 |
||
 |
||
|
November 05, 2004, 10:20 a.m.
According to the exit polls, George W. Bush owes his victory to the priority attached by millions of voters to "moral values." This somewhat nebulous term is said to have trumped terrorism, Iraq, and the economy as a driving force behind the turnout — and the outcome.
Inevitably, some of President Bush's critics (possibly on the right, and certainly on the left, once they recover from the electoral-shock trauma) will interpret this finding insidiously: They will assert that the president's conduct of the war on terror and, in particular, his efforts to consolidate the liberation of Iraq do not enjoy the popular mandate accorded to his social conservative agenda. We will be told, at the very least, that W. won despite his handling of the war, thanks to the help of the evangelical Christians and like-minded folks who turned out for other reasons.
Inevitably, some of President Bush's critics (possibly on the right, and certainly on the left, once they recover from the electoral-shock trauma) will interpret this finding insidiously: They will assert that the president's conduct of the war on terror and, in particular, his efforts to consolidate the liberation of Iraq do not enjoy the popular mandate accorded to his social conservative agenda. We will be told, at the very least, that W. won despite his handling of the war, thanks to the help of the evangelical Christians and like-minded folks who turned out for other reasons.
Don't believe it for a minute. Such contentions would miss the point of this election almost as much as John Kerry did.
The reality is that the same moral principles that underpinned the Bush appeal on "values" issues like gay marriage, stem-cell research, and the right to life were central to his vision of U.S. war aims and foreign policy. Indeed, the president laid claim squarely to the ultimate moral value — freedom — as the cornerstone of his strategy for defeating our Islamofascist enemies and their state sponsors, for whom that concept is utterly anathema.
It follows, then, that among those who deserve credit for shaping this stunning triumph of American virtues and values are the much-maligned "neoconservatives" and their friends, who have been responsible for helping Bush design and execute his wartime agenda. Special recognition and thanks are thus accorded, for example, to: Vice President Dick Cheney and key members of his staff (including Lewis "Scooter" Libby, John Hannah, and David Wurmser); the National Security Council's Condoleezza Rice, Robert Joseph, and Elliott Abrams; the Defense Department's Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and William Luti; and the State Department's John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, and Paula DeSutter. These people — and too many others — have helped the president imprint moral values on American security policy in a way and to an extent not seen since Ronald Reagan's first term.
The important thing now, of course, is not simply to acknowledge past achievements, but to build upon them. This will require, among other things:
The reduction in detail of Fallujah and other safe havens utilized by freedom's enemies in Iraq — a necessary precondition not only to holding elections there next year, but to the establishment of institutions essential to a functioning and stable democracy;
Regime change — one way or another — in Iran and North Korea, the only hope for preventing these remaining "Axis of Evil" states from fully realizing their terrorist and nuclear ambitions;
Providing the substantially increased resources needed to re-equip a transforming military and rebuild human-intelligence capabilities (minus, if at all possible, the sorts of intelligence "reforms" contemplated pre-election that would make matters worse on this and other scores) while we fight World War IV;
Providing, to the fullest extent possible, for the protection of our homeland — including the adoption of sensible policies on securing our borders and contending with illegal aliens, and by deploying effective missile defenses at sea and in space, as well as ashore;
Keeping faith with Israel, whose destruction remains a priority for the same people who want to destroy us (and for the same reasons — i.e., our shared, "moral values") — especially in the face of Yasser Arafat's demise and the inevitable, post-election pressure to "solve" the Mideast problem by forcing the Israelis to abandon defensible boundaries;
Contending with the underlying dynamic that made France and Germany so problematic in the first term: namely, their willingness to make common cause with our enemies for profit, and their desire to employ a united Europe and its new constitution — as well as other international institutions and mechanisms — to thwart the expansion and application of American power where deemed necessary by Washington;
Adapting appropriate strategies for contending with China's increasingly fascistic trade and military policies, Vladimir Putin's accelerating authoritarianism at home and aggressiveness toward the former Soviet republics, the worldwide spread of Islamofascism, and the emergence of a number of aggressively anti-American regimes in Latin America.
These items do not represent some sort of neocon "imperialist" game plan. Rather, they constitute a checklist of the work the world will demand of this president and his subordinates in a second term.
None of these priorities will be easy or painless. All will require of President Bush a readiness to incur political costs and to assume risks far in excess of those his handlers were comfortable running before the election.
Yet President Bush has amply demonstrated his willingness to take such risks. More to the point, he appears to fully appreciate that his values, America's long-term strategic interests, and his electoral mandate allow him to do no less.
By redoubling his administration's efforts along these lines, President George W. Bush will not only be making the world less dangerous for America and her vital interests. He will also be doing so in a way that is consistent with our country's moral values, the stuff of which history — not just consequential elections and presidencies — is made.
— Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is an NRO contributor and president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington.
DON'T SUBSCRIBE TO NATIONAL REVIEW OR NR DIGITAL ALREADY? You can fix that right now, subscribe to National Review, here. To subscribe to the digital version of the magazine only, click here.
|
||
|
||
|
November 05, 2004, 12:51 p.m.
I have believed all along that this election was enormously important, perhaps as important as in 1980, when I thought that a Carter reelection might well tip the world balance of power against us. This time I feared that a Bush defeat might have two disastrous consequences:
The world at large would view it as a rejection of the war against the terror masters, thereby strengthening the forces of appeasement in allied countries, especially in Europe;
The Middle East in particular would view it, as Putin rightly said, as a victory for the terrorists — thereby producing a surge of support for the terror network, including money from mugwump rulers in places like Morocco and Jordan, and a groundswell of new volunteers to inflate the terrorists' ranks.
