Centerfield

ignoring context

the distinguished mr. heller's discussion of possible ANSWER treason highlights what is, to me, the current central failing of the (far) left, which opposition to the iraq war and reconstruction (pardon me, colonization) has revealed. mr. heller asks, somewhat rhetorically, whether treason is bad. but treason, like the left's faith in multilateralism or opposition to war generally, is an empty concept without context. working to undermine or to oppose one's country or sovereign clearly is not a bad act if one's country or sovereign is itself bad, evil, illegitimate, whatever (which is also why following orders is no defense), leaving aside for now the questions how we judge regimes or who gets to judge. similarly, fighting to defend one's country/community/family against aggression generally is deemed acceptable, even if only a necessary evil, leaving aside (1) those who would die (and watch their children die, wives and daughters raped) rather than sully their souls by fighting back, which is a defensible, coherent position to which few humans adhere, and (2) whether there is ever justification for striking first. similarly, multilateralism only makes sense if you respect the multitude -- few would argue that hitler or pol pot should have veto power (or even a vote) regarding whether their conduct should be denounced or opposed -- leaving aside whether the UN as currently constituted is worthy of our respect (someone explain to me again why we should let russia or china (or france) veto our policy choices, why syria gets a seat at the table but taiwan does not, why india is not on the security council but france and england are (though the EU should get a seat)). but the (far) left largely refuses to recognize these complexities, discuss openly the issues and policies at stake, so the (far) left effectively opts out of the debate and surrenders much legitimacy in the process.

why this is bad for all of us:
partisanship is little help in most policy decisions, because it must be true that neither side is right all or even the vast majority (say 80% plus) of the time. true, you could just collect up all the objectively correct policies (if you could make that determination) and place them in one fund, but the way politics is currently structured, the two parties are too beholden to various interests to be free to assess honestly the merits of various policy choices. and i also firmly believe we need both the aspirational left -- to push us to better society, life, etc. -- and the pragmatic right -- to provide a brake on the excesses that so often arise from utopianism -- so that MLK gets heard but stalin rejected, etc. so we need the debate, and if one side effectively opt outs, we all suffer.