HOMOSEXUALITY, PEDOPHILIA, AND THE NATURE OF HUMAN SEXUALITY

Owen Courreges leaves some thoughtful comments on the "Santorum ad Nauseum" post below that are worthy of an entirely new post on sexuality. I'm at odds whether it belongs here, on the No-Lyfe Journal, or somewhere else. But since it was spawned here, here it will go.

On the subject of whether or not homosexuality is learned or genetic, Owen makes the following observation:

When I think of a great many people who do a great many things, I wonder how they could simply wake up one morning by deciding to do it. I wonder why pedophiles like children, and I wonder why serial adulterers like making committments and breaking them. Pointing out that there are negative consequences to homosexuality does not prove in the slightest that it is entirely involuntary.
...
On the theological point, however, I do agree but still have my doubts. After all, many people have genetic predispositions and disorders that do not preclude moral responibility for their actions, but nevertheless place a burden on them to control certain desires. Does this mean God places a special burden on some people, but not others? Does this mean God is hateful? You'd have to go into a serious debate over the nature of suffering and of moral obligation to sort this out.

Kudos to Owen for his honesty on this subject. Unfortunately, juxtiposing homosexuality and pedophilia, however intellectually, is often when serious discussion ends without the actual merits of such a comparison and contrast being made.

First, the similarities of pro-homosexual and pro-pedophilia arguments: Human sexuality ought to be realized. God, nature, or whomever would not have given us these desires if they were not meant to be realized. At a cursory glance, it may sound like that was an argument I was advancing below, but it is not. Same goes for adult heterosexuality, which is very often felt in contexts where it should not be realized. But on the subject at hand, homosexuality has only recently had its legitimacy recognized in many quarters (and it remains rejected in most) and though pedophilia is rejected in the great majority of contemporary western society, there are various movements underway to have its legitimacy recognized.

Except in the case of homosexual pedophilia, that's more or less where the similarities end. Men having sex with and wanting to have sex with other adult men and men having sex or wanting to have sex with female children are, in practice, very different things with different consequences. For information on my view of homosexuality and why I do not believe it wrong, read #1 two posts down so I don't have to repeat it here.

So, Owen reasonably asks, if God would not punish us by giving some desire for other men, why would he do it by giving some desire for children?

To answer this question, I believe that we must first make the distinction between attraction to young girls (and boys) of pre-pubescent age and young ladies (and boys) of later adolescence. I don't think many would argue that a man molesting a six year old and seducing a sixteen year old are on the same moral plane except insofar as they are both wrong and damaging to the younger party involved. The scope of immorality and damage, however, are worlds apart. So, for the sake of discussion, I will refer to pedophilic acts as Pre-Pubescent Pedophilia (3P) or Late Adolescence Pedophilia (LAP).

In the case of LAP, I believe the attraction to be the mere perversion of standard heterosexuality (or homosexuality). Having gone through puberty (or mostly having done so), they set off the same chemical reactions in men than do women their own age that capture their interest. People, all people, are generally attracted to a certain "type." For some people, this type includes highly energetic, spunky girls. Such a person would likely constantly find themselves attracted to the younger sort. The corrolation may be so strong that they trick themselves into believing that it is all they are attracted to, when in reality a woman their own age with these characteristics would just as easily be able to keep their attention. To the degree that is not possible, they are likely unable to deal with real women with unavoidable adult issues and he is a case of stunted maturity level that likely transcends their sexuality.

In the case of 3P, it is in my observation linked to one of two things: lost innocence and powerlessness.

In the case of lost innocence, their attraction to the very young is linked to a feeling of innocence or that they long to return to. It is less a sexual problem and more a root psychological one that becomes sexual by emotional confusion of callous decision. That is why, for instance, otherwise heterosexual men will molest young boys. It also helps explain the link to being abused as a child and growing into being an abuser. If a man loses his innocence at a very young age, when he gets older he is more likely to be attracted to the innocence they feel they were denied. The desire to return to that innocence, to become "one" with it, can turn sexual if left unchecked. It is, therefore, a learned behavior in my experience based in large part off of experience.

