When Did Progressives Become Warmongers?
By Martin LeFevre
Under the guise of being guardians of democracy, Democrats and progressives are pushing the United States and humanity toward world war. Otherwise rational voices are saying truly stupid things like, “Some of those who oppose Western aid to Ukraine just don’t see the moral equivalence with World War II.” Invoking hackneyed references to D-Day, an eminent grise of the New York Times, Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman, began a recent, deeply disturbing column with, “Seventy-nine years ago Allied paratroopers began landing behind the beaches of Normandy.” Appealing to America’s nostalgia for past glories, Krugman pronounces, “Ukraine’s long-awaited counterattack against Russian invaders is the moral equivalent of D-Day.” Placing Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in the context of World War II crosses the line from conventionally minded foolishness to treacherously courting self-fulfilling prophecy. When did progressives, or liberals as they used to be called before they allowed Republicans make it a dirty word, become the hawks? Indeed, when did they become warmongers, purblind to the dangers of escalation with a nuclear power? Putin’s Russia has demonstrated unbounded ruthlessness in Chechnya, Syria and now Ukraine. Do Western politicians and pundits really believe he won’t use nuclear weapons if cornered? Reactionaries trot out the tired refrain of pre-World War II appeasement by Britain. But it’s inane beyond belief to equate Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, as illegal and immoral as it was and as brutal as it continues to be, with the Nazi march across Europe in the early 1940’s, and the Holocaust the Germans left in their wake. The issue isn’t whether Putin’s Russia is evil; it clearly is. So is Bush-Cheney and Trump’s America. The issue is that Russia possesses nuclear weapons and the West is pushing Putin tighter into the very corner that he started the war to escape - the perceived threat of NATO expansion and its “existential threat” to “Mother Russia.” It’s completely irrational to equate the thus far contained war in Ukraine with the global conflagration of World War II. There will be no winners in even a limited nuclear war, if there is such a thing. Hitler would certainly have used nuclear weapons if Germany possessed them; Putin has many of them, and he will use them if the West doesn’t give him a way out of the war he started. The core premises are: 1. “World War II was one of the few wars that was clearly a fight of good against evil;” and 2. “Ukraine is an imperfect but real democracy, hoping to join the larger democratic community.” That’s a non sequitur, and such thinking reflects a mind that no longer knows how to think properly. Freshly minted warmongers on the left insist this proxy war between US/NATO and Russia (which they deny is a proxy war between US/NATO and Russia) is a Manichean battle between good and evil that must be fought with the same mindset as World War II. But since the development and use of nuclear weapons, the calculus of war has completely changed. Yet Krugman doesn’t make a single mention of nuclear weapons in his unhinged piece! Completing his specious argument, he pronounces: “If Ukraine’s counteroffensive succeeds, the forces of democracy will be strengthened around the world, not least in America. If it fails, it will be a disaster not just for Ukraine but for the world. Western aid to Ukraine may dry up, Putin may finally achieve the victory most people expected him to win in the war’s first few days, and democracy will be weakened everywhere.” Krugman and his ilk willfully refuse to see the fact that democracy has already been weakened around the world, and perhaps mortally wounded in the United States. It’s quite possible that Donald Trump, who destroyed American democracy’s core tenet - the peaceful transfer of power - could be elected again in 2024, despite or because of being on trial for his political, criminal and personal offenses. Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised. Krugman has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to step out of a partisan mindset, stubbornly sticking to his belief that there’s nothing wrong with America - it’s the Republicans that are the problem. But his refusal to look beyond a nationalistic, good-versus-evil mindset even when the danger of nuclear war is greater now than it was during the Cuban Missile Crisis is shocking. Why does nostalgia for America’s moral authority during World War II, which was destroyed in the flash over Hiroshima, so blind formerly rational people that they propagandize for another world war, this time with nuclear weapons? The idea that the challenges to nominal democracies are the same as they were prior to World War II is divorced from reality. The false choice is that either, America and the West bottomlessly pour billions of dollars worth of weapons into Ukraine, and escalate the war until it spills over into Europe and America, or “Putin wins and democracies everywhere are imperiled.” Joan Didion, one of the pioneers of “New Journalism,” said, “No matter what your political feelings are, if you’re attached to the idea of the nation as a community, you feel yourself to be part of that community.” However the filthy wellspring of war is attachment to “the idea of the nation as a community,” fed by the polluted currents of “the right ideals.” As nations have become increasingly irrelevant to the global polycrisis, with a planet literally on fire, old journalists, economists and politicians desperately cling to identification with “my country,” even as it’s breaking apart. Hearkening back to time of cohesion and national unity in the war years after Pearl Harbor is not merely nonsensically nostalgic in such a climate; it’s dangerously delusional. Martin LeFevre
Fluidity of Thought Is a Far Cry From ...