I did not believe that "policy would be more or less the same" with the Democrats in charge. I believed they would rush toward reconciliation with our European critics, U.N.-ify our Middle East policy, stand by while Iran acquired and tested atomic bombs, and then appease the mullahs — setting the war back by at least two years.
Thank heavens we will not know all that now. And as the election returns rolled in from Ohio, I was struck by one of the basic patterns in the history of American foreign policy: how often we are saved by our enemies. Over and over again, our enemies have forced us to do things we wouldn't have done if we had been left to our own devices. We were torpedoed into the First World War by German U-boats. We were bombed into World War II, just in time, by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. We were dragged unwillingly into the Cold War by Stalin's impatient power grabs. We were forced into the Gulf War by Saddam's hasty invasion of Kuwait (if he had waited a year or two, we would have dismantled a considerable portion of our military). And we were terrorized into the current unpleasantness by the attacks of September 11th.
Left to our own devices we'd have stayed home in every case, because most Americans don't like foreign adventures and are happy to be at home. Something usually has to happen to get us to act.
Metaphorically, something similar happened in Ohio. You may recall that the Guardian, the leftist British newspaper, convinced its readers to participate in a letter-writing campaign to the residents of Clark County, asking them to vote for Kerry to save the world from Dubya. It seems this brilliant idea sprung at least in part from the pale white forehead of Sidney Blumenthal: the loyal manservant of Hillary Clinton in the White House; the creator of the short-lived doctrine of the "Third Way" that was to have united "progressive" leaders in America and Europe; a regular contributor to the Guardian; and, along with Michael Moore, a pundit on the BBC's election-night coverage.
To say this scheme backfired is to fail to give it proper credit. It ranks right up there with the worst political schemes, ever. It so disgruntled the Buckeyes that the Guardian called it off after a few weeks. And its impact on American political history seems to have been considerable. As the excellent Peter Roff of UPI tells us, "Turnout in Clark County, according to unofficial data from the office of Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, was almost twice what it was in the 2000 election when Gore defeated Bush by 324 votes out of 35,644 cast. Tuesday, Bush carried Clark County by 1,620 votes, winning almost as many votes — 34,444 — as were cast for both Bush and Gore four years before."
Obviously, the Guardian didn't deliver Ohio to the Republicans, but it certainly helped. And it's quite possible that, as news of the scheme spread around the state, there was a ripple effect.
So, as we quite properly commend the electorate for its good judgment, we should be grateful to our outspoken enemies at the Guardian for having done what they could to guarantee our victory.
Maybe we should organize a mass letter-writing campaign.
The world at large would view it as a rejection of the war against the terror masters, thereby strengthening the forces of appeasement in allied countries, especially in Europe;
The Middle East in particular would view it, as Putin rightly said, as a victory for the terrorists — thereby producing a surge of support for the terror network, including money from mugwump rulers in places like Morocco and Jordan, and a groundswell of new volunteers to inflate the terrorists' ranks.
I did not believe that "policy would be more or less the same" with the Democrats in charge. I believed they would rush toward reconciliation with our European critics, U.N.-ify our Middle East policy, stand by while Iran acquired and tested atomic bombs, and then appease the mullahs — setting the war back by at least two years.
Thank heavens we will not know all that now. And as the election returns rolled in from Ohio, I was struck by one of the basic patterns in the history of American foreign policy: how often we are saved by our enemies. Over and over again, our enemies have forced us to do things we wouldn't have done if we had been left to our own devices. We were torpedoed into the First World War by German U-boats. We were bombed into World War II, just in time, by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. We were dragged unwillingly into the Cold War by Stalin's impatient power grabs. We were forced into the Gulf War by Saddam's hasty invasion of Kuwait (if he had waited a year or two, we would have dismantled a considerable portion of our military). And we were terrorized into the current unpleasantness by the attacks of September 11th.
Left to our own devices we'd have stayed home in every case, because most Americans don't like foreign adventures and are happy to be at home. Something usually has to happen to get us to act.
Metaphorically, something similar happened in Ohio. You may recall that the Guardian, the leftist British newspaper, convinced its readers to participate in a letter-writing campaign to the residents of Clark County, asking them to vote for Kerry to save the world from Dubya. It seems this brilliant idea sprung at least in part from the pale white forehead of Sidney Blumenthal: the loyal manservant of Hillary Clinton in the White House; the creator of the short-lived doctrine of the "Third Way" that was to have united "progressive" leaders in America and Europe; a regular contributor to the Guardian; and, along with Michael Moore, a pundit on the BBC's election-night coverage.
To say this scheme backfired is to fail to give it proper credit. It ranks right up there with the worst political schemes, ever. It so disgruntled the Buckeyes that the Guardian called it off after a few weeks. And its impact on American political history seems to have been considerable. As the excellent Peter Roff of UPI tells us, "Turnout in Clark County, according to unofficial data from the office of Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, was almost twice what it was in the 2000 election when Gore defeated Bush by 324 votes out of 35,644 cast. Tuesday, Bush carried Clark County by 1,620 votes, winning almost as many votes — 34,444 — as were cast for both Bush and Gore four years before."
Obviously, the Guardian didn't deliver Ohio to the Republicans, but it certainly helped. And it's quite possible that, as news of the scheme spread around the state, there was a ripple effect.
So, as we quite properly commend the electorate for its good judgment, we should be grateful to our outspoken enemies at the Guardian for having done what they could to guarantee our victory.
Maybe we should organize a mass letter-writing campaign.
— Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. Ledeen is Resident Scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute.
