If Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor, would we have entered World War II? In both hemispheres? Would we have had the resolve to see it through? Or would we have watched from the safety and comfort of home while good people suffered at the hands of some of the most evil characters the world has ever known?
I like to think the Greatest Generation would have jumped into the fight anyway, for both our strategic interests and in defense of the innocent. History certainly would have been different, but in the end evil would have been defeated.
But after WWII, for some reason, we started to doubt ourselves. The peace-at-all-costs crowd gained influence over media and education (especially at the university level), making it more difficult to rally the nation around any cause that involves the military. Yes, in July of 1953 the fighting in Korea stopped and a line was drawn. No winner, no loser, just peace. But look at what became of the North and South since then, perfectly illustrating the true nature of collectivist versus individualist ideologies. I would like to ask the anti-Korean War protesters of the time: Was it worth it? Have 50 years of intense suffering by the North Korean people been preferable to steeling our resolve and winning the war?
And if Korea showed the slippage of our national pride, we hit rock bottom in Vietnam. Like Korea, we were there for a reason: to stop the spread of an evil ideology and to defend innocent people from its effects. But by this point the question "War, what is it good for?" had no one to answer. It was just too cool and a sign of enlightenment to denounce any war, for whatever cause.
But again, we watched the results unfold. Yes, we brought our boys home from the war, but we also condemned millions to death and misery in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam in yet another stark example of what transpires in the absence of American influence. I wonder if Jane Fonda ever thinks about those poor people . . . she certainly is never asked about them during her "Larry King Live" appearances.
Over the last few years, we have seen this pattern continue to play out. After 9/11, we briefly regained our desire to assert American values in the shakier parts of the world. Afghanistan was obvious . . . go get the guys who attacked us. And at first, invading Iraq and ridding the world of Saddam Hussein was well supported here at home. The naysayers were a small minority, especially when Saddam's statue came down so quickly.
But then things got difficult . . . a hard slog. Mistakes were made and the mission wasn't quite accomplished. Good men and women died and it was heart wrenching to watch. This is when public sentiment started to turn, led by some of the most opportunistic and shallow politicians the world has ever known . . . almost all from the Democratic Party. What happened during those long months when victory was not assured, when the path forward looked worse than the path back, when the only reason to keep going was a belief in core principles of our nation?
Character was revealed.
A philosophical rot has taken hold at our core. How many people do you know that were supportive or OK with the war at first and then jumped ship a year or two down the road? Take note of these people and be reminded not to rely on them for anything important. They will let you down. Again.
Fortunately President Bush did not waver and ensured Iraq was won before he left office. But, the price we will pay thanks to the wobbly left is impotence against Iran. This is an evil regime, on the road to becoming dangerous. If we, as a nation, had stayed committed to winning in Iraq and now turned our attention to Iran, we may have been able to gain influence without further military action. Now, there seems to be only one path: a nuclear armed Iran and a foolish hope they won't use it. They will.
It's no longer in style to believe that America is great, that our values are fundamentally noble. Apologies are in vogue. Bowing to monarchs that have no respect for individual rights and shaking hands with socialists who condemn America . . . Presidents used to not do these things.
Sometimes fighting for what you believe in requires actual fighting. There are people who want to tear down what we value. Embracing them will not change that. Do we really have to continuously learn that the hard way?
(PS - 20-April-2009, on the 2 year anniversary of Harry Reid's declaration: ''...this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything ...")
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Why Republicans Stink
In Mel Gibson's Braveheart, when William Wallace realizes he's been betrayed by the Bruce clan, it's a moment of surrender. If this is a lie, then what else? We know that the Progressives have lost all sense of our country's values and ideals . . . that's built into our view of the world. But the real downer is when Jefferson and Madison roll over in their grave . . . because of the Republican party.
Many conservatives are reluctant to Bush-bash, primarily because he kept the country safe from terrorists after 9/11 and because he was against abortion. Being pro-choice myself, I only share half their appreciation. But, I do not want to minimize the passion and dedication he gave to the fight against our enemies. I hope it goes down in history as the great accomplishment that it was.
George Bush likes to paint himself as a man of principal, one unmoved by political temptations. The first hint of this lie came in March 2002, while Bush still enjoyed the hearts and minds of the American public. After 9/11, we desperately wanted him to be great. But instead came a temptation too great: some rust belt swing state votes were needed for the upcoming Congressional election. So, a temporary steel tariff was enacted to protect a few jobs . . . without regard for the damage caused to American users of steel (no explanation of this is needed for free marketeers . . . I've lost the progressives here).
No Child Left Behind actually preceded the Steel Tariffs, but slipped under most conservatives' radar. Raising standards sounded like a good idea, but in hindsight (and this is always the case . . . which is why a conservative is a conservative) the rule of unintended consequences turns a good idea into one to regret. A true conservative would have abolished the Department of Education on the federal level, returned enormous amounts of money to the states and let them find the best solutions locally (any remaining progressives have just jumped ship).
