The Vacuity of Leftist Ethics

Understanding Leftist ethics takes some doing. Take this sample harvested from this week's news-crop:

CNN: "Pelosi calls on Bush to boycott Olympic opening ceremonies"

"U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says President Bush should consider boycotting the opening ceremony of the Olympics Games in Beijing this summer to protest China's human rights record. (...)" >>>

Dear Nancy, so sensitive when it comes to human rights (or any rights) and vile tyrants who violate them. So the President is called upon to take the moral high-ground in the matter of the China Olympics and rather gratuitously boycott the opening ceremony.

Nancy herself would never give dictators credibility, provide them with a soap-box, or make them look respectable negotiating partners ... or would she?

Key to understanding this inconsistent behavior is the principle of the Marxist dialectic. Policy is dictated by whatever course of action hurts capitalism or the 'power structure' the most.

Both cases (Syria and China) have nothing to do with morals, the violation of human rights, the Middle East peace process, or hobnobbing with the Shi'ite godfathers of terror. In both cases the goal is that the prestige of the Bush administration suffers.

So, what might seem erratic behavior to objective thinkers, is actually perfectly consistent by the subjectivist book, if not a little hypocritical.