Posted by: Dale Franks on Thursday, October 21, 2004 James Na's article in the Seattle Times today nicely encapsulates why I cannot agree with Jon's "noce of the Above" choice for the election. I understand it, but I can't follow his example. As Na Points out. What many of my fellow Americans seem to forget is that these terrorists, whether operating in Iraq or elsewhere, cannot defeat the United States the way, for example, the Allies systematically incapacitated the Germans' ability to wage war during World War II by destroying armies, obliterating factories and even bombing population centers. And it is not just that Mr. Kerry and his Democratic compatriots are weak on the War on Terror today. It is, as Max Boot points out in the Los Angeles Times, that Kerry and Co. have been historically weak on matter that involve the projection of American force. Boot includes in his column a series of quotes made by leading Democrats in 1991, when the first President Bush not only had a plethora of allies, but full UN approval for the use of force. The first quote he present is one by Sen. Kerry himself: Sen. John Kerry: "I do not believe our nation is prepared for war. If we do go to war, for years people will ask why Congress gave in. They will ask why there was such a rush to so much death and destruction when it did not have to happen." In point of fact, it did have to happen, and the reason wasn't because there was a rush to war, but rather because Saddam Hussein had engineered the invasion of Kuwait. Sen. Kerry was perfectly willing to let sanctions take effect. And, of course, we all saw how those sanctions after the Gulf War forced Saddam Hussein to come clean about his WMD programs, huh? If we'd waited for sanctions to work to get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, there'd still be a Kuwaiti government in exile in Alexandria, VA. At this time, such ambivalence about the uses of American power is simply a luxury we can't afford. Jon is perfectly right that President Bush has been less than keen to make government smaller or less intrusive. Tariffs on steel, softwood lumber, and textiles were a bad idea. The massive expansion of agricultural subsidies was a worse one. The proposed Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution is even more atrocious. So what? In our current situation, those issues are, at best secondary. It's all very well and good to present hypotheticals about whether a Bush loss will force the Republicans into a more libertarian direction. At other times, it might be an interesting and relevant argument. Indeed, I've made those same calculations in the past. I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992, and didn't vote at all in 1996. In general, if given a choice between an ideologically undecided Republican and and ideologically uncommitted Democrat, I prefer the Democrat. And there are times when it's perfeclty logical to vote according to that calculus. This is not one of those times. It is utterly pointless and shortsighted to calculate about the future of the GOP when our primary concern right now is the threat of radical Islam. A retreat in the War on Terror that results in a decade of threats to American security like those that appeared in the 1970s could very well make domestic political calculations about the relative libertarian-ness of the GOP moot. Jon writes: Now, I'd love it if Bush and the GOP moved in a libertarian direction, but here's the problem: if the GOP wins this election without being conservative/libertarian at all, then they don't ever have to be conservative/libertarian ever again. I simply don't believe this argument is true. What does Jon believe L/C voters will do if faced with such a prospect? Simply stay home and not vote? Does he believe L/C candidates will never run for office again? Additionally, in an election like this one, facing the Islamist threat, I simply don't believe that any victory in this election can be taken as a referendum on domestic policy. It might say volumes about how the American people wish the War on Terror to be fought, but I doubt any case can be made that it would constitute a general expression of approval about, or predicts the future of, the L/C idea in American politics. In any event, I'm far more concerned with keeping the USS America from slipping beneath the waves than I am about watching the GOP sink. Maybe, once the last terrorist's head is stuck on pike, I'll be more concerned with the fate of the GOP's L/C direction. Until then, I want a president that I'm sure will pull the trigger, when it needs to be pulled. That president is George W. Bush. |
|||||||||||||||||||
| TrackBacks | |||||||||||||||||||
| Return to Main Blog Page | |||||||||||||||||||
| Comments For This Post | |||||||||||||||||||
Previous Comments to this Post |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
| Add Your Comment | |||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| Vicious Capitalism |
Buy Dale's Book!
|
