Posted on 10/25/2004 4:29:44 PM PDT by Tuttle
Kerry’s the One
By Scott McConnell
There is little in John Kerry’s persona or platform that appeals to conservatives. The flip-flopper charge—the centerpiece of the Republican campaign against Kerry—seems overdone, as Kerry’s contrasting votes are the sort of baggage any senator of long service is likely to pick up. (Bob Dole could tell you all about it.) But Kerry is plainly a conventional liberal and no candidate for a future edition of Profiles in Courage. In my view, he will always deserve censure for his vote in favor of the Iraq War in 2002.
But this election is not about John Kerry. If he were to win, his dearth of charisma would likely ensure him a single term. He would face challenges from within his own party and a thwarting of his most expensive initiatives by a Republican Congress. Much of his presidency would be absorbed by trying to clean up the mess left to him in Iraq. He would be constrained by the swollen deficits and a ripe target for the next Republican nominee.
It is, instead, an election about the presidency of George W. Bush. To the surprise of virtually everyone, Bush has turned into an important president, and in many ways the most radical America has had since the 19th century. Because he is the leader of America’s conservative party, he has become the Left’s perfect foil—its dream candidate. The libertarian writer Lew Rockwell has mischievously noted parallels between Bush and Russia’s last tsar, Nicholas II: both gained office as a result of family connections, both initiated an unnecessary war that shattered their countries’ budgets. Lenin needed the calamitous reign of Nicholas II to create an opening for the Bolsheviks.
Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations. The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S., the doling out of war profits and concessions to politically favored corporations, the financing of the war by ballooning the deficit to be passed on to the nation’s children, the ceaseless drive to cut taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor: it is as if Bush sought to resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing cliché about predatory imperialism and turn it into administration policy. Add to this his nation-breaking immigration proposal—Bush has laid out a mad scheme to import immigrants to fill any job where the wage is so low that an American can’t be found to do it—and you have a presidency that combines imperialist Right and open-borders Left in a uniquely noxious cocktail.
During the campaign, few have paid attention to how much the Bush presidency has degraded the image of the United States in the world. Of course there has always been “anti-Americanism.” After the Second World War many European intellectuals argued for a “Third Way” between American-style capitalism and Soviet communism, and a generation later Europe’s radicals embraced every ragged “anti-imperialist” cause that came along. In South America, defiance of “the Yanqui” always draws a crowd. But Bush has somehow managed to take all these sentiments and turbo-charge them. In Europe and indeed all over the world, he has made the United States despised by people who used to be its friends, by businessmen and the middle classes, by moderate and sensible liberals. Never before have democratic foreign governments needed to demonstrate disdain for Washington to their own electorates in order to survive in office. The poll numbers are shocking. In countries like Norway, Germany, France, and Spain, Bush is liked by about seven percent of the populace. In Egypt, recipient of huge piles of American aid in the past two decades, some 98 percent have an unfavorable view of the United States. It’s the same throughout the Middle East.
Bush has accomplished this by giving the U.S. a novel foreign-policy doctrine under which it arrogates to itself the right to invade any country it wants if it feels threatened. It is an American version of the Brezhnev Doctrine, but the latter was at least confined to Eastern Europe. If the analogy seems extreme, what is an appropriate comparison when a country manufactures falsehoods about a foreign government, disseminates them widely, and invades the country on the basis of those falsehoods? It is not an action that any American president has ever taken before. It is not something that “good” countries do. It is the main reason that people all over the world who used to consider the United States a reliable and necessary bulwark of world stability now see us as a menace to their own peace and security.
These sentiments mean that as long as Bush is president, we have no real allies in the world, no friends to help us dig out from the Iraq quagmire. More tragically, they mean that if terrorists succeed in striking at the United States in another 9/11-type attack, many in the world will not only think of the American victims but also of the thousands and thousands of Iraqi civilians killed and maimed by American armed forces. The hatred Bush has generated has helped immeasurably those trying to recruit anti-American terrorists—indeed his policies are the gift to terrorism that keeps on giving, as the sons and brothers of slain Iraqis think how they may eventually take their own revenge. Only the seriously deluded could fail to see that a policy so central to America’s survival as a free country as getting hold of loose nuclear materials and controlling nuclear proliferation requires the willingness of foreign countries to provide full, 100 percent co-operation. Making yourself into the world’s most hated country is not an obvious way to secure that help.