The other motivation is powerlessness of either a sexual nature or a non-sexual nature that becomes one. Sexual powerlessness can be motivated either by unwanted celibacy, being sexually dominated in childhood (which also explains molestation cycles), or an unhappy marriage (possibly related to unwanted celibacy). Non-sexual powerlessness can be attributed to dissatisfaction at work (powerlessness against boss), a domineering spouse (powerlessness against wife), over overbearing family or acquaintances (powerlessness against them). The percieved remedy is a sexual power trip, which can take many strpes. It explains 3P, but also LAP, S&M, prostitution, and sexual harassment. In the case of pedophilia, by virtue of experience and size, they have the ability to completely dominate their victims. Psychologically, physically, and emotionally. The assymetry of the relationship is an aphrodesiac of sorts. Like the 'lost innocence' motivation, it is largely situational and not biological.

So what situational motivations would make one homosexual? Some of the above could do it, but the corrolation just isn't as strong. If a young man is abused by his father, he may grow up equating men with sexuality. If a young woman is, she may grow up hating men. That may explain some cases of it, but it doesn't explain all of them. Many come from good, loving homes. A number of self-fulfilling reasons can be come up with to explain it, but they are transparent in the long view. "Well he's gay because his parents were really authoritarian and therefore they are rebelling" vs. "Well he's gay because his parents were really permissive and liberal." The weak corrolation between those that are gay doesn't explain very much. Some are feminine men and masculine women, but many aren't. Some have troubled youths, others don't. Some are at odds with the way they were raised, others aren't.

But here's a real indication of how different homosexuality is from pedophilia of all stripes: It affects men and women almost equally.

Pedophilia, on the other hand, is largely a male issue. While women are perpetrators in some cases, most offenders are male. The attentioned garnered to Mary Kay Laterneaux underscores that point. It was newsworthy because it was so atypical. This assymetry also lends creedence to the sexual power trip motivation of many abusers. Men often feel that they are supposed to be dominating and when they are being dominated are inclined to find someone to dominate. A woman under the same set of circumstances will react differently than does a man. That suggests to me that the degree to which it becomes sexual is, in large part, a decision by the sexual aggressor. It is the sexualization of a psychological problem and a reaction predisposed by men. Accordingly, men could choose to respond differently (as many do).

Homosexuality, on the other hand, is the solution to no psychological problem unrelated to sex and gender. The only exception that comes to mind are the stereotypical man-hating lesbian, but they are generally rare and there is the strong possibility that it is borne from being female and being uninclined to "fratrinize with the enemy." In other words, they are not male, they don't need or want anything from males, and therefore they are free to hate males all they like while boosting their ego. In other words, it is their lesbianism that feeds their contempt for men and not vice-versa.

Anyhow, I think that covers it. Keep in mind the above is my opinion and most of it will be forever unproven, but it is my rationale for why pedophilia and homosexuality are two different birds entirely and why I can find one repugnant and the other a valid expression of sexuality.

I intended to write more about human sexuality in general, but I'll have to save it for another time.

TOO AMUSING!

Friend of Disagreement Inc. Kris Lofgren and I had a debate a while back on those Iraqi playing cards. I viewed them as harmless and he saw them as indicative of a problem with the Bush Administration. (link here, permalinks not working so look for "cowboy props")

So when I saw this on his site today, I couldn't help but be amused:

SANTORUM AD NAUSEUM

Let me count the ways Santorum is wrong.

1) An old friend of mine used to date a guy I'll name Stone. I never much cared for Stone, in part because the way he treated her. He didn't mistreat her necessarily, but he was always rather distant, even after a year together. I took that as a facet of his personality and a facet that I didn't like. During their breakup, some odd stories started floating around about Stone. Sort of. It was an uncomfortable flux between rumors and dead silent loyalty to him. It wasn't until the breakup was complete that the details started coming out. Stone had cheated on her with another guy. The more this theory was floated, the more it made sense.

Stone's father is a pastor in the Church of Christ. For those of you unfamiliar with the CoC, it is a self-described fundamentalist sect that takes the Bible very literally and very seriously. They are also so confident in their interpretation of the Bible that they believe marrying outside the sect out to be discouraged, if not outright forbidden (this was in fact what we thought the problem might be as my friend is Catholic). To say the least, the CoC holds homosexuality in very low regard. So much so that Stone, to this day, remains closetted skipping between serial monagomy and his very close (and not-so-closetted) male friend.

