Posted on 11/28/2002 8:02:12 AM PST by Greg Swann
To Condi, with sweetnessby Greg Swann |
The Los Angeles Times has an article (registration required, alas) speculating on the prospects for a 2008 presidential match-up between Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice.
It's not a brand-new idea. I first heard of it from Andrew Sullivan. And the Times article is following-up on, without mentioning, a recent public address by William Safire.
I am in love with this idea, and not just because I have publicly and repeatedly declared my enmity for all things Clinton. I would love to see Hillary Clinton get trounced at the polls by Condi Rice, but, truly, I would love to see Hillary get trounced at the polls by just about anyone.
And I'm not changing my spots to become a Republicrat this late in the game. Everything I've heard about Rice suggests that she is the least objectionable sort of mainstream politician--pro free-trade, pro second amendment, anti big government. And like that other bright light of black conservatism, Justice Clarence Thomas, she seems to be driven by firmly-held principles, not will-o'-the-wisp polling results. But it remains that she is a mainstream politician, a decidedly small-L libertarian.
Nevertheless I want her to run and I want her to win. I want what she stands for to win.
And by "stands for", I mean what she stands for as a symbol. This is completely unfair to her, I confess. It was unfair to Justice Thomas, too. And as much as I regret what was done to him for all the things he stands for, both in his principles and as a symbol, nevertheless I am glad that he was stout enough of heart and spirit to withstand his torment. He conferred upon America a gift so great we haven't yet measured it--nor earned it.
And a President Condoleezza promises America--and the world--a much greater gift. I hope the price to her is not as high as the one Justice Thomas paid, but I fear it might be. Very probably will be, if the contest is Rice versus Clinton.
These are some of the treasures a President Condoleezza Rice would bring forth:
First, and least significantly, she would confound the media and popular perception. A conservative black woman president? The American people are not racist or sexist, as a rule, but they are true suckers for any jaw-dropping novelty. And the mainstream media are vicious and patronizing when it comes to women, to black people, and especially to conservatives. Rice graduated high school at age 15, college at 19, got her doctorate, taught at Stanford, was provost at Stanford, and now serves as President Bush's national security advisor. Jaw-dropping for the American people, jaw-bashing for the smash-mouth media.
And a presidential campaign and victory for Condoleezza Rice is the perfect antidote to the hideous black sub-culture that we ceaselessly praise by faint damnation. Women are not 'bitches' or 'whores'. People who work hard and study hard are not 'acting white'. People who disagree with white liberals are not 'Uncle Toms' or 'house slaves'. And the greatest enemy of black America is not slavery or racism or poverty, but a sub-culture that spits incessantly on the glorious gift of the human mind--a gift that comes one to a customer, skin color no obstacle.
Of course, a Rice presidency would give a great boost to the cause of black conservatism, a cause I hold dear to my heart. Clarence Thomas is my favorite Supreme Court Justice, Walter Williams my favorite newspaper columnist, and Thomas Sowell my favorite living economist. All of them, and Condoleezza with them, have suffered twice for their beliefs. First by being ridiculed and derided--even persecuted--for daring to oppose the dogma of the white liberal owners of the plantation of black America. And second by being denied at least part of the reward they are owed for being such masterfully brilliant people. That they were able to rise above these vile restraints is a testament to both their brilliance and to their strength of character.
A President Rice would be a strong affirmation of the values of the middle class: Study hard, work hard, show up on time, follow-through, keep a nice home, pay your bills, and raise gracious, thoughtful, hard-working children who understand and honor middle class values. The media, and Hollywood, and the left in general sneer at the middle class. But the ethic of the middle class, of the reviled Bourgeoisie, is the absolute best survival engine the human race has evolved.
And Condoleezza the president would do two wonderful things for feminism: She would demonstrate that the battle is already won. And she would silence, at least for an instant, the perpetual victims who whine that the battle can never be won.
