If a sure sign of a healthy organism is that its feces stink, then perhaps the steady onslaught over recent years of effeminate “progressives” (along with their cohorts in the Liberal Media) whining about the price of freedom is evidence that the bloggernaccle, as a deliberative body, is finally at fighting weight. No doubt in an effort to conceal their assault on virtue and decency, these liberals attack those with the courage to protect liberty from those who hate it, promiscuously employing irresponsible rhetorical flourishes like “torture” and “abuse of power” to make their self-righteous case. Red herrings aside, there is a real threat to liberty, justice, and our way of life, which true Americans must confront—a compelling danger that lies in abandoning our convictions and neglecting our divine mantle as leaders, and therefore, disciplinarians of the world.
Sadly, the disposition toward cowardice, so evidently common among Mormons, is not easily undone—a tragic byproduct of the lack of proper masculine role models in our culture. Take, as an example, the Mormon archetype of righteous manhood: Captain Moroni. Typically (inexplicably, for my money) held up as a military hero par excellence, Moroni was, in fact, an exceptionally weak—and weak-willed—leader. Despite the occasional moral clarity his actions evince (forcing the peaceniks to take up arms at sword’s point is an act of unparalleled righteous awesomeness), and his use of macho rhetoric in letter-writing campaigns, Moroni demonstrated a staggering naïveté in dealing with the enemies of freedom, families, God, and country. All of his moral (and, as a consequence, tactical and strategic) shortcomings are grounded in a singular, insurmountable weakness: he appears to genuinely see humanity—even, in a limited sense, to love—his enemies.
To wit: he is constantly referring to the savage, bloodthirsty, hate-filled, dark, and loathsome invaders of Nephite civilization as his “brethren.” Refusing to class enemies of righteousness as his own enemies, he opted instead to make excuses for them, ascribing the “root cause” of their hatred of freedom to their being misled by “the traditions of their fathers.” (You’d think Teancum would have had the sense at some point to remind his commanding officer that war is hardly the time to get philosophical). He also refused to take the fight to the enemy, choosing instead to engage the enemy only in Nephite territory (evidently, the plain and precious truth that fighting terror abroad means not having to fight it at home had been removed from gospel canon by Moroni’s time, only to be restored in the Latter-days).
But Moroni’s true colors shone during battle, where his lack of moral fiber was eclipsed only by his lack of commonsense judgment. Acutely aware of weakness in a foe, he seized upon the moment, not to finish them once and for all, but to conduct some UN-style
appeasement negotiation. During which he offered to take the enemy’s word at face value—“just cross your heart that you won’t resume your jihad once you get back home, or perhaps you’d like us to resettle you in Nephite lands?” Pathetic. How would Moroni have dealt with a ticking time bomb? What do his battlefield “tactics” reveal about his ability to make hard decisions in a crisis that threatens the very fabric of free civilization? Would we really trust his judgment when it comes to protecting our families from the threat of islamofascism? The spineless take the truth to be hard, but that fact is that if those charged with protecting freedom today had been, and were, and ever would be like unto Moroni, the very gates of Zion would overrun by terrorists. He might once have raised a title of liberty, but his subsequent actions showed that standard to be as substanceless as an ACLU amicus brief.
Ultimately, Moroni’s imaginative failings are mirrored by our own. Confronting those failings with the lens of truth dispenses with the tortured logic (pun intended) of liberal lies. The supposition that strength can’t edify is as airless as a UN resolution without American moral and political tutelage. Sometimes the price of freedom is not just preemptive wars and intermittent waterboarding, but threats of execution (of both the detainee and his children), deadly pressure points, power drills, threatened rape, beatings, and, yes even the occasional death.
Terrorist psychopaths will continue jihad until our military might and our legal memos convince them of our immovable determination: that we will sooner carpet bomb them back to Allah than let them remain unenlightened. This threat is real; we need real courage, not idealistic, emasculated hand-wringing. How can we suppress Islamic fundamentalists, when we can’t even control Jeremiah Wright? How can we demand democracy in the desert, when a group of sore-loser closet-socialists can stifle it in town hall meetings across the heartland? How can we defeat immoral dictators when we can’t even control the insubordinate perverts in San Francisco? We need real leadership, not a
fascist socialist Black Nationalist pacifist Islamic radical smooth-talking moral relativist. We need to remember that the forces of weakness don’t surround us; we surround them. Whose permission to stand up and act are we waiting for—the UN’s?