Why is it that far left folks, especially creative types, like actor Tim Robbins or Sean Penn, never cried out publicly about the mass slaughter and torture of innocent Iraqis during Saddam's reign, but immediately ooze sympathy for innocent Iraqis caught in the crossfire of the U.S. led war from it's outset?
Why seemingly, are they so concerned for innocent Iraqis only after we invade?
Why does Brian De Palma make a movie about a bad U.S. soldier raping an Iraqi girl and killing her family to make his point that the U.S. invasion of Iraq is bad, when in fact, the U.S. invasion stopped the mass institutionalized rape of innocent Iraqis? Why does he show concern only for a victim of a bad U.S. soldier, but makes no large statement for all Iraqis raped by Saddam's henchmen and sons, which the invasion stopped?
Iraq was the only Government in the world that had "Rapist" as an official government job. The rapists had government issued business cards that identified them as such. Whole families of dissidents were thrown into rape rooms and were brutalized on video. The cassette was then given to the dissident as a reminder.
Why does De Palma or any far left individual, focus more on the mistakes of our government than what it has accomplished?
Well, here's a theory...
There are two ends of the spectrum of creative expression. Creative expression in and of itself is a way of life, a way of finding what is right and good. Not all, but probably most Conservatives tend to express their creativity in a very structured way through business, finance, corporate deal making, and perhaps military sciences. They are interested in security, stability and tradition. As traditionalists they also tend to be religious and therefore dogmatic. This mode of creative expression is completely antithetical to Liberal creative expression. So much so, that far left people can't even recognize conservative creativity AS creativity.
The actor Matt Damon once said (in an Actor's Studio interview), something to the effect of, that George Bush didn't have a creative bone in his body, and therefore was useless as a leader. Of course, Matt Damon doesn't have a clue how much creativity goes into running a state or country. Nevertheless, management and decision making doesn't seem to qualify as creativity to those with an "artistic" mind. Why? Because artistic minds, by their very nature abhor structure and are in perpetual rebellion against tradition, dogma, and nuts and bolts thinking. Artistic minds always want to color outside the lines, break out, experiment (some with drugs), find new vistas (which goes against the grain of conservatives trying to CREATE security and stability). Far left people resonate more with this type of creative expression and are instinctively repulsed by the stodgy ways of the conservatives. Their dogmatic structure suffocates the free ways of the leftist minds.
Because expression is so crucial to life and happiness, the left mind will view the conservative way, not just as an imposition, but a killer.
The left resents the right. You hear it in every hippie's voice. It's the most common denominator of all liberal minded people. Absolute loathing of conservative views. And because conservatives tend to be in positions authority and are authoritative (even as parents) the leftists also have a victim complex, and of course a general mistrust toward anything conservative.
Now, you may say. "Wait a minute, conservatives aren't the only lovers of tradition, Liberals are more multicultural and are lovers of all traditions". Yes, all traditions except their own. They are bored by their own. They love all others because they are new and different, therefore stimulating the liberal creative mind. They'd much much rather listen to Guru Rajneesh (Osho) than Pat Robertson or some Rabbi.
Now what happens when you marry the leftist victim complex and mistrust, with their love for other cultures...?
Bush is the archetype symbol of conservative authority. He is the devil that imposes death on creativity and anything good. The far left can not see, nor understand Bush's deep felt intentions to CREATE security and stability. Because they don't understand him and his actions, in their minds, his actions can only be driven by sinister intentions or sheer stupidity. They simply cannot see Bush's perspective. They don't think like that.
So when Bush invades a country like Iraq, because they already feel victimized by him on some level, subconsciously, they have automatic identification and sympathy for those Iraqis that are hurt by Bush's actions.
Where before, Tim Robbins and De Palma have no identification with Iraqis before the war, all of a sudden when Bush enters the equation, NOW THEY CARE.
This is part of what some people like to refer to as Bush derangement syndrome.
One of my Hippie friends said, "We don't trust Bush because when he Invaded Baghdad the only building they secured was the Oil ministry". To the conservative creative mind , that makes perfect sense- Iraq's only major economy is oil. In order to rebuild the country and CREATE stability, oil infrastructure has to be priority #1. However, to the left creative mind the Baghdad museum may be more important, not practical governing implications.
This is why, when it comes to the war on terror, Liberals are much less hawkish. The potential for danger by terrorists is obfuscated by Leftist resentment toward Conservative authority on the one hand, and identification and sympathy toward people that Bush is going after on the other.
The funny thing is, the terrorists are far, far more conservative, stodgy, rigid, and repressive than any bible thumper in the U.S. Yet, some far left loons like Cindy Sheehan (the ultimate victim, who lost her son in Iraq) will go so far as to call Iraqi insurgents "Freedom Fighters" just because they oppose Bush.
Of course, she doesn't care about the hopes and dreams of the Iraqis that are fighting her "Freedom Fighters". Why? Because they are in concert with Bush. It's that simple.