But the single most vital and valuable treasure that a Condoleezza Rice presidency could present to America, and to the world, is this: She could shout down Islam without saying a word.
A President Rice would doubtless enact many important policies. She would continue the execution of the war against the East she is helping to plan. She would direct the efforts to spread the seeds of the West where they have never yet taken root. I have no doubt that she would be a fine president, perhaps one of the best.
But as good as she might be, she will be still better for having been a symbol for everything that is right with the West, and everything that is irredeemably wrong with the East.
Hellenic culture is Oriental, originally. It is of the East, as is all of human civilization. But Hellenic culture, Western culture, is unique among human civilizations because it is self-correcting. In the beginning, we were as sexist as the East. As xenophobic as the East. As rigid and dogmatic and implacable as the East. But we thought better and we learned better and we did better. Our progress was slow and incremental, but still it was progress. Aristotle owned slaves, as did Julius Caesar and Thomas Jefferson. But we have learned better, and we have learned to do better. And we have done better every time we have discovered that we had done badly.
The West can change--the West thrives by changing--and the East never can. A President Condoleezza Rice, a conservative black woman president of the United States of America, would make that argument more eloquently than any book ever could.
Condoleezza Rice is named for an operatic stage direction--con dulcezza, sing with sweetness. As an intellectual and an ideologue, she stands for important principles, proud and profound, firm and fixed. But as a symbol, she represents the great tree of Liberty, fully grown from the seed sown so long ago in Athens. Where we had been ignorant--about gender, about race, about creed--we have grown wise. But the West has grown wise because the West can grow wise--can question its premises, can revise its errors, can learn to live better and do better and be better.
A Condoleezza Rice presidency would sing the song of the West, the promise and the potential and the realization. A Condoleezza Rice presidency would sing the unprecedented, unduplicated, unutterable glory of the West--the one place on Earth where each of us can find our own song. And then sing it, loud and proud. With sweetness. |
Where, anywhere, did I say I was a one-issue voter? But are there not single issues that are "trump" issues for you? Let me try you on a few.
Would you vote for a GOP candidate who was economically tight, governmentally small, pro-second-amendment, tough on crime, for tougher borders, Constitutionalist... but felt that rape should be legal?
How about a GOP candidate who was economically tight, governmentally small, pro-second-amendment, tough on crime, for tougher borders, Constitutionalist... but felt that child molesting should be legal?
Or a GOP candidate who was economically tight, governmentally small, pro-second-amendment, tough on crime, for tougher borders, Constitutionalist... but felt that slavery should be legal?
Okay now, one more.
If you said "No" to each of the previous, then you are going to have to explain something to me. How is the position that government has a role in preventing the poisoning, butchering, dismemberment of living children whose greatest crime is that they are imperfect or inconvenient ethically less clear or imperative than the other "single-issue" concerns (rape, child molesting, slavery) that I mentioned above?
Please think it through, and give a thoughtful answer. I am interested and will listen. Otherwise, no need to bother.
Dan
She could count on a lot of us staying home if Condi does not have a change of heart. It can be even a conscious rational change that does not involve her emotionally, just a realization that the people who care about morality and civilized living will not give up on the abortion issue. I'm sure that she realizes that pro lifers are not in it to control other people's lives but rether it is because they deem abortion to be murder. She has to expand her concept of the crime of murder. Bush Sr. did this.
Where, anywhere, did I say I was a one-issue voter? But are there not single issues that are "trump" issues for you? Let me try you on a few.
I have agreed and disagreed with you in the past, to the best of my recollection, but we haven't had that many exchanges. Perhaps I only bother to respond when we disagree.
Since you said that Rice's position on abortion would eliminated her as someone you would vote for, that seemed to me to be a single issue position. Perhaps you disagree with her in other areas but just didn't state them. However, you then list a series of absurd single issues, mixed with some normal ones, and ask how I would respond to candidates with those positions. The whole exercise seems to concentrate on single issues while denying they are such.
