Posted on 07/15/2004 5:19:08 AM PDT by presidio9
Recently I wrote a column on a particular anxiety I've been feeling regarding the coming election and the prospects of President Bush. I stated that some voters may be feeling or come to feel that history has simply become too dramatic the past few years, and one way out of the drama might be to change presidents, and hire Mr. Kerry to, in effect, make things more boring and force history to calm down. This has given rise in the blogosphere (see this Instapundit entry, for example) to a question: Do I, and others who have written on this subject, think that what might be called the new nervousness should compel the Bush administration to stop fighting the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, and change its policy in the war on terror? Should we, in a word, withdraw?
My answer is no. We cannot leave Iraq and should not leave Iraq. Certainly lately, since the transfer of sovereignty, things seem to be looking up, but that may well prove temporary. But the great reason, as I have written before on Iraq, is that there's no way 'round it but through it. We have to stay, and we have to win. I define winning as the yielding up of, at the least, a relatively stable society unafflicted by governmental sadism and dictatorship, and, at the most, a stable society in a fledgling democracy that demonstrates, with time, that the forces of Arab moderation, tolerance and peacefulness can triumph. Such an outcome would give so much good to the world. What a brilliant beacon this Iraq could be, and what a setback to terrorists, who thrive in darkness.
I do not feel America is right to attempt to help spread democracy in the world because it is our way and therefore the right way. Nor do I think America should attempt to encourage it because we are Western and feel everyone should be Western. Not everyone should be Western, and not everything we do as a culture, a people or an international force is right.
Rather, we have a national-security obligation to foster democracy in the world because democracy tends to be the most peaceful form of government. Democracies tend to be slower than dictatorships to take up arms, to cross borders and attempt to subdue neighbors, to fight wars. They are on balance less likely to wreak violence upon the world because democracies are composed of voters many of whom are parents, especially mothers, who do not wish to see their sons go to war. Democracy is not only idealistic, it is practical.
What I wrote about a few weeks ago was my fear that the American people have grown or are growing tired of the heightened drama of the times. Americans like drama in their lives--they like graduations and first jobs and prizes and the birth of a baby in the family; they like triathalons and great stories and local mysteries. They like movement and action on a personal level. But they do not want it on a historical level if they can avoid it. They don't want to send their sons, or daughters, off to war. They don't like that kind of excitement, or they don't like it for long. This is part of why we used to be called Isolationists. We weren't and aren't--we just have a bias for peace. Can that bias be overcome? Of course. Pearl Harbor overcame it. The Soviet desire to expand and impose communism overcame it. Sept. 11 did too. Which gets us to Mr. Bush, and Mr. Kerry, and which of the two is likelier to make things historically boring again.
You may say history will never be boring again, and I'd agree with you. And you may say "Bush and perseverance" is the way to achieve progress, that victory in Iraq and against terrorism is the only path to something like the old boredom, and the old safety. I'm with you there, too.
Or you may decide that Mr. Kerry, by jumbling things and murking them up and speaking French will, by his very presence, tend to calm things down because--well, because he doesn't really seem deeply wedded to any particular principle, or even to long-term strategic thinking in the national interest. And the world can tell, and a good portion of the world will like him all the better for these flaws. And so will some voters.
That's my anxiety. If I am right, what can the president do to address this problem? How to approach an electorate that I believe respects Mr. Bush and likes him, but that is also capable of letting his contract expire and hiring Mr. Kerry for four years?
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
A very clever article.
Peggy ping.
A little too clever. Contemplating the navel kind of clever.....IMO.
Why do you think so ?
Thanks, Pokey.
Good advice -- I hope someone is listening.
The one comment of hers that irked me extremely was the assertion that Western Democracy is not for everyone. I think she misses the fact the foundation of Western Democracy and civilization is Christianity. Is she saying that we should not promote Christianity? Time to retire Peggy! Again, the young lions such as Coulter and Ingraham need you to move over. Ann has the right idea – convert the madmen!
WE ARE AT WAR, THIS IS NO TIME TO BE DOWNPLAYING THE DANGER AND TRYING TO MAKE NICE NICE TO EVERYONE SO THEY WON'T WORRY.
Peggy needs to escape this 'Slough of Pointless Intropspection.' She seems to me to have lost her focus on current events. I find her writing tedious and cloying as she wanders around to no end. She is no longer witty, precise and exactly to the point. Now she is maudlin, sentimental and dull. Hopefully, this is a temporary thing.
I agree. While she was a great speach writer, she has let it get to her and thinks she can do no wrong.
Peggy is too emotional. Sometimes it works for her, but not this time.
War has come to OUR shores. WE have been attacked and we cannot return to normalcy because, with the shadow of suitcase bombs and chemical threats, things just ain't normal. Until we eliminate the threat we must assume a war footing.
I get the feeling the Peggy is triangulating and morphing herself into another Arianna Huffington. Land 'o Goshen! she is becoming a wimpy hand wringer.
I have to disagree with that. Democracy was invented in a pagan society well before the birth of Christ. Christianity also spread and thrived for more than a thousand years under some of the most autocratic and authoritarian regimes ever known on this planet.
I'd agree that Christianity is the foundation of most of our cultural values today, but that's rather different from your statement.
Maybe Peggy is longing to meet a nice guy that will take her away from the east coast to a ranch out West. Regardless, she has lost her mojo.
IMHO, Peggy has lost her way. Maybe it is HER that is tired of wartime..too bad. I remain convinced that she is afraid that George W. Bush will be seen, in time, as an even more consequential president than Ronald Reagan. Perhaps she would like Kerry to win to make sure that doesn't happen. Personally, I am done with her and her maudlin little essays.
Peggy ping.
You may say history will never be boring again, and I'd agree with you. And you may say "Bush and perseverance" is the way to achieve progress, that victory in Iraq and against terrorism is the only path to something like the old boredom, and the old safety. I'm with you there, too.
Or you may decide that Mr. Kerry, by jumbling things and murking them up and speaking French will, by his very presence, tend to calm things down because--well, because he doesn't really seem deeply wedded to any particular principle, or even to long-term strategic thinking in the national interest. And the world can tell, and a good portion of the world will like him all the better for these flaws. And so will some voters
Synopsis: First, she states that 9/11 has overcome our tendency to like things boring. Then, she asks which candidate is likely to help us make things boring again. Then, she agrees that things will not be boring again. Then, she agrees that Bush and perserverance is the way to go. Then, she just blathers for the rest of the piece, looking for a point. Conclusion: Somebody needs to tell Peggy Noonan to stick a sock in it. If she doesn't have a clear idea about something, she should just keep her yap shut.
Quit making sense.
"Do I, and others who have written on this subject, think that what might be called the new nervousness should compel the Bush administration to stop fighting the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, and change its policy in the war on terror? Should we, in a word, withdraw?"
A lazy question but I shall try to answer:
9/11/01 NEVER FORGET!
Hey Peg! Appeasement, withdrawl and surrender is no way help things calm down become boring again.
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.