Charen: End of Year Reflections

Townhall.com ^ | 12-27-03 | Mona Charen

[cgk]

End of year reflections
Mona Charen (archive)

December 27, 2003 | Print | Send

Today's column is desultory. Kindly indulge me. I have Howard Dean and Time magazine on my mind.

Time magazine has chosen the American soldier as its Person of the Year. Ha! Meaning no disrespect at all to the world's finest fighting force, I have a feeling that the excellence of our men at arms had little to do with this decision.

No, it seems pretty evident that the editors of Time were desperate to find someone, anyone, to name instead of George W. Bush. The person of the year is supposedly selected for having had the most influence on events of the past year, for good or ill. But this standard is not always strictly applied. Think back to 2001, for example. It is blindingly obvious that the one person who shaped the world the most that year, very much for ill, was Osama bin Laden. But Time's editors could not bring themselves to name him -- not when they were receiving daily warnings from readers threatening to cancel their subscriptions; not when so many continue to see the person of the year as some sort of honor. So they punted and chose Rudolph Giuliani.

But (again let me stress that I bow to no one in my admiration for the U.S. military), the persons of the year Time chose would be sitting in Fort Benning and Camp Pendleton, not in Saddam's palaces today had it not been for George Bush. Not only has Bush shown the courage to take the fight to the terrorists and made this a victory year for American forces and American values, he has begun the process of remaking the Middle East in a more democratic mold, a challenge he created and embraced, and on which he will be judged by history. You may consider it too ambitious, or you may think him a visionary, but either way, it seems to me, George Bush must be acknowledged as a huge actor on the world stage. Time magazine needs to work on its news judgment.

I know that many conservatives are praying for Howard Dean's success in the Democratic primaries. They consider him, with good reason, to be the most beatable of the likely nominees. I demur. Despite what liberals always say about us conservatives (we're supposed to be the party of hate), I don't want to spend the year 2004 in a lather. I don't want to hate the Democrats' choice. If they nominate Dick Gephardt or Joe Lieberman, the country can have an honest debate, and bitterness need not reign in the land. Both candidates are honest, and even winsome.

Not Dean. His arrogance is so hot it throws off sparks. Speaking of hate, his campaign has so far been about little else. One searches in vain for any flicker of humor, and his relationship to the truth is showing signs of Clintonitis. The latest example: Last August, the Quad-City Times of Davenport, Iowa, circulated a questionnaire to the Democratic candidates for president. The paper asked the candidates to complete the following sentence: "My closest living relative in the armed services is …" Dean wrote: "My brother is a POW/MIA in Laos, but is almost certainly dead." In point of fact, Dean's brother Charles, whose remains have recently been returned from Laos, was not in the armed services. He was a tourist, visiting Laos as part of a one-year world tour. The Quad-City Times editorially expressed dismay at Dean's mendacity. Instead of apologizing for misleading readers, Dean dashed off an indignant letter to the editor.

What seemed so clear to outsiders -- that the Democrats' best bet was a war-supporting liberal like Gephardt or Lieberman -- did not seem to sway the nominating wing of the Democratic party. They are thirsting for a Bush-bashing, small America liberal -- someone who will genuflect before the United Nations. But Dean is more than a liberal, he is a liar and a narcissist. So if he is nominated, it's going to be long, long year.

©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

[cgk]

Head's up to Mona's list...

[alloysteel]

Mona Charen has hit squarely on Time's motives - squirming as they are on a pin, and yet, not wanting to make an admission that the man they will be actively churning out propaganda was indeed, the best candidate for Man of the Year, George W. Bush. So the soldiers were used as surrogates, "We support the troops, but not their mission" sort of thing, avoiding, at all costs, the real reason for the mission of toppling Saddam Hussein. This is necessary demolition work, to somehow clear away the monstrosity of a regime that the intertwined theocracies and banditry govern the people by. There are a sufficient number of intelligent, relatively well-informed people in Iraq to form the nucleus of a viable representative government. But first, certain traditional behavior problems must be identified and addressed.

Oh, people say, you will destroy the traditional Islamic culture. If I recall correctly, the basic theology of the Christian churches of Germany was largely free of any interference from the occupying forces after WW II (East Germany remained largely Lutheran even while it was the Soviet area of occupation), and Japan religious institutions were mostly permitted to have wide latitude in their activity while the US occupied Japan. The Islamic religion does not exist only in the government. There is a wide range of activity also that the mosques and madrasses carry on that has nothing to do with government. There is a closer relationship between the teachings of Mohammed and daily life in Basra, perhaps, than there is between the teachings of Christ and daily life in, say, Indiana, but still, making religion a part of any government is taking on a major liability for both the church and the secular government.

One part of our excursion into Baghdad is to leave an opening by which a representative government may be formed, while not surrendering authority of that government over to some religious sect or another. Saddam had solved this problem by the simple and direct means of suppressing practically all religious expression, and only used his tenuous connection with the Sunni sect as a means of buying and holding loyalty of a relatively small portion of the total population of Iraq.

[KC_Conspirator]

You are probably right about the choice of Time magazine, but I think its way overdue. Seriously, because of the American soldier more than 50% of the world is democratic than compared to a century ago hen only 5% of the world elected their governments.

Not Dean. His arrogance is so hot it throws off sparks. Speaking of hate, his campaign has so far been about little else.

Dean is nothing but pure hatred. He also is trying to gain credibility by proxy by claiming he has military family members so he cares about the military. Its a total lie of course, most leftists do this to feign concern about our fighting men and women.

[xp38]

even winsome

Lieberman and Gephardt can be called a lot of things but winsome isn't one of them.

[RaceBannon]

Lose Some??

[Reagan Man]

Thanks for the ping. Placing aside any questionable reasoning Time may have employed, I disagree with Mona. The US soldier deserves to be recognized for their outstanding efforts in the war on terorism and I think PresBush doesn't mind one bit either.

[driftless]

I used to think that Kucinich was the nuttiest Dem candidate. Now I believe good ole Howie might be the most deranged given his recent comments. And at least Kucinich comes off as a semi-likable nut. How'd you like to have to exist next to Doctor Doom in a confined environment?

[cgk]

The winsome ones:

[cgk]

From what I've seen of our President, if he HAD been recognized as Man of the Year, he probably would have been the first to say that the US Soldier deserved it more.

[cgk]

How'd you like to have to exist next to Doctor Doom in a confined environment?

I think I'd rather have tea with Hillary.

[xp38]

Maybe I wrong...From Merriam-Webster

Main Entry: win·some

Pronunciation: 'win(t)-s&m

Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English winsum, from Old English wynsum, from wynn joy; akin to Old High German wunna joy, Latin venus desire -- more at WIN

Date: before 12th century

1 : generally pleasing and engaging often because of a childlike charm and innocence

2 : CHEERFUL, GAY

- win·some·ly adverb

- win·some·ness noun

[cgk]

Oh no, you weren't wrong at all! I was being sarcastic, playing with the word "winsome" and that "deeply saddened" bunch. ;)