One of the most dangerous ideas in the history of American foreign policy has been the mistaken principle that “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” As a general rule, the error of this idea has been traditionally embraced by the left, who caution that careless alliances of convenience with murderers and thugs tend to have disastrous consequences for America later on, a phenomenon termed as “blowback.”

The policy of aligning ourselves with shiftless players is nothing new, dating back to our alliance with communist Russia to stop the Nazis during World War II. Of course, these short-sighted friendships forged during the Cold War always came back to roost, often with terrible consequences.

For example, our desire to check the fundamentalist mullahs of Iran led to biological cultures of anthrax, botulism, and other nasty bacteria being transferred to Iraq during the height of the Iran-Iraq War — samples which mysteriously turned up in the weapons program U.N. inspectors uncovered in 1991.

Likewise, to stop the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan, the CIA armed and trained mujihideen fighters — who incidentally would turn out to be the same murderous dogs who would give shelter to and plot the terrorist attacks upon America (oops).

So why is it that a group normally so conscientious with whom it forms alliances would be so careless in exercising the “enemy of my enemy” principle when it comes to domestic politics?

Take the new liberal mantra, “Anybody but Bush.” To hear some speak, one might think Bush ranked somewhere on the scale between John Dillinger and the Antichrist — a dark cloud so ominous that four more years may very well destroy America itself.

Yet the solution of “anybody but Bush” — and the resulting contender, everything but Bush — leaves one wondering whatever happened to liberals’ principled objection to making allies out of their enemies’ enemies.

For example, how many people are talking up the specific virtues of John Kerry as a contender for the White House? So far, his only lasting qualification seems only to have been that he’s just not Bush.

Outside of voting for nearly all of the worst policies the Bush administration has implemented (from the Patriot Act to the Iraq war), the only thing he can think to offer his liberal faithful is warmed-over left-wing standbys: raising the minimum wage to $8 per hour (a dubious proposition with even less chance of passing under a hostile Congress), rolling back tax cuts to the top income tax brackets to provide some means of universal heath care, and an ambiguous promise of “international cooperation” in our foreign policy.

To disgruntled libertarians and deficit hawks wanting nothing more than to terminate the reign of Bush, Kerry shows little more promise. His new spending initiatives would indicate that no matter who ends up winning in November, looming budget deficits are here to stay. Nowhere in his campaign rhetoric are places where one could be expecting actual cuts in federal spending, offering nothing but a stalemate to those hoping to boot Bush for his crimes of fiscal incontinence.

Why then do so many rally behind a candidate who would otherwise be due a lukewarm reception at best from these people? Call it the return of the “enemy of my enemy” principle — given the high stakes of this election, unsavory alliances must be forged if utter catastrophe is to be averted — even if it means aligning oneself with a candidate only marginally better.

What appears to be lost upon these individuals here is that this was exactly the same kind of thinking from the interventionist anti-Communist forces of the right they justly decried at the time.

Thus, do long-held principles like blowback simply stop at the water’s edge? What exactly makes the high stakes in this election any more worth disposing with principle than it did when we found ourselves allied with anti-Communist thugs and despots?

None of this means that a President Kerry would gas his own people, round up political enemies into death camps or declare himself president for life — but that was never the point. Rather, it seems strangely hypocritical to see the same crowd that so vociferously criticized this idea of unsavory alliances suddenly inverting its position when it’s ox is being gored.

A defensible argument can be made that the right is equally guilty of such in settling for a candidate so hostile to its own beliefs — but then, these are also not the ones who have had scruples with such alliances in the past.

Meanwhile, those dissatisfied with the direction Bush has taken this country should take a deep look inside and vote in line with their consciences this November. If the stakes of this election are indeed so great, surely then their votes must be earned rather than simply taken as a default.