Posted on 03/01/2004 6:25:36 AM PST by mosel-saar-ruwer
By ANDREW SULLIVAN
Wartime leaders have always faced the worst fear: defeat in battle. But in democracies at least, war leaders also confront another danger: success. The qualities that make for great statesmanship in wartime — determination, a single focus on victory, a black-and-white conviction of who is friend or foe — can often seem crude or overbearing when peace comes around. The most dramatic example of this in Western history is Winston Churchill. It is no exaggeration to say that without him, Britain may well have been destroyed by Hitler. He was the difference between victory and defeat. But almost the minute that victory was declared, the voters turned on their hero. He lost the postwar election. Even more striking, he lost it in one of the biggest landslides in Britain's parliamentary history. He wasn't just defeated. He was buried.
I wonder if the lesson of Churchill now haunts the office of Bush political strategist Karl Rove. For something not completely dissimilar seems to be happening to George W. Bush. Since just after the capture of Saddam, Bush's ratings have been slumping. And this is less surprising than it appears. The paradox of the war against terrorism is that the more the President succeeds, the more politically vulnerable he gets. The fewer the terrorist incidents, the more remote the fear, the less necessary the war seems and the more dispensable the war President appears. If he responds to this by insisting that the enemy is still powerful and dangerous, he runs the risk of seeming to concede that he hasn't managed to curtail the threat. Or, worse perhaps, it seems as if he's whipping up fear and panic for his own electoral advantage. And after the failures of intelligence with respect to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Bush's credibility on unknown threats is already eroded.
Here's what a really smart Democratic contender could say to the President this fall: "Thank you, Mr. President, for your leadership in difficult times. You made some tough decisions, and we are safer as a result. But the very qualities that made you a perfect pick for the war so far are the very ones that make you less effective from now on. You are too polarizing a figure to bring real peace to Iraq. You are too unpopular overseas to allow European governments to cooperate fully in the attempt to hunt down terrorists. And your deep unpopularity in half the country makes it impossible for you to make the necessary compromises that the country needs domestically. Thanks for all you've done, but bye-bye."
An effective line, don't you think? Don't get me wrong. I'm not endorsing this position. I think the war on terrorism is far from over, and Bush's toughness is a vital part of the struggle. But he's deeply vulnerable because of these trends. The British people ejected Churchill not because they disapproved of his war but because they didn't think he was the man to lead them in peacetime. Churchill's opponent in 1945, Clement Attlee, was, like John Kerry today, no heavyweight. In Churchill's words, Attlee was a "a modest man who has much to be modest about." But he still crushed Churchill at the polls. The first President Bush faced the same problem. With the Gulf War and the cold war over, voters wanted a domestic, ingratiating figure to lead them in the 1990s. Enter smooth-talking Bill Clinton. More than a decade later, John Kerry and the Democrats have opened up a lead in the polls.
The other Churchill parallel is equally unnerving. Churchill was a Tory as much as the current Bush is a conservative. But during wartime, Churchill expanded government to mobilize the country to fight Hitler. By doing so, Churchill helped legitimize Big Government. So the Labour government that succeeded him was the most left-wing in Britain's history. It favored high taxes, nationalized industries and created socialized medicine. The Tories, because they had backed Big Government in wartime, had little credibility in opposing these policies. Similarly, Bush has expanded government more aggressively than any President since L.B.J. (another war leader). Vast new military and security spending has been accompanied by a bank-breaking new entitlement in Medicare. When Bush now criticizes Kerry on spending and the size of government, he has little credibility with the voters. And so the chances of a very liberal Democratic Administration have escalated.
That's the conservative nightmare. Bush wins the war. The Democrats win what looks like a postwar election. The government stays big, but taxes are raised to pay for it. Maybe it won't happen. But if it does, one man will be responsible. George W. Bush: architect of a liberal takeover.
The problem with all the hatred towards Bush concerning gay marriage is that Kerry is against gay marriage too, but supports states amending their constitution instead of the US constitution.
Which - you are aware - is a totally unworkable proposal (Kerry's) since it ignores the "Full-faith & Credit" clause in the Federal Constitution. In short, as long as a single State recognizes homosexual marriage -- every State must recognize the status.
That is a legal theory that hasn't been tested over this issue in the courts. It is a legitimate concern that people will get these marriages in other states and try to get their state to recognize it, but it is not written in stone how the courts will rule. Getting states to pass amendments is a step in the right direction that will give momentum to a federal amendment.
I am quite aware of Kerry's flip flops on this issue. If you go back, Kerry even called the DOMA 'hateful' and compared it to banning interracial marriage. I was just pointing out that today's Kerry position is just as 'hateful' as Bush's is to the supporters of gay marriage. The supporters of gay marriage are being hypocrits by attacking Bush, when their candidate is just as bigotted in their view of the world.
Yes, but what about corporations? States can afford to fight against the implications of homosexual marriage ad nauseum, but what if a state recognizing homosexual marriage attempts to leverage it's laws via commercial contracts. Imagine California, Massachussets, Hawaii, etc. telling a Utah chartered trucking company that they can't operate or do business in their states. Again, you get a legal knot tossed into the Federal Courts. You can't avoid the implications -- Bush's hand is being forced on the Constitutional Ammendment.
I think the difference is that I don't give a rat's ass [no pun intended] what Andrew Sullivan does, or thinks, or feels, or cares about, or pre-occupies himself with, or what legal contracts Andrew Sullivan does or does not want to enter into, i.e: I'm not trying to shove an agenda down Andrew Sullivan's throat [again, no pun intended].
If I change my position on Bush because of my heterosexuality, than yes my arguments are suspect. Sullivan supported Bush up until last week when Bush announced his support of a constitutional amendment. At that time, Sullivan went nuclear against Bush. Sullivan's views are clouded by this, so I don't put much weight into Sullivan's disingenuous rant.
I think that the Democrats will take a variation of this tack. I don't think that their nominee will question the President's honesty (although a lot of his henchmen will use that theme to preach to the Democratic choir). I think that the Democratic nominee's theme will be based upon competence. I think it will be argued that the President has mismanaged both the economy and the situation in Iraq.
You really want an arguement? Comparing the political climate in the US in 2004 to Britian in 1945 is just plain dumb. For every similarity there are a dozen differences. It is a huge stretch. Beisdes, the war against terror isn't even close to over, so the whole point of the article is mute.
But what does that have to do with Winston Churchill?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.