Now that Democrats have gained full control of the federal government what happened to their wealth of human rights advocacy?
Now, I contend that liberal thinking is hypocrisy based but this recent Democrat commitment confirms it.
But beyond their hypocrisy is their insincerity. Republicans can not make any moves without being accused of human rights abuses and even when Republicans lead efforts that advance human rights, liberals deny credit and the ensuing results.
The fact that millions were freed from oppression and torture in Iraq with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein meant nothing and liberals did nothing but accuse President Bush of waging a useless war. At the same time, they shunned him for not throwing us into civil war in Rwanda.
And what of Rwanda? Where is the liberal urgency to advance human rights there now that they are in charge.
Leadership certainly changes ones priorities, doesn’t it?
What caused Democrats to withdraw their concerns with human rights?
Could it be that achieving them through the political process is a lot harder to do than talking about them?
Or could it be that human rights are nothing more for liberals than a political tool to be used to pull at the heart strings of a compassionate electorate?
I am sure that the people of China are pleased with the new administration and our new Secretary of State. I am sure that the students who risked their lives to participate in protests at Tiananmen Square are glad to know that the worlds beacon of freedom is willing to sell them out for cheap sneakers.
Now I am not suggesting that the Bush administration advanced the cause of human rights in China with any great leaps or bounds but the liberal mentality of people in the Obama administration had them cursing George W. Bush for attending the Olympics in Beijing. Many of them wanted him to boycott the Olympics all together and prohibit our athletes from competing.
The uproar against our participation in the Beijing Olympics reached a fevered pitch during the summer of 2008, but now, in the winter of 2009, with the shoe of leadership on the other foot, the Obama administration came right out and said that human rights in China will have no bearing on our relationship and there is not a peep of protest offered by the left.
In the mean time the Chinese government continues to torture prisoners, deny citizens due process, suppress and torture women, limit speech, the media, independent organizing and freedom of association. All this is added to an undying commitment to suppressing religion which has led to the raping of Tibet that includes the actual raping of Tibetan women, the destruction of over 6,000 monasteries and restrictions prohibiting the practice of their religion.
In the face of all this, Democrat leaders have been able to say that it doesn’t matter. If such a statement came out of a Republican administration, liberals would be tying the knots in nooses made to fit the neck of every member of the President’s cabinet.
So which is it? Do human rights really matter to liberals? Do they mean what they say or do they just say what it takes to look concerned?
When Coca-Cola was first introduced to China, the company had some difficulty spelling the product’s name in Chinese, while keeping the same pronunciation (“ko-ka ko-la”) … the first attempt translated to “bite the wax tadpole.” Finally they arrived at something which translated to “may your mouth rejoice,” and now Coke is selling quite a bit better.