|
New York
SO FAR AS ONE CAN TELL at this moment, the Republican convention seems to have been a success. The protests were large, but not all-consuming. Most of the ugliest conflicts came in small, interpersonal doses, not en masse. The city of New York was not just host, to the convention, it was its second-biggest star, and it provided the focal point for the Republicans' message: The GOP is the party of September 12th. President Bush gave two speeches Thursday night. The first one was a domestic policy speech that was slow, bordering on turgid. Despite the sluggishness, though, the speech covered important ground. He proposed a major reform of the tax code and the creation of "opportunity zones," which resemble Empowerment Zones for blue-collar areas. He called for tort reform (a subtle jab at John Edwards) and, in one particularly transparent passage, noted, "As I have traveled our country, I have met too many good doctors, especially OB-GYNS, who are being forced out of practice because of the high cost of lawsuits." In his values section he included a reference to abortion--a slightly oblique statement about the need to "make a place for the unborn child." There was no mention of stem-cell research, cloning, or any other bioethical matters, nor of AIDS, which has been one of Bush's signature issues. There was a statement of support for traditional marriage ("Because the union of a man and woman deserves an honored place in our society, I support the protection of marriage against activist judges."), but while there certainly is a difference, the president did not go out of his way to explicitly distinguish his position on gay marriage from John Kerry's. In a nuanced bit of language, Bush said that he "will continue to appoint federal judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law." Conservatives apparently now prefer "strict interpretationists" to "strict constructionists." The president did not elaborate on the specifics of his domestic plans but, like John Kerry, referred voters to his website.
THE SECOND PORTION of Bush's speech concentrated on foreign policy, and here he was quite good. The text of the speech was deft and at times quite evocative; Bush's delivery was sound. Referring to the Islamist threat--but not mentioning it by name--Bush took a strong stand, saying, "If America shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch." He spoke of America's achievements in the war on terror, saying that "more than three-quarters of al Qaeda's key members and associates have been detained or killed." By way of explaining his hind-sight position on Iraq, Bush asked, "Do I forget the lessons of September 11th and take the word of a madman, or do I take action to defend our country? Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time." He spoke movingly about America's allies, the sacrifices American troops have made, and the portal to modernity which American blood has opened for Afghans and Iraqis. This last subject--the question of transformation in the Islamic world--was the message Bush emphasized most strongly. "We are working to advance liberty in the broader Middle East, because freedom will bring a future of hope, and the peace we all want," he said at one point. The reason for this labor is that Bush believes, "that America is called to lead the cause of freedom in a new century. I believe that millions in the Middle East plead in silence for their liberty. I believe that given the chance, they will embrace the most honorable form of government ever devised by man." "The terrorists are fighting freedom with all their cunning and cruelty because freedom is their greatest fear," he said. "And they should be afraid, because freedom is on the march." All told, Bush used the words "freedom" and "liberty" 27 times. This then, is the case for Bush: He understands what the post-9/11 world is, he has a plan to keep America safe, and the broadest expression of this plan is to aggressively promote democracy across the globe, even if that mission requires force. It is not unreasonable to doubt whether or not this approach will prove to be the best way to combat the Islamist threat which other speakers at the Republican convention spoke so eloquently about. But Bush had an answer for those doubters:
In 1946, 18 months after the fall of Berlin to allied forces, a journalist wrote in the New York Times, "Germany is a land in an acute stage of economic, political and moral crisis. [European] capitals are frightened. In every [military] headquarters, one meets alarmed officials doing their utmost to deal with the consequences of the occupation policy that they admit has failed." . . . Fortunately, we had a resolute president named Truman, who with the American people persevered, knowing that a new democracy at the center of Europe would lead to stability and peace. And because that generation of Americans held firm in the cause of liberty, we live in a better and safer world today.
And if it is imperfect, at least Bush has a plan. Despite having months to articulate his vision for how America should wage the current conflict, John Kerry has declined to do so. Indeed, it is not even certain that Kerry believes there is a conflict to be waged. Whatever else comes out of the Republicans' week in New York, they have dictated the terms of the debate on the war on terrorism and seized every inch of ground worth holding therein. If Americans are still serious about this war, John Kerry is now in a difficult position.
Jonathan V. Last is online editor of The Weekly Standard. |