I’ve heard people who have known George W. Bush for decades and served prominently in his father’s administration say that he could not possibly have conceived of the doctrine of pre-emptive war by himself, that he was essentially taken for a ride by people with a pre-existing agenda to overturn Saddam Hussein. Bush’s public performances plainly show him to be a man who has never read or thought much about foreign policy. So the inevitable questions are: who makes the key foreign-policy decisions in the Bush presidency, who controls the information flow to the president, how are various options are presented?
The record, from published administration memoirs and in-depth reporting, is one of an administration with a very small group of six or eight real decision-makers, who were set on war from the beginning and who took great pains to shut out arguments from professionals in the CIA and State Department and the U.S. armed forces that contradicted their rosy scenarios about easy victory. Much has been written about the neoconservative hand guiding the Bush presidency—and it is peculiar that one who was fired from the National Security Council in the Reagan administration for suspicion of passing classified material to the Israeli embassy and another who has written position papers for an Israeli Likud Party leader have become key players in the making of American foreign policy.
But neoconservatism now encompasses much more than Israel-obsessed intellectuals and policy insiders. The Bush foreign policy also surfs on deep currents within the Christian Right, some of which see unqualified support of Israel as part of a godly plan to bring about Armageddon and the future kingdom of Christ. These two strands of Jewish and Christian extremism build on one another in the Bush presidency—and President Bush has given not the slightest indication he would restrain either in a second term. With Colin Powell’s departure from the State Department looming, Bush is more than ever the “neoconian candidate.” The only way Americans will have a presidency in which neoconservatives and the Christian Armageddon set are not holding the reins of power is if Kerry is elected.
If Kerry wins, this magazine will be in opposition from Inauguration Day forward. But the most important battles will take place within the Republican Party and the conservative movement. A Bush defeat will ignite a huge soul-searching within the rank-and-file of Republicandom: a quest to find out how and where the Bush presidency went wrong. And it is then that more traditional conservatives will have an audience to argue for a conservatism informed by the lessons of history, based in prudence and a sense of continuity with the American past—and to make that case without a powerful White House pulling in the opposite direction.
George W. Bush has come to embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful conservatism. His international policies have been based on the hopelessly naïve belief that foreign peoples are eager to be liberated by American armies—a notion more grounded in Leon Trotsky’s concept of global revolution than any sort of conservative statecraft. His immigration policies—temporarily put on hold while he runs for re-election—are just as extreme. A re-elected President Bush would be committed to bringing in millions of low-wage immigrants to do jobs Americans “won’t do.” This election is all about George W. Bush, and those issues are enough to render him unworthy of any conservative support.
1. Iraq: If Bush believes that we've spent so much in lives, money and credibility to relieve Iraqis from Saddam's tyranny, he (Bush) needs to join the bleeding-hearts club and become President of that. If Bush believes that terrorism doesn't flourish in democracies, he needs to be told of the IRA, the Red Brigades and yes, our very own McVeigh, who had no significant problems doing his deed. So long as there's a root cause that we nourish, in this case Israel, the Mideast will be a breeding ground for anti-US terror and a democratic Iraq will be headquarters for that movement. The conservative solution: scrap planned elections in Iraq (democracy requires a level of self-respect that they don't have) and establish a pro-western Saddam right now. Allawi fits the bill just fine.
2. Deficits: Anybody who thinks Bush's deficits are A-ok should hand in his conservative credentials and go join the dogoodniks of the left. The conservative solution: Its time to reign in spending and go to a flat tax where everyone pays the same percentage of income. Sure the liberals will whine that it's cutting into the eating money of the poor class. Well, the poor should be reminded that they always have the choice of not doing drugs. And for heaven's sake, phase out social security entirely by stopping all contributions and just refunding everyone's money over time at a fair interest rate (2% or so right now).
3. Immigration: 'Nuff said - the article says it all. Well, maybe not. The third-world is taking over, economically and culturally. How much more time before we'll be tuning to soccer games every Sunday, instead of football? The conservative solution: Deport all people who have immigrated here in the last 10 years, legal or otherwise, criminals or otherwise.
4. Gas prices: A dictator like Allawi will help here. If he has power like Saddam had, unconstrained by the laws of a democracy, he can make the resistance go away in a heartbeat. Then he can open the oil spigots and show his gratitude for our sacrifices.
