Who Will Take the High Moral Ground? Republicans, Democrats or Neocons?

Remember Jimmy Carter?  He used to be President of the United States.  That was in the late 70s.  He was a nice guy.  Well intentioned.  Wore a sweater during the energy crisis.  Turned off the Christmas lights to save energy.  The USA had the "Misery Index"—the sum of unemployment rate and inflation rate.  The Index was too high.

One of the admirable things Carter did was to have a policy of supporting good countries and punishing or boycotting bad countries, like Libya or Syria.  This idea was laughed at by many Republicans who said he was naïve and impractical.  Those Republicans took the standard position that it's better to do business with a tyrant and have leverage than to alienate him (or her). (By the way, can you name a female tyrant?)

So the Democrats and Liberals had the high moral ground.  (Reagan later supported the murderous Contras and he gave weapons to the Ayatolla.)  Carter's humanitarian principle took precedence over profit and other self-serving motives.  Democrats felt good about themselves.  They knew they were doing the right thing in their foreign policy.  They were being good-hearted and, therefore, liberal.

Fast forward to Bush #1.  His man Brent Scowcroft is sent to China after the massacre of civilians at Tiananmen Square.  His job is to scold the Chinese leaders for murdering civilians.  Scowcroft is told that it's none of our business.  And Scowcroft actually agreed.  You see he is from the old school of the Republican Party.  He was, and is not a Neocon.  Tyranny just has to be tolerated as a fact of life—real politique.

Carter's stand for human rights was, however, "in principle" and without muscle.  It was cerebral.  His implementation involved only diplomacy and trade.  Thus, it didn't work.  Then along came Clinton who supported using our forces to stop the Serbian genocide in Bosnia.  Remember our planes flying over the range of the Serbian anti-aircraft guns while we destroyed their positions?  Beautiful!  The principles of the Democratic Party had evolved into the use of force to stop genocide and tyranny.  Good move!  Democrats could look at themselves in the mirror and feel that they were putting their money where their principals were.  They were really "repairing the world" in some situations.

Fast forward to post 9-11 and now.  The Neocons have laid out a plan to liberate or bring democracy to millions of Middle Easterners by intervening in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Their plan has resulted in the capture and trial of the most notorious mass murderer of the 2^nd half of the 20^th century—Sadam Hussein.  Elections have been held in, would you believe, Iraq.  Their constitution has been approved by the populace in an election observed by international monitors.

And the Democrats are stuck watching free elections, watching while murderers are brought to trial, watching democratic movements in Lebanon, democratic statements by Mubarak, international pressure on Syria.  The Democrats are uncomfortable because they have missed the freedom train.  The Neocons now have the high moral ground.   While the Democrats said "it would be nice if there were more freedom in the world" the Neocons said "lets accept our responsibility as a super power and help them move toward democracy.  Let's do it."

The connection between liberal Democrats of the 60s/70s and the Neocons is, therefore, a moral connection of which many are not aware.  The difference is that the Neocons believe in action.  Now the most Democrats have reverted to the laissez faire we used to see in the Republicans.  Now Democrats are passively watching, thinking that little or nothing can be done, which can be interpreted as not caring about those who are suffering.  This "Cant Do" attitude is surely one that is not a core American quality.  It amounts to saying that we must tolerate an enormous amount of suffering in the world.