| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Conservatives have a Mandela problem |
| 2013-12-08 |
| Not anymore. Subheading: Republicans were wrong about South Africa's great liberator. Now they have to say something nice about him I'll bite: He's dead Jim. Nice enough? No? Read on. Article by a leftist named Alex Halperin. For right-wing pundits, talking about Nelson Mandela is a minefield. Nice. Mandela could tell you something about minefields. He didn't? You mean you didn't do your homework? Or did the right wing fever swamp eat it? Throughout the Reagan administration, American conservatives regarded South Africa's apartheid government as a bulwark against communism, especially compared to the rest of sub-Saharan Africa. A generation of conservative operatives, including the disgraced Jack Abramoff and the very influential Grover Norquist writes in National Review, "Like many other anti-Communists and Cold Warriors, I feared that releasing Nelson Mandela from jail, especially amid the collapse of South Africa's apartheid government, would create a Cuba on the Cape of Good Hope at best and an African Cambodia at worst." And it turned out worse than Cuba. Indeed, the right was hardly vocal in opposition to Apartheid. On Twitter, The Nation's Lee Fang pointed to an 1986 column by William F. Buckley arguing that the U.S. should "Continue our moral pressure by all means. But stop trying to fine-tune South African policy from the White House; pull back on the one-man, one-vote business; and c) forget blanket sanctions." This is like Paul Ryan's plan to fight poverty through "spiritual redemption." He was wrong then and he is wrong now. I was on the anti apartheid side at the time. It was the right thing to do. But the result sucked and it will get even worse. You can lay that at Mandela's feet. In the eyes of many conservatives, Nelson Mandela was a terrorist-- He was a terrorist, and now he is an ex-terrorist. indeed some are still saying so today--so they might be understandably tongue-tied when he ascended to the pantheon of great men. Yesterday pundits compared him to, among others, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington (from Charles Krauthammer!), Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. A rough comparison, might be if history in the Middle East had turned out differently and conservatives had to say something nice about Yasser Arafat. I am certain Brezhnev would say something nice about the good head Arafat gave him. When was the last time you talked to a conservative,let alone many of them, Alex? Those "conservatives" are like the "house negro" label you hanged on Herman Cain. I no more subscribe to the notion that Mandela was a human rights hero, than I would Bull Conner was a police hero in Alabama. Some of the more gracious commentary acknowledges being wrong about Mandela. Murdock goes on to write: Far, far, far from any of that, Nelson Mandela turned out to be one of the 20th Century's great moral leaders... He also was a statesman of considerable weight. If not as significant on the global stage as FDR, Winston Churchill, and Ronald Reagan, he approaches Margaret Thatcher as a national leader with major international reach. Holy Sh*t! What a gross lie! But even well after Mandela had been freed and elected president, he was hardly universally beloved among American conservatives. As my colleague Joan Walsh points out, he infuriated the right in 2003 when he criticized the Iraq war. The exact quote, The Other McCain points out, was "All Bush wants is Iraqi oil. There is no doubt that the U.S. is behaving badly. Why are they not seeking to confiscate weapons of mass destruction from their ally Israel? This is just an excuse to get Iraq's oil." So, Mandela being correct on the Iraq war remains a sore spot. Some conservatives felt the need to point this out upon his death. Mandela was wrong. You failed to address any of the things the US did do in Iraq that had everything to do with the mission and nothing to do with your narrow perceptions. If we had just wanted the oil we would have made a deal with Saddam, it would have been easier. Then we would have invaded Alberta... On Fox News, Bill O'Reilly's head almost exploded since Mandela's story doesn't conform exactly to politics as he usually understands them: He was a communist, this man. He was a communist, all right? But he was a great man! What he did for his people was stunning!... He was a great man! But he was a communist! O'Reilly is half right. Replace "great man" with "murdering basdard", and he'll be exactly right. O'Reilly's guest Rick Santorum pulled us back down to the expected level of discourse when he said Mandela stood up to a "great injustice," and then compared the legally sanctioned and brutally enforced segregation of millions of people to the "ever-increasing size of government that is taking over and controlling people's lives, and Obamacare is at the front and center of that." Venturing further into the fever-swamp, it's possible to