Though I never cared much for Stone because he hurt my friend, I can't help but feel very sorry for him. He will always be at conflict with himself and his father, whom he admires greatly and has always sought approval from. I can't imagine him ever being happy. When I think of Stone, I simply cannot imagine that he woke up one morning and decided "I'm going to fuck up my entire life by liking other men!"

Recently, conservatives opposed to homosexuality have change their tact. Instead of arguing that it is a choice, they argue that maybe it it genetic, but they should fight it. I believe God is a loving God, having sent Jesus Christ, his only son, down to redeem us. Though there is much unfortunate suffering in the world, I believe it is man-made. By saying that God took a small but significant section of the population and told them that they'd never be allowed to be romantically satisfied, conservatives of this ilk are suggesting that there is misery that is not man-made, but rather purely the province of God. That quite simply is not the God that I believe in and it strikes me as logically circumspect that would be the God that would go to such great pains to redeem and save us. As such, I believe the position of many conservative Christians is very misguided in this regard.

2) Even if I did believe that homosexuality is wrong, I would still not support laws forbidding it. I believe that adultery is wrong, but it is not the province of the government to meddle in the private affairs of the citizens. In the case of adultery, the only victims are the perpetrators and their spouses, who are victims emotionally and not physically. It is not the domain of the criminal court system to defend people against emotional torment. If it were, the courts would be bogged down hearing the case of every emotionally scarred adult who'd been handed down one too many megaweggies. So, while I may agree that such laws are constitutional, I do not agree that what is constitutional is right and what is morally wrong ought to be outlawed. Santorum speaks of a slippery slope, but that is more of one than legalizing the private acts of consenting adults could ever be. While such laws may be constitutionally permissable (or perhaps not, as Inc. commenter Ulysses brings up the equal protection clause, and there is a case to be made there) they are not necessarily a good idea.

3) Even if homosexuality were wrong and things wrong should be legalized, Santorum's logic was seriously flawed on a rational level. He suggests that the slippery slope of legalizing gay intercourse could lead to, among other things, polygamy. As someone who opposes polygamy on both a moral and legal plain, I have to take issue with that view. Polygamy is a matter of law. Whether or not the government accepts multiple concurrent marriages between individuals is necessarily the government's business. As mentioned prior, making sure that a man only sleeps with one woman is not. So we're dealing with two distinct issues. One is what the law will allow and the other is what the law will condone, sanction, and codify. One could argue that gay marriage (which I do support) might lead to polygamy (which I don't), but favoring the former and opposing the latter suggests that I don't buy it. I don't think many others will either accept as a mechanism to rationalize the double standard allowed to straights and gays when it comes to legal, financial, and social benefits of marriage.

As such, despite my earlier defense of him, I feel that I should reiterate that I believe Santorum's views are religiously, philosophically, and logically wrong.

They are. Consider it reiterated.

SANTORUM AD INFINUM

Son: So anyway, the wedding is going to be on the 15th and we're going on a honeymoo-
Father: Son, I need to tell you something.
Son: What?
Father: I cannot, and will not, have any part of your intended marriage.
Son: Huh? Why not?
Father: It is incompatible with the church's teachings.
Son: What are you talking about?
Father: You are divorced. Under the church's teachings, you are not permitted to remarry.
Son: What do you mean? She left me, Dad!
Father: I've talked to our paster and I've consulted the Bible. When you signed the divorce papers, you consented to a divorce.
Son: But we're not Catholic, divorce is okay, isn't it?
Father: Divorce is fine, remarriage is not.
Son: But Dad, don't you understand? I love her. My first wife left me in pieces, but my fiance has managed to put them all back together again. She's managed to put me back together again.
Father: And I want to be happy for you, but I can't. The Scripture is clear.
Son: What if we get married by the Justice of the Peace?
Father: It doesn't matter. What matters is that when you consumate your marriage, you will be committing sin. Every time you consummate your marriage, you will be committing sin over and over again. As much as I love you, I cannot be a party to it. I can't encourage that.
Son: But I love her! We make each other happy! You understand that you can't stop me from doing this, right?
Father: I do, but refraining from involvement is the only tangible way I can express my disapproval. I cannot approve of this.
Son: So you're not going to have anything to do with my marriage? We're going to have kids, Dad. By doing this, you're not even going to be a part of their life.
Father: If that's your choice, I'll have to live with that, but I have to stand with what I believe is right.

