Politics: November 2003 Archives

When the number of things I want to chatter about are many, and the minutes with which I have to chatter are few, I try to pick a subject that hasn't received enough attention. Tonight, we ask, "Why isn't Bush going to the funerals of soldiers who died in Iraq?"

Of late, many left-wingers have been asking this question, and it is typical of the Left's off-the-rails hatred of President Bush. What they're really asking is,
"Why isn't Bush calling more attention to deaths in Iraq, which would hurt him politically and give Howard Dean some great footage to use in nasty campaign ads?"

There's a great answer to their question here, which prompted a slew of responses. Think about something else -- if the president went to a funeral, the focus of the event would no longer be on remembering the dead, paying respects to the family, and (if you're Catholic) praying for the repose of the departed. It would be about the president attending a funeral.

But for the Left, nothing is too sacred to be off-limits to politics, not even a funeral, because to the committed Leftist, politics is sacred: he does not believe in a final, divine justice to be meted out by the perfect Judge, so politics is the only way to achieve justice. Men must seize power and order the world for themselves -- or at least the correct men must do so. That this thinking must logically end in the Gulag or Dachau does not occur to today's man of the Left, any more than it did to yesterday's.

After joining Jim Antle over at Enter Stage Right as one of the few voices crying in the wilderness when it comes to Howard Dean, I was pleasantly surprised by the last few issues of The Weekly Standard. It seems that neo-conservatives are beginning to realize that Howard Dean could pose a serious threat to President Bush's 2004 re-election campaign. This is especially the case among libertarian voters, whose influence extends far beyond their actual numbers. (See Jim Antle's Conservative Crack-Up -- Will libertarians leave the Cold War coalition? in a recent issue of The American Conservative).

Anyway, the past couple of issues of The Weekly Standard have done a great job exposing Dean. First, they went after Dean's agricultural plan and showed how increased government regulation of minimum prices, rather than help the family farm, will kill it off. This is what happened to small mom-and-pop dairy farms in Vermont when Dean undertook to protect them through a multi-state dairy agreement in New England. The legislation enacted simply hastened their demise. Now try doing this nationally and in every area of agriculture, WS argues, and the results will be even more disastrous. Hopefully, libertarians will take note.

This was either followed up or preceded in another issue (I cannot recall which, since Florida mail has been out of whack these past couple of weeks) with an editorial speaking of how the economic recovery should help the President win re-election, but how he still remains politically vulnerable over the war should the right democrat be nominated. There was another piece recently discussing whether or not, if Dean got the nod, he would make a bee-line for the center. Regardless, it is good to see that the Weekly Standard, while supporting the President's re-election bid, is not taking it for granted. The Republicans need to remain on the offensive since the potential for a Democrat upset remains.

This week, something like 110,000 people marched through London, protesting for "peace," chanting "All we are saying is give Saddam a chance," and other nonsense. To put that into perspective, there were 400,000 pro-hunting protestors last year in central London -- the biggest demonstration in British history.

On the day of the demonstration, I happened to be in London on business, and the protestors marched near my hotel. They were an exceedingly polite crowd, as they were mainly rural folk who didn't want the lucrative sport of fox hunting banned (Mad Cow Disease had already impoverished the countryside). There were no childish demonstrations that I could see, and everyone was mostly dressed in traditional hunting tweeds, except for the three ladies who were topless except for strategically placed pro-hunting stickers and their open jackets. (No, I will not give you a link to the pictures.)

So while there are plenty of Britons who are in favor of a Saddamite restoration, it's worth remembering that fox hunting really gets their national blood moving.

Recently, we have received some comments about the tone of our articles. In response, I have prepared two versions of this post. Please tell me which one you prefer -- or if they both suck, then say so.

With vitriol

Every morning, I am pestered by an old man driving his enormous car. Right after an old lady says in a hectoring voice, "Don't come home without passing a prescription drug benefit!", my tormentor comes on the television and says in a grating voice, "When ya gonna get it duuun?"

The commercial is from some group promoting the giveaway of free medication to undeserving old people. "That's not fair!" I hear from the back. "We need those drugs to stay alive! You whippersnapers will be old someday! You'll need this!" We'll see about that.

Meanwhile, there's something a little unseemly about providing $400 billion of medication to any senior citizen on demand, though retirees making more than $80,000 a year have to pay a little more. So if you're a married couple in your late 60s, own your own home, have no kids in the house, and make $75k, you get drugs from the feds.

If you take nothing else away from this post, remember: the prescription-drug bill isn't for the truly indigent. The Church teaches that we should place the needs of the poor, sick, and vulnerable ahead of everyone else's. That's not what this bill will do. Medicare -- along with Social Security and student loans -- is middle-class welfare. And it's a lot worse than regular welfare: you at least have to prove you're poor to get that. To get Medicare, you only need to prove that you're over 65.

I'll let my 4-year-old son Charlie have the last word on the subject. Paige and I were talking about this subject at the breakfast table a few days ago, and Charlie heard me say "they're taking our money whether they need it or not." He looked shocked, and asked, "Who is taking our money?"