5. Israel-Palestine: All our terrorism problems stem from this support and no amount of democracy in the Mideast will change this. The conservative solution: We must make sure that Israel goes back to its '67 borders and we must stop feeding it $5B plus every year. It's like they have our delicate parts in an iron-fisted grip. No, control your knee-jerk reaction: asking to reign in Israeli ethnic cleansing is not anti-semitic - I haven't said a thing about the Jews and I don't intend to. It's just plain old-fashioned fair conservatism.
If you're offended by any of the above, you ought to reconsider if you're a true conservative.
You and Buchanan, perfect together. This is his magazine and if you all think Kerry is the answer you're as unhinged as we always suspected. And while you're at it, say hello to your good friend Lenora Fulani too.
Today I noticed something new about buchanan's unAmerican nonConservative however. They are now posting Justine Raimondo's anti-American BS. Just like Pravda.
I am offended and how dare you as a newbie come on here and question our conservative credentials. FYI Pat Buchanan endorsed Bush so I guess he is not a conservative either.
Your ilk make me sick with your holier than thou conservative definition. No wonder people don't want to be associated with conservatives if they read the likes of you!
Thanks for your input!
buchanan weakly supported President Bush...and has continued his unrelenting attacks directly on the President.
Welcome Pat. I didn't know you lurked here.
"Deport all people who have immigrated here in the last 10 years, legal or otherwise, criminals or otherwise."
I'm all for getting rid of the people who flaunted our laws and have come here illegally. And I'm all for tighting up our borders as much as possible and limiting the number of legal immigrants allowed? But deporting legal, law-abiding immigrants? I have friends who have immigrated here less than ten years ago that are completely assimilated into our society, speak our language, and contribute to our economy. Like it or not, we are a nation composed of immigrants. Unless you are an American-Indian, you are the descendant of immigrants. I sure as heck don't want open borders, but limited and legal immigration is healthy for our country. Maybe you're "disillusioned by the form of conservatism discussed" because you are the one who is not a conservative. Conservatives don't punish law-abiding residents by uprooting them from their lives and kicking them out of the country, that's what fascists, communists, and others of their ilk do.
Thanks, PKM. I don't have to say another word.
Please use the original title when posting to help prevent duplicates. Thanks.
Kerry's the One.
Edwards is the Other.
Try to exercise a little of that true conservative principle of personal responsibility and do a search before posting again. Thank you.
Buchanan is a nut case. He has lost a lot of credibility.
God bless George Bush = major victory
That even shocked me out of Buchanan -- figured he would endorse some no name!
I kind of like seeing this POS posted again. It only serves to remind people of the kind of crap that comes from pat buchanan's unAmerican nonConservative.
Speaking of which, if you get the chance check their site out. They're now proudly posting Justine Raimondo's anti-American screeds. Looks like Justine found an unAmerican outlet; Pravda won't be sole source any more.
How you can look in the mirror without laughing?
And trying to sell your comments on Israel as anything other than anti-semitic is like saying: I'm not a racist, I have a black mechanic and a Hispanic gardner.
.
Just because you consider yourself a conservative purist doesn't make it true.
You don't know how to filter the good and bad. You don't know how to work in teams. You don't know how to accept other view points that are at the least amicable to your personal philosophies. You believe different degrees of the same philosophy means that you are superior to those who believe in another gradient of the same philosophy.... Therefore, I think you might be mad at your father and that you beat your dog... also, you probably have proclivities that are considered deviant to the general public.
How deluded can the left become? Their worst nightmare is coming true and they are in total denial.
huh?
deficits laid on bush? i am not happy for bush not reducing spending, but the democrats got big gov't started with fdr. need to slash spending more -- kerry will do this?????
gas prices: whoever wrote this is not in touch with reality. oil prices are market driven. gasoline prices are being driven higher by EPA and the clean air act, more big gov't. in addition, 17 states have their own version of the clean air act. we have taken a mass market where efficiencies existed -- refining gasoline -- and turned it into a series of expensive niche markets. we are importing 10% of our GASOLINE (not oil) and are having difficulties finding countries that will refine gasoline for us because of our requirements. the last oil refinery built in the usa was in 1976. kerry is going to fix this???????????
immigration -- huh??? we are the melting pot of the world. if it were not for immigrants america would not exist. immigrants are doing the work that other americans choose not to touch. why should we not allow someone to make 10 times what they would earn in their home country and help america prosper? your solution of deporting all immigrants who came here the last 10 years sounds more like nazi-ism than conservatism.
Yo, tuttle...are you feeling the love? That's true conservatism.
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.