Opposition Insanity

Yesterday's silly editorial in the Star Tribune claiming that Norm Coleman is an embarrassment for digging into the Oil-for-Palaces Program has been covered extensively by Powerline and Captains Quarters. This story however, is a fine example of what should be described as "Opposition Insanity"

Opposition Insanity is a position taken by someone solely for the reason of being in opposition regardless of the party being given support even to the point where the supported position results an an equal if not worse outcome - such a position is insanity. In this instance, the Star Tribune once again wants to oppose the Bush Administration. Therefore, they go ahead continue to oppose by supporting Kofi Annan and the corrupt UN. The Trib believes that the fall of Kofi Annan will be seen generally as a vindication of the Administration's tactic for not trusting the UN, thus the Trib will Support the UN despite the obvious corruption and despite the harm that a corrupt UN has and will do to innocent people around the world.

Opposition Insanity has also reared its ugly head in the Ukraine crisis. Consider this quote from last week's liberal British newspaper the Guardian:

...it's incredible that so many west Europeans, including Chancellor Schröder of Germany, seem to prefer as their partner an ex-KGB officer currently reimposing authoritarian rule in Russia over a man who, for all his faults, has just been re-elected in a free and fair election in one of the world's great democracies.

The whole article slams the European left for their lack lustre support of democracy in Ukraine. Read it here.

The unfortunate reality of Opposition Insanity is that there is nothing we can do about it other than manage its existence. To ignore perception or mistakenly assume that a reasonable person will choose justice over sticking it to their perceived enemy, would be an enormous mistake. Thucydides had it right, writing in the 5th century BC:

In this contest the blunter wits were most successful. Apprehensive of their own deficiencies and of the cleverness of their antagonists, they feared to be worsted in debate and to be surprised by the combinations of their more versatile opponents, and so at once boldly had recourse to action: while their adversaries, arrogantly thinking that they should know in time, and that it was unnecessary to secure by action what policy afforded, often fell victims to their want of precaution.

To combat Opposition Insanity we should adhere to the wisdom of Thucydides and realize that simple adherence to principal may fail. Instead, we should fight such insanity according to the laws of the jungle. In otherwords, we should be aggressive in embarassing those who practice Opposition Insanity and we should have a goal of destroying such movements politically (while watching our own backs of course!)

UPDATE:

It was pointed out to me that Anne Applebaum recently wrote a good column on the same subject.