These early worrisome notes to file became a thick anti-conservative dossier in the coming years. Farm subsidies, immigration (both open borders and the reluctance to issue H-1B visas to eager, talented foreign workers), Terry Schiavo, the failure to rally the world around removing Saddam Hussein, stem cells, Medicare Part D (prescription drug subsidies), automotive and bank bailouts . . . the list is long. And each example shows George Bush's disregard (disdain?) for the most basic conservative principal: government should stay out of people's lives except when necessary to defend liberty and freedom.
But, this rant is not about George Bush, it's about Republicans. Because during the first 6 years of his presidency, Republicans controlled congress and either led or followed the White House on every issue. Bush's first veto came 5 years into his presidency, and only then to keep down stem cell research. The strategy was "compassionate conservatism", an attempt to steal the Democrat's central message: that they're the party that cares. This would keep Republicans on top for a generation.
The result is the failure of Republicans on both fronts: they neither remained conservative nor retained power. But another, and more disastrous, failure is just starting to reveal itself.
Why do conservatives resist expansion of government power so universally, so consistently? Because we hate the poor? We're racist? (Welcome back, progressives.) We want to keep all the money for ourselves? We're cold-hearted?
Don't expand government power, no matter how tempting, no matter how noble the cause, because you have no idea who might inherit that power and how they might use it. We won't always have smart, wise, benevolent leaders (don't say it). This was part of the genius of our founders, part of why we've become the greatest country in history. It is very difficult to expand government thanks both to the text of the constitution and to the conservative nature of the citizens. Live free or die.
It seems to me that the constitution has been sufficiently weakened and the people sufficiently misled that 200 years of conservatism is currently in mid-flight out the window. Barack Obama inherited a down economy and a weakened constitution. He has more power than any President in our history and the Republicans gave it to him on a silver platter. What will this stranger do with it?
Many conservatives are reluctant to Bush-bash, primarily because he kept the country safe from terrorists after 9/11 and because he was against abortion. Being pro-choice myself, I only share half their appreciation. But, I do not want to minimize the passion and dedication he gave to the fight against our enemies. I hope it goes down in history as the great accomplishment that it was.
George Bush likes to paint himself as a man of principal, one unmoved by political temptations. The first hint of this lie came in March 2002, while Bush still enjoyed the hearts and minds of the American public. After 9/11, we desperately wanted him to be great. But instead came a temptation too great: some rust belt swing state votes were needed for the upcoming Congressional election. So, a temporary steel tariff was enacted to protect a few jobs . . . without regard for the damage caused to American users of steel (no explanation of this is needed for free marketeers . . . I've lost the progressives here).
No Child Left Behind actually preceded the Steel Tariffs, but slipped under most conservatives' radar. Raising standards sounded like a good idea, but in hindsight (and this is always the case . . . which is why a conservative is a conservative) the rule of unintended consequences turns a good idea into one to regret. A true conservative would have abolished the Department of Education on the federal level, returned enormous amounts of money to the states and let them find the best solutions locally (any remaining progressives have just jumped ship).
These early worrisome notes to file became a thick anti-conservative dossier in the coming years. Farm subsidies, immigration (both open borders and the reluctance to issue H-1B visas to eager, talented foreign workers), Terry Schiavo, the failure to rally the world around removing Saddam Hussein, stem cells, Medicare Part D (prescription drug subsidies), automotive and bank bailouts . . . the list is long. And each example shows George Bush's disregard (disdain?) for the most basic conservative principal: government should stay out of people's lives except when necessary to defend liberty and freedom.
But, this rant is not about George Bush, it's about Republicans. Because during the first 6 years of his presidency, Republicans controlled congress and either led or followed the White House on every issue. Bush's first veto came 5 years into his presidency, and only then to keep down stem cell research. The strategy was "compassionate conservatism", an attempt to steal the Democrat's central message: that they're the party that cares. This would keep Republicans on top for a generation.
The result is the failure of Republicans on both fronts: they neither remained conservative nor retained power. But another, and more disastrous, failure is just starting to reveal itself.
Why do conservatives resist expansion of government power so universally, so consistently? Because we hate the poor? We're racist? (Welcome back, progressives.) We want to keep all the money for ourselves? We're cold-hearted?
Don't expand government power, no matter how tempting, no matter how noble the cause, because you have no idea who might inherit that power and how they might use it. We won't always have smart, wise, benevolent leaders (don't say it). This was part of the genius of our founders, part of why we've become the greatest country in history. It is very difficult to expand government thanks both to the text of the constitution and to the conservative nature of the citizens. Live free or die.
It seems to me that the constitution has been sufficiently weakened and the people sufficiently misled that 200 years of conservatism is currently in mid-flight out the window. Barack Obama inherited a down economy and a weakened constitution. He has more power than any President in our history and the Republicans gave it to him on a silver platter. What will this stranger do with it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)