Replies

Well, were it up to me, foreign policy would be dealt with in a very realpolitik "clean out potential threats as quickly as possible", and return us to a position where we can focus more on being a sovereign nation rather than being the world's overseer, which is tiresome and unprofitable. I think a Bush policy involving decisive action on a grand scale is far preferable to UN "mediation" or Clintonian low-level attrition. The purpose is not to send our enemies a message. The purpose is to kill them.

That said, I think our constitutional battles need to focus on domestic issues, where there is absolutely no utilitarian or moral grounds for the expansion of most legislation. I think hate-crimes legislation has been swept into the background when it should be in the foreground of conservative attacks...it is one of many small steps in turning the "right" to freedom of speech into the "privilege" of freedom of speech. Same goes for asinine gun regulations, such as the banning of types of weapons based on propaganda that they are scary, or the numerous registration and consumer harassment laws currently in place.
I think the foreign policy problems of the last century are a symptom of the root problem: the domestic disregard of the constitution, with its root in the conduct of Presidents (Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Kennedy, etc), Congress, and the activists-in-judge's-clothing that often pass for Supreme court Justices. It begins with education, with making people aware that the constitution is there to limit government, not the people, and that our contract has been broken by the Federal Government many times over.

I think rhetoric about the Rule of Law makes for pleasing sounds, but we have to get there in a gradual process before we begin demanding a Jeffersonian standard of government. This is not compromise, I think, but pragmatism and a recognition of how far adrift we are now.

So to summarize a long and excessively verbose post, I think we've got to focus on changing the law at home; right now, if we behave in a constitutionally adequate manner abroad, we'll get creamed. Fix it first, then stay out of it.

On a side note, I would give a lot to hear just one candidate from any party (anything is possible, right? The Democrats were once the "free trade" party) make a single reference to the constitution, ever. As in, if I am elected, I will strive to make state legislatures more than local fiscal appropriation bodies; to ensure that (gun, speech, etc) laws are not arbitrarily put in place in violation of the Constitution on the fiat of a new governor/senator/president; that when laws are made, I will question those putting them forth until they are forced to speak what they actually intend to accomplish with that law. Guess that is a pipe dream these days.

Oh, and a final aside...I think if Saddam Hussein was merely interested in remaining in power, he would have handed over what the inspectors wanted. He's got something up his sleeve, and I would be entirely unsurprised to learn of his complicity at any level in world terrorism. If he is up to his neck in anti-Israel terrorism, it follows logically that there must be involvement in anti-American terrorism. I don't want to wait until 9/11.2 rolls around; I don't think any number of "I told you so's" would be worth a tinker's damn if and when it occurs.