There are two levels to Rick Santorum's recent comments about homosexuality. The first is legal, which I will talk about in a minute. The second is moral, which I've tried my best to illustrate above.

Does the father above care about his son's feelings? Some will say no, but I believe that he does. The father above believes that sin is a degradation of the soul and, despite the fact that his son is in a near-impossible position according to his church's teachings, any other option than remaining celibate the rest of his life is the equivalent of living in sin and will assue that his son will go to Hell. More than anything else, that is what the father seeks to avoid.

It's quite possible that Rick Santorum hates gays.Only he knows for sure. He does hate sin, though, and he equates homosexual activity with sin. By doing so, he leaves homosexuals in the near-impossible position with the only option to avoid a life of sin is celibacy. He may be fine with that because he hates gays or he may be fine with that because he views that as their only way to avoid a life of sin. As I said, only Santorum knows for sure. And, to a degree, that is true of everyone that believes that homosexuality is a sin.

For what it's worth, I don't believe that at all. Nor do I believe that remarriage is a sin. I don't believe that either the son or gays should be forced to live a life of celibacy to be okay in the eyes of God. Rick Santorum and the father are wrong. That being said, it does not follow that Rick Santorum hates gays anymore than it follows that the father must hate his son.

Liberals are deriding the "hate the sin, love the sinner" philosophy by saying that you cannot seperate a man from his sexuality. Depending on whether or not you believe homosexuality is a choice or a predisposition, that may have credence or not with any given person on the subject of homosexuality. The question, though, is whether or not someone can love (or tolerate) someone that they view is perpetually doing wrong. I believe that it is possible, though it puts such people in a rather awkward position, as demonstrated by the stammering of conservatives that believe homosexuality is wrong but do not believe that homosexuals are worthy of hate by virtue of that one sin.

John Scalzi says the following:

Saying that you have no problems with homosexuals but have a problem with homosexual acts is logically equivalent, for example, to saying that you have no problems with Christians but have a problem with them accepting Christ, or that you have no problems with Republicans but have a problem with them registering as Republicans, or that you have no problem with Marines but have a problem with them enlisting (or receiving commissions in the case of officers). Each X' is an affirmative act of association and identification, without which the identification of X cannot exist.

The way to check this is to determine whether the condition of X can exist without X'. So, to go back to our examples -- can you be a Christian without accepting Christ? Pretty much not. Can you be a Republican without registering as a Republican? Not really. Can you be a Marine without enlisting or being commissioned? Can't do it. In each case it's absolutely possible to manifest an outward appearance of each group -- lead a Christly life, vote Republican, or swagger around saying "Semper Fi" to people -- But until you get baptized, register or enlist/are commissioned, you're not one of the members of these groups. The act matters; thereby, having a problem with the act means you have a problem with the condition because the only way to the condition is the act.

I have to disagree. You can love a Christian as a person but hate the fact that they believe what they do. You can love a Marine but hate the fact that their job. You can love a Republican but hate the way that they vote. To put a point on it, if someone were to say that they hate conservatism or Christianity, my immediate assumption would not be that they hate me personally, but rather that they hate that aspect of me. If they were to say that they hate Christians and hate Republicans, that's when it starts to get personal.

Here's the thing, though: Santorum has not said, at any point, that he hates gays. He has compared homosexuality to other acts he views as deviant, but he is comparing acts, not people.

Daniel (who I seem to be picking on today) infers that homosexuality is integral to a homosexual. Maybe so. Being a Christian is integral to me. Nonetheless, if someone compares Christianity to fascism, they are expressing hatred or disdain to a part of me, not the whole of me. They view a part of me as evil and while that may hurt my feelings, it does not mean that I would be correct in going around saying that they hate all Christians because while they may mean that, they may not mean that at all.

In a way, it breaks down to semantics. However, when it comes to semantics, it's the speaker's intent that is more important than their wordage. So if you don't see a distinction between hating who someone is and hating what they do, you should at least note that they do view one and, in the interest of intellectual honesty, try to see things from their point of view before going around and suggesting that that they hate people solely based on their sexuality. Hating what someone does is not the same as hating who they are. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. For all you know, someone they love is gay and they are in the same awkward position as the father above. Wrong as all heck, but earnest and well-intentioned nonetheless.

