How the left's agenda trumps genuine concern for human suffering
By Christopher Cook

Reading today about two instances in which the left is silent in the face of terrible oppression (one from Michelle Malkin and one from Captain's Quarters), I was reminded of a unfortunate characteristic of the left.

Over the years, I have noticed—and have heard some very smart thinkers remark on—a very disturbing pattern.

Simply put, the left gets completely outraged at conflicts in which the side perceived to have more power is from the groups and ideologies they "dislike," but they remain silent when the side with the power comes from an ideological position they support. You can reverse those components too—they are outraged when they "like" the victims and silent (or worse) when they don't. It doesn't matter how brutal the conflict is, or who has a better claim to use force in their own defense—the only thing that appears to matter is group identity.


1. Sudan

For years, the left was silent on the slaughter in Sudan. The perpetrators were Sudanese Muslims, and they were killing—and selling into sexual slavery—over a million black animists and Christians from southern Sudan.

The reason the left was silent? The perpetrators of this horror are allied with America's enemies, and the left has a habit of supporting America's enemies (a disturbing pattern that began a half-century ago).

Moreover, the victims were Christians—a group the left tends to dislike. Therefore, this conflict did not rate concern, outrage, or protests from the left.

Contrast this with the sudden haste to decry the horror taking place in Darfur. What's the difference here? Why decry this and not the other horrors taking place in Sudan? Apparently, because the victims in Darfur are Muslims and the victims in southern Sudan were primarily Christians.


Think I'm being too harsh? Let's continue.


2. Former Yugoslavia

We took the side of Muslims against Christians. There were debatable U.S. national interests at stake, and there were alleged human rights abuses taking place. There was a Democrat president. Thus, the left could side with a group towards which they tend to tilt (expansionist Muslims) and with a Democrat president to fight against a group that they don't like: Christians. Ignoring the objective rights or wrongs of the sides we took in those conflicts for the time being, we can still say that, by and large, most on the left were supportive of that conflict.

Now, contrast this with Iraq.

In Iraq, there were genuine national interests at stake. There were confirmed human rights abuses taking place on a scale that dwarfed anything happening in the former Yugoslavia. The people in power were enemies of America—they were shooting at American planes and they even tried to kill a Republican former president. Against them stood America, with a Republican as commander-in-chief. All of these facts, put together, allowed the left to feel quite comfortable ignoring the human rights abuses, the oppression, and the atrocities. They opposed the war. Some of them even tried to rehabilitate Saddam or claim that his regime was one of happy children, laughing and flying kites.


3. Terror famine of Ukraine

Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer for his correspondence work from the USSR, in which he denied that Stalin was intentionally starving out millions of land-owning peasants in Ukraine (which Stalin was doing because they were land owners).

To this day, there are still people on the left who deny this. Years ago, my landlord in Venice, CA, denied it to my face, saying "some people may have died, but it was not intentional." (This was a dear, sweet man, he truly was. However, he was on the left, which means he was running the left's software [Leftism 4.0™], and saying such things is a likely consequence of running that corrupt software package.)

Why deny the terror famine of Ukraine? The perpetrator was on the left, and the left likes the left. The victims were land owners, and the more extreme people on the left don't like land-owners very much. Thus, the left was generally silent on the forced starvation of millions in Ukraine.


4. Israel

A tiny little democracy—the only country in the area with universal suffrage, women's rights, religious and social pluralism, etc.—vs. dozens of oppressive, intolerant states pledged to the little democracy's destruction. With whom does the left side? Israel's enemies.

The why here is a complex question. Big rallies for left wing causes always seem to include Palestinian and other Islamist flags, signs, and groups. Rallies for Islamist or anti-Israel causes are often organized by left-wing and Communist front groups.

As many wise observers of this issue have said (including the likes of Dennis Prager and others), the new home for anti-Semitism is on the left. And it's hard to conclude otherwise, when they are silent in the face of genuine oppression taking place around the world, but seem quite ready to vilify this tiny nation—which gives away land and bends over backwards not to kill civilians—locked in a struggle for its very existence against intractable enemies.

I think that the anti-Semitism here is real, but it may be a sequela (secondary consequence) of the fact that Israel is America's ally and Israel's enemies tend to be generally (or specifically) opposed to the United States. The left prefers the latter; hence the opposition to Israel. (Notice that the left's dislike of Israel really heated up after 1967, which is right around the same time that the U.S. relationship with Israel really began to tighten.)


5. Colombia

While it is by no means front-page news, the left is quietly opposed to Alvaro Uribe, the popular and successful president of Colombia. Uribe is an ally of of the U.S. and friendly with our current (and oh-so-hated) president. Uribe is fighting on our side in the war against narco-trafficking. He is a supply-side, center-right politician. AND.....drum roll please......he is fighting against LEFT WING guerillas. Put it all together, and the left dislikes him.

Granted, Uribe's forces are not squeaky clean by any means. FARC and ELN are worse, but the forces and paramilitary allies of the Colombian government are not choir boys at all. Still, the left doesn't care a wit about what FARC and ELN do. They're on the left, and Uribe is on the right. That's all they need to know.

Contrast this with the left's fondness for Hugo Chavez. Chavez can expropriate businesses and dismantle democratic and free institutions, one-by-one, in Venezuela, but since he's on the left, his activities are just fine with folks on the left. (Oh, and he gets big bonus points for being so rude to President Bush.)

Or, if you prefer, contrast this with Castro's Cuba. Decades of systematic oppression in Cuba mean not a jot to the left. Many of the left are not only silent, they're actually quite fond and supportive of Castro.


6. Zimbabwe

One of the most disgusting thugocracies on the planet. Mass starvation. Operation Murambatsvina (essentially, Operation "Take out the Trash"), in which millions of poor people were forcibly relocated. Some of the worst hyper-inflation in world history.

Dictator Robert Mugabe sends machette wielding thugs to slaughter white farmers. Then, he takes those farms and gives them to his family, cronies, and allies. The farms are mismanaged, and a nation—once a net exporter of food—plunges into starvation.

The left is silent. The "perpetrators" of this horror are black. The victims are both white and black, but it began with the murder of white farmers and the appropriation of their farms. The left cannot bring itself to side with those white "descendants of oppressors"; therefore, they are largely silent on Zimbabwe.

They're also silent on the Congo, where nearly three million have died in constant brutality. Why be silent on this? Well, it primarily a black tribal conflict. No left-wingers, Islamists, or enemies of America to support. No center-right politicians or U.S. allies to oppose. No religious or ethnic groups they like vs. religious or ethnic groups they dislike.


Continue playing this game at home, folks. Take a conflict in the world. Look at the "perpetrators" and "victims" (perceived or genuine). Ascertain the political alignment, or the ethnic or religious identity of the parties involved. Then, determine whether the left takes a side or is silent.

See a pattern?


Unfortunately, it seems that the left's righteous indignation is very selective, and at times entirely misplaced. This tendency is something that both left and right are capable of, but the left appears to be far, far more prone to it. And, given the fact that folks on the left are constantly lecturing the rest of us about something, it is striking to take note of how often genuine concern for human suffering is trumped by their political agendas and affinities.

Recognizing that many individuals on the left are decent and sympathetic people, it nonetheless appears that the aggregate direction of their ideological movement is towards activities that further the left's agenda far more than towards activities geared solely towards the amelioration of human suffering.