The neo-con blog RedState supplements a recent New York Times story on the impending economic collapse of Zimbabwe with a colorful paragraph of its own.
Question: Neo-cons and “mainstream” conservatives will tend to tell the truth about Zimbabwe, but say nothing about South Africa, which is maybe a decade behind Zimbabwe in its own collapse. What gives?
Answer: Dutcholyatry. The most significant difference between the two African countries is which American president pushed them over the edge, and into the abyss of black rule. It’s fun for neo-cons to pick on Zimbabwe simply because they get to poke fun at Jimmy Carter. Ten years from now, when the krugerrand is at a million percent inflation rate, and the St. Louis CofCC Blog daily monitors the rising exchange rates between it and the U.S. peso, the RedStates, Right Wing Newses, and Power Lines of the world won’t say boo about it, because it was their idol who smashed South Africa to death with the economic boycott he signed in the early 1980s.
Also, Zimbabwe is a slightly less hot potato for the neo-cons to handle than South Africa, because the former never had the hard-and-fast apartheid that the latter did, and apartheid, and its sister systems, segregation and Jim Crow, don’t fit into a “conservative” egalitarian ideology.