So does that mean that those of us that believe that gays should be able to do whatever they like with their lives without being condemned just sit back and say nothing? Absolutely not. They may be well-intentioned, but their still wrong and their ideas still cause harm. But that's not what's happening. Instead, liberals are using this as a battering ram to suggest that Santorum, and thus all those that view homosexuality as a sin, of bigotry on the same level as bigotry based on skin color, which unlike homosexuality or Christianity, is a physical trait and not an act embarked on or a religion embraced. They, as much if not more than Santorum, are the ones making this personal. That's where the comparisons to Trent Lott fail. Blacks are unquestionably and inexplicably born that way. There is no room for debate there. One cannot stop being black if they chose. One can stop being a practicing homosexual, and as out-of-reach as that option seems to be, that's one more option than racial minorities have.

The second way that the comparison to Trent Lott fails is what they actually said. Lott expressed approval for a putrid 1948 platform that Strom Thurmond ascribed to. These were concrete laws used to indignify and oppress blacks for decades. In regards to Santorum's personal view that homosexuality is wrong, that does not necessarily translate into law.

Except that it does, of course, in a way, because he said it in the context of a court decision of a law that is the manifestation of his view.

This brings us to the second level of Santorum's comment: the law.

I believe the Texas sodomy law is wrong on a legal and moral level. I oppose the law and if Democrats were to run on repealing this law and laws like it in 2006, I'd likely vote for them. That is how much I disdain these laws.

That being said, Santorum was arguing about the constitutionality of these laws. He asked, quite plainly, if we say taht there can't be laws against homosexuality because it is a private act in the bedroom, whether that mean that all consensual private acts in the bedroom are therefore inherently justified by the constitution. It's a valid question that makes many liberals, and even libertarian-minded conservatives like myself, uncomfortable. Unfortunately, Santorum may be right. If the constitution protects the rights of gays to have consensual sex, it protects the rights of anyone to do so. I personally don't believe that the constution necessarily protects that (and thus laws could be passed against all non-procreational sex, or for that matter sex altogether) and still technically be constitutional. That being said, I believe that all such laws violent the spirit of freedom and personal liberty set forth in the Constitution. I don't believe there should be laws against adultery, even though I consider that morally wrong in a way that I don't consider homosexuality not to be. In other words, because something is Constitutional that does not make it right. It's a lesson both liberals and conservatives would do well to remember.

So there is room here to debate the issue at hand. There are issues on what degree to which morality can, and should, be legislated. That's where Santorum is most wrong and that's where Democrats should hone their energies. It's also where Republicans like me need to speak up, which I have done and will continue to do. We need to try to convince those that believe homosexuality is morally wrong (which is more people than many liberals would like to believe) that it should still be legal and to remind them that there are those that believe contraception should be illegal and ask them how they would react if that were legislated into reality. Santorum used a few degrees of hyperbole to illustrate his point and we can do the same. Just as there are NAMBLAs on the left that unfortunately discredit the gay rights clause, there are many puritans on the right that would want to legislate so many things into law 95% of Americans would suddenly become criminals. To get the attention of legislators, we only need half of those people.

By making this about Santorum, the debate itself has been sacrificed at the alter of political point-scoring. By making this about the Republican Party, it's made moderate Republicans more defensive rather than giving them to join a common cause that would make the views of Santorum and Nickles obselete.

Or you can just paint all Republicans with a super broad brush, paint everyone with misguided views of homosexuality as haters, and keep potential allies at bay.

Your choice.

TAX CUTS, SUBSIDIES, AND FOREVER

Jane Galt has a great post on what the procedural difference is between a tax cut and increased spending is. Namely, that the latter considerably outlast the former:

What's going to happen when the Democrats control at two out of three of the Senate, House, and Oval Office? Those tax cuts are going away. Don't believe me? Tax rates have fluctuated by as much as 50% between presidents in the last half-century, maybe more. Just one example: Reagan cut 'em, Bush/Clinton raised them, Bush II cut them again. Projecting deficits from these tax cuts forever and ever is stupid, because we're only one election away from seeing them reversed.

Daniel Goldberg has been very tough on the Bush Administration for increasing spending and cutting taxes, thus increasing the deficit. Rightfully so. As someone who would very much like a near-balanced budget, I am concerned about the growing deficit and hefty interest payments that we will be paying for some time to come.

