Phantom Invasions

I think it's about time that I say something nice about my (and the known universe's) mortal enemies, the Neo Cons. Here goes: Bill Frist is capable of being correct. Further, and even more surprising, Charles Krauthammer is capable of being correct. But still, dear sweet Chaz, you adorable doctor of pseudo-psychiatry, you sunken-cheeked embodiment of ruffled indignation... still you insist on playing the degrading role of Bush's shit-funnel:

In 1977, when a bunch of neo-Nazis decided to march through Skokie, a suburb of Chicago heavily populated with Holocaust survivors, there was controversy as to whether they should be allowed. I thought they should. Why? Because neo-Nazis are utterly powerless.

That's an excellent point. Come to think of it, my 'taint is utterly powerless too. Perhaps sometime this autumn I can drop by your stately home in suburban Washington and parade it in front of your wife's face. Sorry to interrupt... you were on your way to making one of your self-evident, scoff-inducing truisms:

Had they not been -- had they been a party on the rise, as in late-1920s Germany -- I would have been for not only banning the march but also for practically every measure of harassment and persecution from deportation to imprisonment. A tolerant society has an obligation to be tolerant. Except to those so intolerant that they themselves would abolish tolerance.

Call it situational libertarianism: Liberties should be as unlimited as possible -- unless and until there arises a real threat to the open society. Neo-Nazis are pathetic losers. Why curtail civil liberties to stop them? But when a real threat -- such as jihadism -- arises, a liberal democratic society must deploy every resource, including the repressive powers of the state, to deter and defeat those who would abolish liberal democracy.

Normally, I would find this kind of logic amusing and even a little provocative; but not today. See, most people (myself included) would agree that a society has a right to protect itself against destabilizing elements that seek to destroy it. That premise is nothing more than simple self-preservation/self-defense. Everyone understands it. But you, like the intellectual hack you are, knowingly corrupt your own argument with a blatantly specious rhetorical leap. You accept prima facie the erroneous assumption that "jihadism" is arising in "liberal democracy" with the intent to abolish it. Did you really believe Bush's yammering about attacks on "our way of life"? Do you honestly nod in approval when every fat right-wing radio hog sputters that "these terrorists want one thing only – to kill you"? Jackass.

You go on to mention Abraham Lincoln and his suspension of habeas corpus, as if civil war bore some martial resemblance to our current situation. It doesn't. Mujahideen, unlike what you'd wish to believe, have decipherable and comprehensible motivations. And you, Mr. Fancypants Psychiatrist, are clearly incapable of understanding them. What? What's that you say?

Civil libertarians go crazy when you make this argument. Beware the slippery slope, they warn. You start with a snoop in a library, and you end up with Big Brother in your living room.

Bite me.