I detest abortion just as you do. However, just as murder has always been left to the states to deal with as they see fit, only recently becoming a federal crime in certain cases, I think it should continue to be that way. I see no federal role for it and I think the Supreme Court was wrong in Roe versus Wade, even though that did not federalize murder.
I have not recently seen Condaleeza Rice's stand on abortion but I thought it was the same as mine. Therefore, a candidates position on abortion should be a concern for us when voting in state elections but of no concern in national elections, unless they are attempting to further erode states' rights.
Second: but you did sort of get around to it in your discussion of abortion. It isn't a single issue to you at the federal level because you don't think it should be decided at that level. Do you oppose all federal laws? Isn't murder a federal offense? Why shouldn't abortion be?
Third: what Rice has said I can quote almost verbatim. She says that she is "mildly pro-choice." Now, if you'll re-read my initial posting, what I demanded was clarification and sense. I don't know what "mildly pro-choice" means; it's a little like being mildly pro-rape, or mildly pro-child-abuse. How can you be? It's a coy choice of words, and she must clarify, if she wants my vote. Fair enough?
Fourth: are you not aware that, even within your guidelines, a president's position on abortion has MANY repercussions? We've seen it in issues of support for abortion on military bases, supporting abortion-advocacy groups abroad, signing bills such as banning live-birth infanticide. What about the all-important issue of appointment of judges? Look, there is a difference between your position (I hate it, it's wrong as the day is long, it should be banned -- but at a state level) and being "pro-choice" (it is neutral, up to the individual, should be a protected right). A person of the latter position will not appoint judges who will eventually get the issue handled at the state-level, as you wish.
Dan
Well, I am sorry. I attempted to respond to that and I thought I did. It is confusing to me to try to follow your position. Perhaps I am just dumb. First you said you would not vote for Rice because of her position on abortion. To me that meant that regardless of any other position she may have, that issue alone, that SINGLE issue, would cause her to lose your vote. Isn't that what you said? Then you replied to my response saying you never said you were a single issue voter. You then went on to list many single issues and asked if those single issues would cause me not to vote for a candidate. Now you are saying that you are a single issue voter and are suggesting, by the previous post and your examples that I am too if the issue is important enough. I can't keep jumping the fence trying to figure out which side you are on so my responses will probably never please you.
Second: but you did sort of get around to it in your discussion of abortion. It isn't a single issue to you at the federal level because you don't think it should be decided at that level. Do you oppose all federal laws? Isn't murder a federal offense? Why shouldn't abortion be?
That paragraph is an excellent example of what I mean. Why do you ask if I oppose all federal laws because I oppose one? Isn't that quite a reach? I told you I think that they recently made murder a federal crime in certain cases and you come right back and ask me if murder is a federal crime and, if so, shouldn't abortion be? No, in general, murder is not a federal crime. That is the reason there is this big debate over capital punishment. Different states have different laws because murder is a state crime. If it were federal the punishment would be uniform. If murder were a federal crime, generally, yes abortion should be also because abortion is murder. They should be governed by the same rules.
Third: ......what I demanded was clarification and sense. ......and she must clarify, if she wants my vote. Fair enough?
Demanding will get you little. Why do you think anyone should accede to your demands? Who are you to demand? Oh, your one little vote is at stake? Talk to the Democrats, they are the ones that insist that every vote must count. Unfortunately they are also the ones complaining that their voters don't turn out.
Fourth: are you not aware that, even within your guidelines, a president's position on abortion has MANY repercussions? We've seen it in issues of support for abortion on military bases, supporting abortion-advocacy groups abroad, signing bills such as banning live-birth infanticide. What about the all-important issue of appointment of judges? Look, there is a difference between your position (I hate it, it's wrong as the day is long, it should be banned -- but at a state level) and being "pro-choice" (it is neutral, up to the individual, should be a protected right). A person of the latter position will not appoint judges who will eventually get the issue handled at the state-level, as you wish.
