The unbridgeable divide between the left and rightÂ’s approach to Iraq and the WoT is, among other things, a disagreement over the value of moral and material strength, with the left placing a premium on the former and the right on the latter. The right (broadly speaking) canÂ’t fathom why the left is driven into fits of rage over every Abu Ghraib, every Gitmo, every secret rendition, every breach of civil liberties, every shifting rationale for war, every soldier and civilian killed in that war, every Bush platitude in support of it, every attempt to squelch dissent. They see the left's protestations as appeasement of a ruthless enemy. For the left (broadly speaking), AmericaÂ’s moral strength is of paramount importance; without it, all the brute force in the world wonÂ’t keep us safe, defeat our enemies, and preserve our role as the worldÂ’s moral leader.....
War hawks squeal about America-haters and traitors, heaping scorn on the so-called “blame America first" crowd, but they fail to comprehend that the left reserves the deepest disdain for those who squander our moral authority. The scars of a terrorist attack heal and we are sadder but stronger for having lived through it. When our moral leadership is compromised by people draped in the American flag, America is weakened. The loss of our moral compass leaves us rudderless, open to attacks on our character and our basic decency. And nothing makes our enemies prouder. They can't kill us all, but if they permanently stain our dignity, they've done irreparable harm to America.
Could this really be what our many differences boil down to? I am often flabbergasted by the things that the right says about the war, Iraq, Saddam, and a host of other things. There have been times when I questioned my own view thinking perhaps I missed something. But if this article is true then the chasmseparateserates me from the Right is too wide and too deep for there ever to be a compromise. Now my question is how do the majority of Americans feel about these subjects?
