Compassionate Communism
By Rep. Thaddeus McCotter Posted in Foreign Affairs — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Due to the devotion of Lev Dobriansky and Dr. Lee Edwards of the Heritage Foundation, on Tuesday, June 12, 2007, the Victims of Communism Memorial was dedicated in Washington, D.C. The memorial is modeled on the statute of Lady Liberty which inspired the Chinese students and their fellow citizens in Tiananmen Square, and symbolized their hope to realize their God-given and inalienable right to freedom. And, as is indelibly etched in the most ignoble annals of history, it was beneath this statue of Lady Liberty the communist Chinese government’s totalitarian stranglehold tightened and these human beings’ cries to breathe free were choked from their throats.
Truly, then, the dedication of the Victims of Communism Memorial was a fitting forum for the President of the United States – the leader of the Free World – to help commemorate the event. Inexplicably, especially since the communist killers who executed the slaughter in Tiananmen Square remain firmly enthroned upon the shoulders of those students and citizens’ corpses – the President did not call for America and the entire Free World to finish the job and liberate those who still suffer and die under communism.
Instead, the President took a victory lap replete with historical and ideological pitfalls portending a perilous present and future for all free people.
Read on . . .
First, the President made a curious and ridiculous distinction between communist regimes: “Yet, until now, our Nation's Capital had no monument to the victims of imperial communism, an ideology that took the lives of an estimated 100 million innocent men, women and children.” [Bold italics mine.] Was the President wrongly implying “imperial communism” is distinct from some new brand of “compassionate communism?” Was the President wrongly implying the Memorial is not also a testament to those killed by that parochial politician Pol Pot or by Stalin when he was content to bloodily build socialism in one country? Was he also wrongly implying the current butchers of Beijing are acceptable communists because they are not “imperialists”? (Just because a regime is utilizing means other than overt martial aggression to attack our national security – like, say Iran – does NOT mean the regime is no longer a threat to our national security.) So too, was the President further wrongly implying the Castro’s barbarous regime is no longer bent upon exporting communism throughout the world and allying with our mortal enemies?
This leads to the President’s egregious omission. Yes, the President does partially list the nations where communism has murdered innocent victims (although he neglects to mention Cuba in anything but a passing passive reference to “Cuban balseros who drowned escaping tyranny,” as if Castro’s communist regime never actively killed Cubans). But the President does NOT list those nations where communism still oppresses our fellow human beings. Why? Because the President evidently feels communism is no longer a threat to the United States of America and every free human being.
To wit, this characteristically past tense remark about, one must assume, “imperial communism” and its twentieth century victims: “She [Lady Liberty] reminds us of the victims of communism, and also of the power that overcame communism…and she reminds us that when an ideology kills tens of millions of people, [the ideology] still ends up being vanquished…”
Uh, Mr. President, as you spoke, communism was alive and subjugating over a billion people. And the victims of communism keep mounting. (As the Falun Gong/ Falun Dafa members protesting communist China at the event tried in vain to convey to him.)
So what did the President have to say to the current victims of communism when, at the tail end of his speech, he ever so diplomatically admitted communism still might exist? To wit: “May those who continue to suffer under communism find their freedom.” So this is how the West leaves the field when the Cold War is only half finished, and our victory is daily endangered by former KGB Lt. Col. (nee communist?) Putin. Given his nation’s affinity for such occasions, President Chirac would at least have proffered a more stately surrender.
Still, in fairness, the President does not argue all is well, because terrorism has replaced communism as a grave threat to our existence. This argument errantly equates the advent of a new danger with the end of an old danger. It would be akin to President Franklin Roosevelt asserting fascism was for all intents and purposes finished after D-Day, and the nation should focus only on imperial Japan. And, in fact, it is the mistake made by the Greeks who, after defeating Persia and fighting amongst themselves, only remembered Macedonia was a menace upon becoming one of their conquests.
For those who think this a trifling matter, consider these historical contrasts. First, President Lincoln endured a civil war to emancipate the slaves and lead our nation to a new birth of freedom; this Republican President articulates to the remaining slaves of communism, “Good luck, Tiger, you’re on your own.” Secondly, while President Reagan told the “evil empire” to “tear down this wall,” our current leader of the Free World cannot tell the (communist) Chinese to stop manipulating their currency. One can go on citing similar historical comparisons, but it would be sadistic.
Suffice to say, upon this noble and necessary commemoration of the victims of communism, I am appalled the President failed to issue a clarion call for the American and all free peoples to summon the courage and moral clarity to end the communist regimes extant in our midst, and from North Korea to Cuba to China emancipate a billion people from the spiritual and material shackles of this contemptible lie.
Why? Because it is obviously too easy for people to delude themselves into hoping we have reached the end of history and, thus, to view communism as no longer a danger to our free republic and every democracy. Because it is imperative to recognize the West has but won the European theater of the Cold War’s battle between freedom and communism. Because it is a matter of our own national survival to remember we as a free people were, are, and must remain a beacon of hope to all humanity; and how, as a free people, we bear the burden to expand liberty to our fellow human beings, for they are as equally God's children as are we.
