We invaded Iraq, if memory serves, without seriously asking what happens next. In fact President Bush and Vice President Cheney systematically ignored anybody who was trying to tell them what would happen next after toppling Saddam, and pundits like Prager applauded this strategy. The President and his war-mongers knew that to admit that we'd be bogged down in Iraq for years, knew they couldn't sell that. So they carefully excluded from the debate any discussion what happened after toppling Saddam.
That's not of course what Pragers article is about. Rather he's asking other questions. Like would obeying the Kyoto Protocols be good for the American economy? Apparently we Liberals never ask that question (except that of course we do, and have come to the conclusion that we need to do it anyway, but that it can be an opportunity for some companies, even if some others have to adjust.
Would withdrawal from Iraq increase or decrease human suffering? Liberals are talking about this regularly, and they are coming up with different answers than Prager - which of course is the problem. If we really thought about the issues we'd agree with Prager.
Prager ends his article with this paean to asking what happens next.
In the view of many liberals, "What happens next?" is a pragmatic, but not idealistic, question by which to guide social policy. In fact, however, no question is as idealistic as "What happens next?" Asking it means that social policy is made by noble and compassionate minds, not hearts alone. In the rest of life, thinking through the consequences of actions is called "responsible" and "mature." Those remain worthy goals in public life as well.Thank you for that Prager, but as noted above, there are plenty of people on your side of the fence that might benefit from this advice.
No comments:
Post a Comment