A common charge levelled against Liberals, especially with today's terrorism threats, is that Liberals are naive as to the real threats of the world, and too weak to confront these threats. Appeasement for example is a common charge levelled against Liberals who seek to avoid war or similar extreme measures. They see it as a last resort, but this is precisely because they fear its ineffectiveness and tendency to make things worse. The Iraq war of 2003 is a prime example. France's recent troubles are the product of its bombing in Syria, not it's rather adroit avoidance of a ground war in Iraq.
In war, Conservatives have talked big and then failed to back up their words. It was Obama's surge that finally settled down Iraq ( only later for it to be squandered by his tolerance of a divisive Shia government there). Conservatives have typically failed to fund the very military forces they proclaim to venerate, even to the shameful extent of cutting veterans benefits post war.
On law and order Conservatives have likewise talked big but failed to make progress against crime, mainly due to their blind adherence to ideology as opposed to evidence driven policy. In its broad thrust crime policy is more effective when driven by prevention, treatment, and the certainty of getting caught rather than the severity of the punishment.
On domestic terrorism Liberals are often seen as naive, letting in refugees who will turn against them. Actually, the threat is already inside and refugees are allies fleeing a common enemy. (http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/20/the-threat-is-already-inside-uncomfortable-truths-terrorism-isis/)
It takes more courage to remain calm and wait to strike the effective blow, than it does to lash out in fear. Liberals have the courage to wait to identify the right target rather, than strike first and risk hitting innocents.
Further reading here ;
http://www.urban.org/urban-wire/10-surprising-ways-fight-crime
No comments:
Post a Comment