find the worst kind of garbage. On his Facebook page, Ted Cruz posted a strongly worded memorial to the great man and some took issue. Mmmm... I found something I disagree with Cruz on. Sad to see you feel this way Ted. He was a terrorist. I guess you have only seen the Hollywood movies Let's not forget that Mandela called Castro's Communist revolution "a source of inspiration to all freedom-loving people." A lot of individuals who said they were conservatives said nice things about Mandela. I was stunned too. Meanwhile Michelle Malkin's site Twitchy, brought it all back to groundlessly mocking President Obama, firmer ground for most of her comrades. |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #12 Some people felt South Africa would experience white flight, a rise in crime, and a drop into the third world under Mandela. Some people were right. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2013-12-08 23:28 |
| #11 Nice snark SWKSVOLFF. Very nice |
| Posted by: Frank G 2013-12-08 14:03 |
| #10 I understand his wife was in the jewelry business and an avid soccer fan. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2013-12-08 11:55 |
| #9 To the list at #7, perhaps we could add Charles Manson. Oh, wait! Those were Hollywood celebrities he and his cohorts murdered. He'll have to finish out his days in prison. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2013-12-08 11:12 |
| #8 it's Salon. Joan Walsh's mag. Nuff said |
| Posted by: Frank G 2013-12-08 10:33 |
| #7 Che Guevara was a hero to the left. So was Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh and Trotsky. Toss Champ, Jane Fonda, and Hildebeast in also. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2013-12-08 09:29 |
| #6 OK, Plantation Party, you want something of note, here you go. Mr. Mandela worked, campaigned and fought for majority rule in his country. Why to you fight, undermine, and resist majority rule in your own country? |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2013-12-08 08:32 |
| #5 Also from his "Long Walk to Freedom." Nelson Mandela wrote that as a leading member of the ANC’s executive committee, he had “personally signed off” in approving these acts of terrorism, the pictures and details of which follow below. This is the horror which Mandela had “signed off” for while he was in prison – convicted for other acts of terrorism after the Rivonia trial. The late SA president P.W. Botha told Mandela in 1985 that he could be a free man as long as he did just one thing: ‘publicly renounce violence’. Mandela refused. That is why Mandela remained in prison until the appeaser Pres F W de Klerk freed him unconditionally. The bottom line? Nelson Mandela never publicly renounced the use of violence to further the ‘cause of freedom’. Source link. (graphic fotos) |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2013-12-08 07:45 |
| #4 Addendum: Here's a quote from Mandela's 1995 autobiography "Long Walk to Freedom": "For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others." According to his own definition of freedom Nelson Mandela was not a free man especially post 1990. |
| Posted by: Elmerert Hupens2660 2013-12-08 06:08 |
| #3 On the positive side Mandela did not become a tyrant when he had the opportunity. This makes him a much better man than most post colonial leaders. But a moral authority or champion of freedom he was not. He conducted realpolitik, the amoral pursuit of one's own interest. If tyrants were useful to his people then he didn't care one bit about the brother tyrants' victims. Mandela was not a despot, but despotism's friend and enabler. "would create a Cuba on the Cape of Good Hope at best and an African Cambodia at worst." Mr Halperin should pay attention to the sequence of historical events. First Castro was one the above mentioned despots that Mandela befriended and enabled. Second SA's transition happened after the Soviet Union's unlamented demise. |
| Posted by: Elmerert Hupens2660 2013-12-08 05:25 |
| #2 Throughout the Reagan administration, American conservatives regarded South AfricaÂ’s apartheid government as a bulwark against communism, especially compared to the rest of sub-Saharan Africa. And today Washington works quietly with the ANC Gov't of South Africa [discreet Mil-to-Mil cooperation, LE and CT support to the 2010 World Cut, etc, etc.].....as a partner and "bulwark against" radical Islam and terrorism in Africa. Please explain to me the subtle differences. I'll concede Halperin his title point, but it's not just 'conservatives' who have a Mandela problem. There is plenty of denial to go around. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2013-12-08 04:11 |
| #1 Not to beat him down, but some of US on the earth do try to uphold some form of order. I admire his attitude. as for idols, they work too hard. Leaders who are not popular sometimes are the ones that leave Civilization more"civilized". Legacy starts today. Do not go where I see South Africa going now. |
| Posted by: newc 2013-12-08 00:35 |