Worth Seriously Thinking About

I'm a liberal. But I'm also a contrarian, which makes any commitment to a specific political philosophy difficult. (I might add that it makes all sorts of other kind of commitments difficult as well). But to think about what has occurred in Zimbabwe makes me seriously angry, angry about the way we narrativize the world and tell ourselves stories about how the world works. Here is the link that got me thinking, via Instapundit. It fundamentally undermines all sorts of liberal assumptions one makes about this specific situation. But here is the liberal and then the liberal contrarian point of view:

1. The Mugabe government reclaims “black” land from white farmers to correct historical wrongs whereby the whites got a disproportionate amount of black land.

2. Zimbabwe has a shortage of food (because of fewer trained farmers, duh). Therefore, the international community ought to provide food. This is a short term fix because once the black farmers have time to “catch up,” they will be every bit as good as the white farmers and able to provide just as much food.

3. We will give the food to the Mugabe government to fairly distribute.

4. Mugabe does not distribute the food fairly, he feeds his followers and starves his opponents, of which he has many. The UN asks him to distribute the food properly. He does not, because it isn’t in his interest to do so.

5. “Hawks” suggest that we arm the rebels. Liberals say we shouldn’t involve ourselves in other countries affairs – see what happened in Latin America and the Middle East when we become involved. It builds resentment and hatred and we can’t be trusted.

6. FINE. We won’t arm the rebels, but in order to not support Mugabe, we should use sanctions.

7. Sanctions cause even more people to not have food, building resentment against both Mugabe and the West for standing by while people are starving. We should be helping them.

8. The UN decides we should give food back to the government of Zimbabwe.

9. The US says we won’t support giving food to Mugabe, that we should make an official policy to overthrow the Mugabe regime.

10. The UN opposes such aggressive US behavior and says, look at how much money the US has and look at how poor and starving folks are in Zimbabwe – the US should give more money to help.

And so it goes on. See how selfish the US is, and how selfish conservatives don't want to help anyone but themselves. Now the liberal contrarian point of view.

1. Mugabe uses past historical injustices to justify stealing land from “white” farmers.

2. Zimbabwe has a shortage of food because Mugabe trashed his own countries resources.

3. Because people are starving, we should provide food, even if it's Mugabe's fault.

4. Mugabe uses the food to feed his supporters and starve his opponents, so that he will eventually quell any potential revolution against him and his regime.

5. Mugabe should go, we say publically. Mugabe cries in self-pity that the US is pushing him around. He gains support by doves and those with financial interests in his regime.

6. The angry people in Zimbabwe complain and Mugabe denounces the world community for standing by while his people starve. It’s their fault – look how much they have and how little you have.

Kinda easy to see how terrorism might thrive in failed states and how autocratic governments and the principal cause of dissatisfaction, which in some regions leads to terrorism.