These are excellent points that I agree with. However, given the choice of voting for Rice or Hillary I would joyfully cast my vote for Rice. You?
First, I apologize for doing what I resent in others: reading too hastily. You're absolutely right, of course; you had mentioned murder, and I hadn't reflected thoughtfully enough on it. So... do you ultimately think murder should be a federal crime, though? Doesn't saying "No" open the door,theoretically, to it possibly being legal in some states? (Now, there's a premise for a sci-fi novel if ever I heard one.) And if it is, you already grant that abortion might follow.
I grant you have good reason for being confused about what I mean when I say I'm not single-issue, yet single out abortion as an issue. Let me try to clarify my position, and my thoughts!
Here's what I mean: I mean that abortion isn't The One and Only Issue I care about. I did not support Alan Keyes, for a number of reasons, and he certainly has been the most articulate and passionate candidate on that issue for a long time. So I mean that my stance is not, "Is he pro-life? Then say no more: he has my vote!"
On the other hand... this is hard to put into words. I am horrified and appalled to my very soul at the practice, defense, almost sacralization of this hideous practice in our culture. Millions and millions are slaughtered barbarically each decade, and why? Nearly 100% of them die because they were imperfect (the fewest) or simply inconvenient (the most).
And this in the richest, most affluent country in the entire history of the world. (Yes, I do think this is a legitimate connection to bring that up.) What possible excuse can we claim? Ignorance of the fact that this is a human being from conception on? Science has ruled that out. Unavailability of alternatives? No, in no way.
And yet we are at a near vapor lock on the issue, unable to move one way or the other. Those who realize the, to me, ethically DUH! reality that it is an abomination which must stop instantly, are timid and apologetic. Those who prop up the case for the killing are bold and cultic, and they hold the reigns of power.
So what small part can I play? When I can, I protest, I write, I persuade, I give... and I vote. I let it play a part in whom I select. I think, if they haven't thought this position through and figured out that kids should be protected by law, they're Not Ready for Prime Time.
That's basically where I am. Now, do I demand that a candidate reflect my virtually 100%-opposed stance? Will I oppose him if he allows exceptions for killing the child if the father was a criminal (i.e. rape)? No; I want to move the ball in the right direction, and even that position would eliminate nearly 100% of all abortions.
Then you seem to twit me, puzzlingly, for "demanding" clarification of her position. Well, what do you want me to do, MnR? Be a sheeple, but just a sheeple for the GOP? You want me to say, "Golly, it's just such a privilege to be able to vote for a (1) smart (2) pretty (3) black (4) woman that I just won't even ask any questions before slamming down my primary vote!"?
No, of course Condi doesn't go to bed each night asking herself, "What does Dan Phillips think of my positions?" But I think it, when it comes to placing my vote. Shouldn't I?
Dan
You still think, then, that I have no right to demand that Rice clarify her position on this literally life and death issue?
Dan
I think demand is probably the wrong word. I am not sure any of us may, effectively, demand anything of anyone. Do you have a right to know her position, exactly what it is, before you decide whether or not you should support her if she were to ever run for something? Sure. (Remember, she is not running for anything, yet.)
One other point I meant to mention about your last response, the question of why such avid support for abortion by some. (Again, I got the ideas from Alan Keyes.) He says he thinks the push for legal, free and easy abortion, by the left primarily, is part of the total scheme to blur and eventually destroy our values. Other parts of that effort are moral relativism, political correctness, anti relgion, anti death penalty, feminism, gay rights, etc., as well as the push to level the playing field so that we are all equally mediocre. At the very crux of the whole effort is abortion. Abortion devalues life, making the unborn a thing rather than a child. Once we can easily and cavalierly discard life itself then the rest of the transformation is much easier. To the left, life is secondary, even irrelevant, in the march toward power.
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.