News
 International
   Global Views
   Asia-Pacific
   America
   Europe
   Middle East & Africa
 National
 Embassy News
 Arts & Living
 Business
 Travel & Hotel
 Medical Tourism New
 Taekwondo
 Media
 Letters to Editor
 Photo Gallery
 News Media Link
 TV Schedule Link
 News English
 Life
 Hospitals & Clinics
 Flea Market
 Moving & Packaging
 Religious Service
 Korean Classes
 Korean Weather
 Housing
 Real Estate
 Home Stay
 Room Mate
 Job
 English Teaching
 Translation/Writing
 Job Offered/Wanted
 Business
 Hotel Lounge
 Foreign Exchanges
 Korean Stock
 Business Center
 PR & Ads
 Entertainment
 Arts & Performances
 Restaurants & Bars
 Tour & Travel
 Shopping Guide
 Community
 Foreign Missions
 Community Groups
 PenPal/Friendship
 Volunteers
 Foreign Workers
 Useful Services
 ST Banner Exchange
  America
Meditations
When Did Progressives Become Warmongers?
By Martin LeFevre
Contributing Writer
Paul Krugman
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



Related Articles
    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?
    Cardinal Errors
    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. lefevremartin77@gmail.com

 

back

 

 

 

The Seoul Times, Shinheung-ro 36ga-gil 24-4, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, Korea 04337 (ZC)
Office: 82-10-6606-6188 Email:seoultimes@gmail.com Publisher & Editor: Joseph Joh
Copyrights 2000 The Seoul Times Company  ST Banner Exchange