happen to believe that these propositions are true–though we don’t doubt that America has made mistakes in the past. Still, we can partially understand this sort of suspicion of the American government, since no government is uniformly virtuous.

Yet the radical Left combines this paranoid skepticism about the USA with a humorously sanguine view of governments opposed to American interests. And here is where we just can’t fathom how reasonable people can support their worldview. As suspicious as these folks are of the US, they seem almost pathologically un-skeptical of Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, Fidel Castro’s Cuba, and Palestine.

Hence we are treated to the bizarre sight of supposed human rights champions such as John Pilger odiously supporting Hugo Chavez’s merciless crackdown on Venezuela’s last vestiges of independent media. Chavez recently decried students protesting his proto-totalitarianism as “pawns of Washington,” and we’ll hear nary a peep from the likes of Cindy Sheehan, Harold Pinter, and likeminded extremists.

It seems clear, in fact, that cheerleaders for Hugo Chavez are willing to defend any foul play–provided Saint Hugo was the perpetrator. After all, Chavez shills descry American interference in the workings of foreign governments–though Chavez himself has engendered South American ire for his similar meddling. They excoriate the Bush administration for purportedly chilling dissent, but make all manner of excuses for Chavez’s obvious chilling of Venezuelan dissent.

Perhaps, racism lies at the heart of such repellent views. In the minds of radical leftists, healthy representative democracy, freedom of speech, and free media are the prerogative of Westerners. Americans and their European confreres can enjoy such perquisites, but they’re strictly off limits to contemporary Cubans and Venezuelans.

Although, to their minds, Americans need to remain vigilant regarding the horrors of the US government, Cubans and Venezuelans should apparently sit tight, and allow odious totalitarians to run their lives. Can anyone inform us why such paternalistic views deserve the moniker “progressive”?

(Note: The crack young staff normally “weblog” over at “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” where they are currently reading Pascal Bruckner’s brilliant excoriation of squishy liberal racism.)

Papal bull
A Filly wins the Belmont Stakes