Mythology and the American Spectator

Here's a section from the Norse Myth concerning the death of the God Balder. Balder was killed by his Brother Hodur. All of the other Norse Gods wept, and one of them, Hermod, was sent to Hel to seek the release of Norse from the Goddess Hel (who ruled the land of the dead.

For nine nights he [Hermod] rode until he came to the river Gjoll and rode across its bridge. Modgud is the guardian of that bridge and she asked him his name and family and said that the day before five troops of dead men had ridden over the bridge, but the bridge resounded as much under him alone, and he didn't look like a man who has died. She asked him why he was riding on the road to Hel. Hermod replied he was riding to Hel to seek for Balder and asked if she had seen anything of him on his way there. She replied that Balder had ridden past over the bridge of the Gjoll.

Hermod rode on until he came to the gates of Hel. Hermod dismounted, tightened the stirrups on Sleipnir, remounted and dug his spurs. Sleipnir jumped over the gate with such energy that he came no where near the gate. Hermod then rode up to Hel's hall and dismounted. Inside, he saw Balder sitting at the high seat there. Hermod stayed that night in Hel and in the morning he asked Hel if Balder might be allowed to ride home with him. Hermod told Hel how all the Æsir wept for Balder and Hel said that this test should be made as to whether Balder was loved as much as people said. If all things in the world, both dead or alive, would weep for Balder the he would be allowed to return to the Æsir, but if anyone objected or refused to weep he would have to remain in Hel.

I have referenced this story before, but I'm referencing it again.

I was driving around at Lunch and listening to Rush Limbaugh and he pointed out an article that appears in the American Spectator (or at least at their website). The basic premise of the article can be summed up thusly; Democrats want to see America fail because that way they can get their power back. I'll deal with that point in a moment, but first let's talk about Vietnam and Iraq.

Vietnam was a mistake from beginning to end. It was entered into under false premises. It was not conducted in a sensible way, largely because the goal was not to win (which frankly we didn't even know what that looked like in that particular war), but to keep from losing. There were regrettably atrocities committed by both sides. And the reason we lost that war? Because some Americans pointed out these failings. Or so says Paul Breston, author of this particular article.

"They [American Liberals] wanted us out of Vietnam, and the way to accomplish that was to demoralize the American public, thereby emboldening the enemy and ensuring a protracted struggle, and more casualties. The body bags they pretended to decry were crucial to their success; they relied on death far more than did the warmakers they demonized. Theirs was the most bloodthirsty peace movement in American history."

Which of course brings us to Iraq. Iraq is not quite as bad as Vietnam. We are making more efforts to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis (although we are certainly making our share of misteps as well). But there is also plenty to critique in how we have handled the Iraqi war. And many of those criticisms can find there way back to the Oval Office or to the Offices of those President Bush has appointed. So the solution? Liberals shouldn't criticize the President's handling of Iraq.

I notice that when Conservatives push President Bush to adopt a harder line with Iraq or to invade Syria or Iran, they are not accused of disloyalty or giving comfort to the enemy. I also note that during our conflicts during the Clinton Years, Republicans didn't feel it disloyal to continue their critiques of him as a Commander in Chief.

As for the suggestion that America has to fail for Democrats to succeed, that's just crap. It's not that we want America to fail; it's that the people who are in charge of this country aren't running it correctly. If you put a guy like President Bush or a foul mouthed guy like Vice President Cheney in power, there are going to be problems. I don't know that Kerry is going to be a flawless president (I'd be surprised if he was) but he has got to be better than those that we have in power now.

If nothing else, unlike President Bush, Kerry has been in combat and has some idea of what the life of an American fighting man is worth.