Dean has posted An Interesting Question For Conservatives:
Now here is my interesting question: I’ve made myself some friends among conservatives by speaking this way. But I do find myself wondering: how many of you on the right will embrace such a philosophy if John Kerry should carry the election in November?
I will.
I believe in the separation of government and politics. I hate politics. Government interests me. The two are not the same, nor should they be. We elect people to represent us, and we expect them to do what is right within the framework of our Constitution.
Today, the election cycle never ends. Politics continue day in and day out. Political shenanigans are the domestic equivalent of diplomacy, and belong in a small, controlled timeframe prior to an election. No deal-making. No vote buying. Simple representation is what we deserve.
The real question is whether we want a President or a Political Commisar. A President will act in the best interests of the United States, whether it is popular or not. I believe that is what Dubya has done. That’s why I support him. People seem to forget what a tremendous political risk he was taking by first going into Afghanistan, and then finishing up what the UN refused to do in Iraq a decade ago. Those political chickens seem to be coming home to roost, but not because of any failures. We have had many successes, with bumps in the road. The bumps are heralded as failures.
I don’t like Kerry because I believe Ted Kennedy will finally get the White House if he wins, something Ted couldn’t accomplish on his own. We will have the equivalent of Tip O’Neill controlling Jimmy Carter. Kerry would be a political commisar like Clinton. At least Carter had a sincere heart.
My biggest complaint about those who speak ill of our President and besmirch the accomplishments of our troops is that they do it with no sense of how destructive it is to any foreign policy we want to pursue. Divide and Conquer is a valid strategy, and even easier to accomplish when the enemy divides himself, which our enemies clearly understand. Diplomacy only works if you operate from strength. That is what the “Give Peace a Chance” group refuses to understand.
My loyalties lie first with the United States. For all our failings, this is still the best place in the world to live. There is absolutely no comparison. And we are quick to point out our own failings. For the whole world to see. I have been to and lived in (not just a visit) a wide variety of countries with different histories, languages, and cultures. None come close. Not even England, which is as close to us in those things as any other. Not Canada, as much as they would like to be like us.
In the first half of the 19th century, all the nations in Europe sat back waiting for this experiment to fail so they could then come in and pick up the pieces that suited them. No representative government like ours had ever survived. In 1861 we surprised them all. We fought a war, one of the bloodiest in history, between ourselves. Europeans thought the end was near. What surprised them was not that we had a Civil War, but that the entire nation was mobilized–fiercely. We had larger armies fighting one another than they could ever dream of building. We had muscle and commitment like no society had ever known. We were united in our division, as strange as it sounds. At that point, the US became a force to be reckoned with. Still something we need to project overseas if we ever want to succeed diplomatically.
That unity of purpose is what we saw in the one or two days after 9/11, which dissolved quickly once people saw Dubya was looking too good to suit them. We cannot survive in this world operating that way. As long as Kerry, if elected, acts like a President I will support him as one. Too bad Dubya wasn’t given that opportunity.
I will support the President, even if I think he is nuts – provided he is doing something.
Comment by John Rogers — July 28, 2004 @ 7:04 pm
What does “support the president” mean? Does this mean that there should be a cessation in the vitriolic diatribe that has been commonplace lately? If that’s the case, then yes. If it means that we should stop criticizing bad decisions, obviously we should not.
If Bush had carried Florida by 3000 votes instead of 300, I doubt there would be as much of this anyone but Bush attitude. He has been seen, incorrectly, as stealing the election (even though every recount I ever saw W still had more votes–even the way Al Gore wanted the count to go), and there are many loud groups who are opposed to him just for that.
The unfortunate thing is, I don’t think that this sort of attitude is going to change for a long time. In the past ten years, the way to get your point across is to scream louder than your protagonist. If you can’t then you claim to have had your ideas repressed (this goes both ways).
I think that if Kerry wins, the big Republican backlash will go not towards Kerry, although there will be some, but rather to the mass media, “Big Media” to coin a Democratic colloquialism. One can argue that there is not a media bias, but anyone who thinks objectively can see that there really is one, with one exception in TV and a few newspapers throughout the country who lean right. The unrelenting focus on negativity in Iraq and Afghanistan, without a single mention of what is actually occurring in a positive manner in those places, is a tell-tale sign of that.
Comment by Slice — July 29, 2004 @ 12:45 am
Of course, my son says it all quite well.
“Shrill” is a word which fits how the left makes speeches. It matters not how many microphones are in front of them, every speech ends up with screaming. Why is that? Just as Slice says. If you have no ideas, then the best way to make people think you do is to yell. It makes you look like you are actually committed to something.
I don’t watch “point-counterpoint” shows for this very reason.
Comment by Bunker — July 29, 2004 @ 5:29 am
“…Political shenanigans are the domestic equivalent of diplomacy…”
And to further define the beast, the reality of diplomacy is the art of practical disingenuity, that is, making lies sound as truth and truth as lies.
Or, more often, the art of stabbing someone in the back while shaking their hand.
Of course, if it’s the American State Department, it’s quite frequently the art of stabbing Americans in the back while shaking a foreign power’s hand…
And that’s why Kerry can tout his potential for diplomacy. Witness his achievements in stabbing his “band of brothers” in the back with false allegations of daily, ongoing war crimes and painting himself as St John.
Pretty impressive backstabbing, I’d say.
No. I’m not usually this cynical. It’s just for the last 50 years of my life… (however you may want to read that 🙂
Comment by DNeedham — August 26, 2004 @ 12:36 pm
PLEDGE
The other night I talked to a group of NRA-belonging, terrorist-hating Soldiers who do not plan to vote for President Bush, and I lost all the wind from my sails. If they’re not voting for President Bush, the die-hard capitalist…
Trackback by trying to grok — July 29, 2004 @ 3:55 am
[…] ght will embrace such a philosophy if John Kerry should carry the election in November? I responded: That unity of purpose is what we saw in the one or two days after 9/11, which dissolved […]
Pingback by Bunker Mulligan » Terror’s Children — December 21, 2004 @ 11:22 pm