How Compromise Leads To Disaster In The Battle Of Civilizations

Today was a difficult show to do on Radio Hounds! It is always difficult to be reminded that we live in a world that values compromise over what is morally imperative. That places expediency above what is right. That places the same value on all competing ideologies no matter how bankrupt or evil one may be. That's the world we live in and, today at least, it has me down. I started the program with a story about how Muslim groups do not want our government to associate the word "terrorist" with Islam for fear of backlash. We spoke about the criticism President Bush has received for using the term "Islamic Fascists" not just from abroad, but from members of Congress. I reported the story of the Muslim couple who were arrested in the U.K. as part of the thwarted airline hijack attempt who were going to use their six-month old child as cover to enable them to sneak liquid components for explosives onboard an airline. We spoke at length about the U.N. resolution bringing about the current (and, as always, temporary) cease-fire and how it simply returns everyone to the status quo ante, and delivers a major political victory for Hizbollah. In this regard, we heard from our friend from Israel regarding how nearly 70 percent of his citizens wanted Israel to hit harder and deeper into Lebanon, but how "world opinion" got the better of their leaders, who instead chose to follow rather than lead. This is all the result of the merging of the leftist doctrines of political correctness with multi-culturalism. The notion that there is no true correct answer or that no one is truly right or truly wrong leads to the foggy morass we find ourselves in. A place where there seems to be no desire or ability to distinguish good from evil, but instead where compromise and appeasement trumps all. This sort of thinking every time results in victory for wrongdoers because it requires those in the right to step away from principle in order to find a "middle-ground" with those that have no moral authority, but as a consequence of a non-judgmental effort at compromise, have had it bestowed upon them. When those in the right compromise with those in the wrong, the former will always be perceived (justly so) as defeated in some measure. This is all part of the larger leftist concept of political correctness and multi-culturalism, where there is no desire to determine what is better or worse, true or false, since there is no absolute answer to anything. If that is so,the thinking goes, it is foolhardy then to try to divine which side to stand for since there is no real way to make that determination. Thus, Hizbollah and Israel are placed on an equal moral plane despite the fact that one intentionally seeks to inflict death and destruction on innocents while the other attempts to avoid that very same thing. Despite the fact that one places martyrdom above motherhood while the other builds bomb shelters to protect its people. We are at a cross-roads. If we do not recognize who our enemies are, and label them as such, we will have little chance emerging victorious in this battle of civilizations [You can also find and vote for this piece at RealClearPolitics]