However, that's where my agreement with budget hawk liberals ends. My problem isn't with the tax cuts, it's with the spending increase. I support the Department of Homeland Security (though I would do it differently, if I were in charge of it), but Bush's failure to contain spending in other areas is quite unsettling and the education bill he passed in his first year in office was absolutely odious.

So does that mean that I regret voting for Bush and/or will vote for his Democratic rival in 2004? Absolutely not. The alternative to Bush's dubious financial policies are Democratic calls for more spending which, in the long run, is much worse, because once those are instituted, they won't be going away until fiscal restraint is the only issue of the day, and that just doesn't happen very often. In the 90's, it took a mentally unstable Texas businessman winning 20% of the vote to catch the major parties' attention to make it happen.

The economy going down the crapper and the deficits aren't so much a reason that I shouldn't have voted for Bush, it's actually the reason that I did.

Up until late 1999, I had planned to vote for Al Gore. I was almost excited about the prospect of it. "He's Bill Clinton without the gross immorality," I reasoned.

At some point, I jumped on the John McCain bandwagon and, had it not been for what became a deeply personal discomfort for the man, that's likely where I'd still be. Loony views on campaign finance reform aside, McCain advocated very modest tax cuts, decreased government spending, and paying down the national debt.

That was, and remains, the perfect platform to win my vote.

Once Bush won the nomination, that no longer became an option. The choice, as I saw it, was tax cuts that might lead to deficits if the economy turns sour, or a cash givaways to seniors (whether they need it or not) that might also lead to deficits.

In the end, I had to conclude that in the long term, Gore's views were much more dangerous to our fiscal health. Bush's tax cuts might backfire, but they could be retracted. Of the last four presidents, two raised taxes and two lowered them. If Gore were to get elected on his Free-Prescription-Drugs-for-Everyone-and-their-Dog platform, it would take a lot more political courage to tell seniors (in which everyone is or hopes to be one day) that the government is going to stop giving them what it once did. That's too much money to too many people ever to reverse.

So, the question is, when is Bush going to retract his tax cuts? I expect that to be a year or so after never. So does that mean that I will vote for someone to raise taxes to balance the budget?

Yes, actually, that's exactly what that means, so long as it is met with corresponding (and equal would be nice, but not necessary) cut in spending. Show me the Democrat that advocates a balanced budget over a brand-spanking new prescription drug plan and throwing federal money at education like confetti at a parade, and chances are (assuming his foreign policy is kosher) he's got my vote.

Yeah, I'm not holding my breath either.

SADDAM'S BIGGEST MISTAKE

Even before his adventures in totalitarianism, it has always frustrated me to no end how many on the left admire or even tolerate Fidel Castro. It's one thing to oppose sanctions on the grounds that it merely tightens Fidel's grip. It's another to try to say "Well, as bad as Cuba is, at least it has national health care" and make some insinuations and America's democratic and free system's superiority to the dreck rule of Fidel is subjective. As James Lileks onced asked, would you rather be poor and in need of emergency medical help in the United States of Cuba? I'd take the US any day. Considering the hundreds that have died trying to escape that island to make it here, I suspect that I am not alone. Many in the media try to portray the Cuban refugees in Florida as maniacs and fascists but they fail to ask why it is that those who know the most about Cuba also hate Castro the most. We are a nation of immigrants and most of our immigrants take great pride in their homeland. Irish Americans want us to appreciate Irish culture and Mexicans theirs as well. The Cubans want us to kick its leader's butt. For many on the left, it seems, all that matters is that Cubans lean rightward and Fidel is left and they immediately sympathize with the latter.

To their credit, with the exception of ANSWER and their ilk no one against the war has made excuses for Saddam Hussein. Those opposed to the war tried to convince us not to engage in it because they felt it a disproportionate response to a very minor threat or because it would make the rest of the world angry or a myriad of other reasons. None of which were "Saddam isn't so bad." For all the voices against the war, only the fringe ever actually defended Saddam on any moral or idealistic level.

Why is that? In a remarkably well-written post (go read the whole thing), fellow Houstonian Angie Schultz pinpoints the answer:

Your big mistake, Saddam old man, was not calling yourself a Communist. You could have had exactly the same power, exactly the same control, gassed exactly as many Kurds, and the Julie Burchills of the world would've defended your regime to the end. All you had to do was fly a few red flags and put up a few posters of Lenin. Maybe salted your rhetoric with a little "glorious workers' revolution". Would that have been too high a price to pay?