December 5, 2004

"But only slightly less silly."

Timothy Goddard has an excellent dissection of Kevin Drum's recent much-noted piece:

...He makes the mistake boldly and without apology:
The basic post-9/11 position among conservatives is that the war on terror is the moral equivalent of the anti-fascist crusade of World War II and the anticommunist crusade of the Cold War. Since this is their core argument, let’s take a look at the historical comparisons.
Thanks for playing, but that’s not an argument, that’s an analogy. The basic post-9/11 position among conservatives is that the war on terror must be fought in order to avoid terrorist attacks on US soil (and, preferably, everywhere else). We can compare this to World War II and the Cold War, but to claim that comparison is the “core argument” is just silly. It is slightly less silly in context, because Beinhart’s argument was that Liberals need to get their act together, just like they did during the Cold War (which is a silly argument for another day). But only slightly less silly.

Drum proceeds to pick apart the metaphor of the War on Terror as WWII and the Cold War. But anyone can pick apart a metaphor. If there were no differences between the two halves of a metaphor, it wouldn’t be a metaphor, now would it?...

I was vaguely thinking of writing about the same article, but Goddard's got it.

All the recent leftish/Democrat arguments about how the Dems should get serious about national defense, (or not get serious) are just a waste of electrons...until Democrats can answer the question that underlies those questions. That question is:

"What do you believe in enough to fight for?"

Posted by John Weidner at December 5, 2004 11:25 AM
Weblog by John Weidner