Time Is Elastic, But Timelessness Is Fantastic
Slaughter and War Spew from Time and Memory
The Universe Is in a State of Meditation. Why ...
Two Kinds of Metaphysical Movement?
Resolve Contradictions, Revere Paradoxes
The Human Brain Is Exapted for Insight
Narratives or Insight?
Oppenheimer, and “I Am Become Death”
Doing Philosophy In America
Regarding Nihilism and Negation
Providence, the End of Man, and the Emergence ...
Awakening Intelligence Within
Teilhard Got It Backwards
Awakening a Proprioception of Thought
Human Being Is Not a “Very Small Phenomenon”
Finding False Comfort In Impermanence
Has the Retreat Industry Contributed to Human ...
Letter to a Friend about Meditation
A Birthday Wish from America for Humanity on ...
Our View of Nature Is the Cornerstone of Our ...
Three Kinds of Singularity
An Explanation, Though It Won’t Change the ...
AI’s Quantum Leap Demands a Quantum Leap in ...
The Ending of Psychological Thought
Concerning Discernment and Difference
Mystical Experiencing Is Our Birthright
AI, AI, AI, or I, I, I?
What Is Art, and an Artist?
Canaries in the Coal Mines of Consciousness
Cosmic Pointlessness or Infinite Immanence?
Concerning Stagnancy, Demography and Vitality
Mind, Brain and Consciousness
The State of Insight
The Religious and Scientific Mind
Q Craziness and Unaddressed Evil
Localism Increases Fragmentation of Earth
Collapsing the Distinction Doesn’t Resolve ...
The Silence of Being
Heightened Senses In Nature Opens the Door to ...
The Inter-National Order Is Dead and Gone
Polarization Isn’t the Problem
Enlightenment Isn’t Personal
Human Beings Can Meet This Moment
Nagasaki and the Incorrigibility of Man
There Is No Evolution of Consciousness
Imagining ‘Umwelts’ Is Unnecessary
Expansion or Negation of Self?
Intelligent Life, Meditation and Transmutation
The Source of Evil Is Not a Person or a Nation
The Dialogue Buffet at the Death Café
Higher Thought: Threshold and Impediment to ...
Is Universality a Western Idea?
What Is Your View of Human Nature?
Defeating Evil Without Violence
A Recipe For World War
Beyond Thinking Machines
There Is No Such Thing as "Personal ...
Time Is a Tremendous Illusion
Breakthrough Infection, or Inflection?
Requiem for a Meditation Place
Fragmentation and Wholeness
Did Evolution Go Wrong With Man?
The Urgent Indifference of Enlightenment
Death Isn’t After Life; It’s Inseparable ...
Martin LeFevre, a contemplative, philosopher and writer in northern California, serves as a contributing writer for The Seoul Times. His "Meditations" explore and offer insights on spiritual, philosophical and political questions in the global society. LeFevre's philosophical thesis proposes a new theory of human nature. He welcomes dialogue. email@example.com