anyone who wants off of my ping list, please let me know! ;)
anyone who wants off of my ping list, please let me know! ;)
A few decades ago, a mighty genius wrote a mighty book. In the book, he undertook for the first time to analyze the various strategies and tactics that were and might be used in major conflicts among nations, in the context of the newly arrived nuclear age. The book was controversial in part because the author insisted on dealing in a rational and detached fashion with possibilities that would cause the deaths of tens of millions. It was also controversial because he contended that there could be reasons to push the Big Red Button even if it meant the utter destruction of one's own nation. Finally, it was controversial because the author was an unabashed patriot and booster of all things American.
One of the segments of the book that was particularly mind-broadening was the analysis of brinksmanship strategies, which were dominant for a while in the Fifties and early Sixties. We played brinksmanship against the Soviets by being incomparably better armed and letting them know that any transgression against a NATO member would invoke "massive nuclear retaliation" against Soviet forces and cities. As the arms gap closed in the late sixties and seventies, the Soviets began to play brinksmanship against a more accommodating series of U.S. administrations, but they did it in a fashion that's reminiscent of what I've read here, and in other to-GOP-or-not-to-GOP threads at FreeRepublic. Khrushchev and Brezhnev both succeeded in getting concessions from Washington by laying down a fairly hard line, and then claiming to be politically weak.
Got your attention?
The author of the book described above dealt with exactly this sort of political stratagem. He didn't lay out a payoff matrix or attempt to present a pivot analysis to determine what the best rejoinder would be; he merely noted that it often reaped exactly the same gains as bargaining from a position of strength did. The Soviet leader would say, "If you don't give me what I ask, my political backing will evaporate, and I will be deposed. The man who will take my place will be much more demanding, and much harder for you to deal with. Therefore, in your own interests, you should concede what I ask." And Washington under Nixon and Carter would do exactly that.
The book, in case you've been wondering, was On Thermonuclear War, and the author, easily the most powerful mind ever devoted to the analysis of lethal international exchange and the associated diplomacy, was Herman Kahn, who went on to found the Hudson Institute.
Imagine that, by its deeds and enactments, the current administration in Washington is speaking to us, asking for support now and at the polls come election time. Imagine that, as is the case today, the titular head of the administration has voiced firm support for your highest convictions, on the basis of which you voted for him back when. Imagine further that he's acted against those convictions seven or eight times out of ten since being elected. But he can point across the aisle and say, "If you don't support me, that's what you'll get: a man who doesn't even say the right things! Is that what you want?"
I've been pondering this for most of my adult life, and the answer to the hypothetical politician's hypothetical question is yes. If I am to be governed in a fashion antithetical to my principles, I want someone who's overt about it, even in-your-face. My reasons are:
There are many here who will say that President Bush is doing the best he can in a difficult time, what with the war. Yet he's had discretion to veto several awful bills and has failed to do so. He's lent his active backing to a couple of those bills. He's failed to introduce legislation that he promised us during the 2000 campaign, despite considerable popular support for it: the partial privatization of Social Security. He's traduced his own pledge of belief in the free market with tariffs designed to buy votes, at the expense of all American consumers and industries.
Perhaps Al Gore could have done worse, and would have... but he would not have enervated the conservative movement, which is now largely persuaded that it has no standard-bearer, in doing so. And he would not have had so many people believing that when a man pledges fidelity to free trade, private property and limited government, they should clamp one hand on their wallets and the other on their guns.
On the strength of his pre-Black Tuesday record, I would have liked to support President Bush in 2004. But he's overspent the admiration he won from me with his tax-cut battle and his dealings with the Europeans and the Chinese, by being so statist since then. At this point, he has two years to reverse course and demonstrate that he really did mean it, that his aberrations up to now are correctable and will not be repeated. If he does, I'll vote for him; if not, I won't. The same goes for any Republican Congressman, Senator, Assemblyman, County Legislator, Town Councillor, Sheriff, Judge or Dog Catcher whose name appears on my local ballot. They will get my support only if their records indicate that they've earned it.
Vote for a Democrat instead? Of course not. I won't reward the Evil Party simply because I can't support the Stupid Party. But I won't have the GOP, or any party, thinking it can claim weakness yet garner the rewards of strength and resolve. I will not reward deceit.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com