So I humbly suggest to the President of the United States how “the bitter twilight struggle” between freedom and communism is not over. How it is not time for a victory lap, but a time for the reaffirmation we – a free people housed in a nation conceived in liberty – will continue our historic moral mission to emancipate all humanity from this evil ideology. How America is a revolutionary country by birth, and must ever so remain. And how, if we ever forget this verity of and our duty to liberty, we will meanly lose our legacy and betray its promise to our posterity and all humanity.
Finally, I further submit for the President’s consideration the truth we can only nobly and fully honor the memory of the victims of communism by remaining champions of human freedom until tyranny – be it communist, terrorist, or any other malignant manifestation of man’s inhumanity to man – is eradicated from our earth; our world experiences a new birth of freedom; and a future President is spared the pain of commemorating a memorial to the victims of twenty-first century communism.
« So Tell Me, Mr. Immelt, Why Are You Killing American Servicemen? — Comments (30) | "We Can Deal With Hamas" — Comments (5) »
Compassionate Communism 8 Comments (0 topical, 8 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Congressman, I'm sorry I bumped this straight to the front page for you. I should have put it in the diaries so we could all recommend it.
Thanks so much for making so articulate a case on so important an issue.
you can bet the "imperial communism" phrase was cleverly inserted by some State Department or NSC apparatchik for fear of offending the Chicoms the same way that "tear down this wall" was panned.
If the monument is to "imperial communism" then, as Mr. McCotter says, the victims of Stalin's purges, the collectivization period, those who died in the Khmer Rouge killing fields, in North Korea since 1953, in Vietnam, etc would all be excluded. As well as those from the "Great Leap Forward" and the "Cultural Revolution" as well as Tiananmen.
Not a rhetorical Mount Everest to say the least.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
The use of "imperial communism" as a convention has been applied very loosely over the years. Clinton even used it when authorizing the memorial. Bush and his father have also used it in the past to describe holistic Communism.
Even in his speech only "Communism" is textually capitalized. While I can't be certain what the intent was, it is certainly at best confusing, especially to those who view the usage more puristically.
Apologies for the etymological view. However, IMO the focus on this phrase is somewhat an impractical over indulgence due to a misnomer (however, I could be wrong but mentioning Cambodia was curious). Nonetheless, I can find no continuous pattern the President is any less concerned or appreciative of Communism, current or past, outside those semantical boundaries.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 06/14/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
Respectfully, I agree with your passion but disagree with some characterizations. This can be summed up very simply as a missed opportunity for our President to articulate a better vision of dealing with the continuing Communist threat (which as you noted, he mentioned). In fact, his remarks were largely reflective of past themes used by other speakers in the same venue.
Overall, our President’s speech did not expose some nonplussed, prevaricative worldview of Communism seemingly presented and expounded in your rhetorical remarks. By this Sir, I mean no disrespect and it is merely a reflection of my personal reading. However, while alternating between quote and criticism, the latter largely based on your expounded editorial, it is clear the criticism is largely a result of interpretation and what was not said rather than his remarks themselves; intellectually admirable but not comprehensively reflecting this Presidents related policies or actions.
The President could not possibly mention all of the nations affected by Communism in that venue; where was the mention of places like Burundi? Certainly, that was no less important especially to her murdered populace. Does that mean they are any less important to him? In following; why the sensationalism of statements such as “portending a perilous present and future for all free people”? I find that strikingly opposed to a President who has pursued freedom at great personal expense, to a point at which many find considerable fault.
In closing, I admire you greatly and believe sincerely there are few people in our government of your character. The articulation presented here also presents a deeper reflection of a compassionate engaged individual. However, I would expect at a minimum the questions used illustratively herein would be asked of the White House before an editorial presentation. Surely, you have both the required access and personal integrity to agree that would promote a more fruitful understanding and ensure our world’s continued safety against this reprehensible ideology.
Kind Regards.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
I read the article title with humorous interest and after scanning the text, I became even more intrigued at the subject of the note.
I think that such subtle messages need to be heard and considered, and for that I am thankful for the article. After all, it was, Bush 41, and not the succeeding Clinton administration, who first spoke phrases like 'New World Order' as President of the US which could be interpreted a number of ways. However, I think we should also be careful not to scourge our own unnecessarily. The Left does enough of that.
For example, I took note that the MSM barely covered the issue (correct me if I am wrong, I didn't see it anywhere except on defenselink.mil). To me that spoke more than any subtle usage of the word 'imperial.' Specifically that many on the Left do not explicitly want to admit that there are genuine victims of communism since communism is seen as beneficial in their eyes and superior to democracy.
Peter R - Praetorium.org
I happened to catch your floor speech on this issue thanks for bringing it here!
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report