"Well, there are some people who want to get the government to take our money so they can buy stuff for themselves."

"But that's stealing!" he said indignantly. Yep.

100% vitriol-free

Every day, I wake up and think, "God, is there any way you could make the government take more money from my paycheck? Because I'd probably squander it on food or clothing for my three young kids, or save it for our retirement." Luckily, there's a government program in the works that will give lots of free medication to cute, deserving old people. Whom we should cherish and love.

Still, I have just the teensiest, weensiest issue with one small, probably insignificant aspect of the Medicare prescription-drug benefit bill. It seems that not everyone -- and by "not everyone," I mean "probably three or four people" -- is unable to pay for his medication, and might -- and by "might," I mean "in all likelihood, I'm probably wrong" -- be able to contribute a tiny bit more money for their medicines. And by "tiny," I mean "five bucks or so."

Yet I know that taking money from us younger people is the will of God and His Servant, Ted Kennedy. I love this day. I shall now go outside and roll in the grass and think of fuzzy bunnies.

Sage words from the U.K. Loony Left:

[Mayor of London] Livingstone says Bush is 'greatest threat to life on planet'

ONE IN THREE BRITONS THINK BUSH IS STUPID - POLL

In other news, one in five Britons said Bush had "cooties," while one in eight called him "Mr. Poo-Poo Head."

The Left, on both sides of the Atlantic, has chosen screaming hyperbole as its normative mode of expression. Practically every leftist movement -- feminism, environmentalism, trade unionism, and the rest -- is shot through with Marxist historicism, the belief that History-with-a-capital-H is moving inevitably in the direction they intuited. In the last two decades, especially after the fall of the Berlin Wall, it has been harder to argue that state socialism is the wave of the future. Since Sept. 11, 2001, it has been rather more difficult to say we live in a world "beyond good and evil."

If you've been caught up in the fantasies of the Left for your whole life, as Red Ken Livingstone has, it must be a difficult existence. A rational mind would adjust his theories to fit reality, but the committed leftist drinks deeply from the wellspring of irrational faith: that lo stato can solve every problem without resorting to force, and that human ingenuity can father a perfect world without God's assistance. The first and foremost reason the Hard Left hates Bush is because he's a committed Christian who believes in God's providence. They thought his type was on the way out, what with modern science and all; it enrages them to think that not only do committed Christians still exist, but they seem to be making a comeback.

The same wounded roars come from Catholic liberals, too, as they watch their "Spirit of Vatican II" novelties dissipate like a puff of smoke in a strong breeze. Younger Catholics, and especially younger priests, aren't "progressing" in the way they had hoped. A faithful man who sees things going amiss can say o tempora! o mores!, but ultimately lay the matters in God's hands. The secular man cannot abide any setbacks, as the real, ultimate battleground is in the here-and-now; thus the impatience and rage when things don't go his way.

Howard Dean continues to strike me as probably the Dem. candidate most dangerous to the President in next year's election. Unlike the other Dem hopefuls, Dean recognizes that he cannot win the presidency with only the Dem's traditional constituencies. So he's going after a number of traditional Republican constitutencies as well. Last week I stated that one of these would be the Libertarian vote. I'm not the only conservative to make this prediction. In fact, I've mostly been following the lead of my friend and fellow Enter Stage Right writer James Antle.

Last night I happened to catch one of Howard Dean's ads on the television. He appeared to attack the President over the Patriot Act and the tightening of civil liberties. Dean was obviously aiming for the Libertarian vote by exploiting their discontent with the Bush administration. James Antle does an excellent job discussing the current troubled relationship between conservatives and Libertarians in this week's American Conservative.

That being said, at a time when we're making serious inroads into traditional Dem constituencies, what does the President need to do to protect his own? (Admittedly, if Dean were pro-life I would not be asking this question.) First, I think the President must continue to remain firm on abortion and other life issues. As a politician, W's main strength is his character. This is why I generally trust W, even if I don't always agree with his decisions. Secondly, I think W needs to dump his neo-con international policy wonks and put forward a good exit strategy for Iraq. Thirdly, I think he should ease up a little on the Patriot Act as well as the Drug War. This will go a long way toward blocking Dean from making further inroads into the Libertarian vote.

The Weekly Standard has an article detailing the link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Why this hasn't received more coverage this weekend, I do not understand -- it's not even on the Drudge Report -- but it certainly merits attention.

The information is based on an extremely detailed, careful memo from an undersecretary of defense to the heads of the Senate Intelligence Committee (including Sen. Rockefeller (D-Dogpatch), the inspiration for the Foghorn Leghorn cartoon character.) It details the extensive contact that Saddam and Osama had, and alludes to the strong possibility that they collaborated on the U.S.S. Cole attack.

The article sticks to the topic, not even mentioning the indisputable fact that Saddam sponsored the Palestinian suicide-murder bombings, and carried out terrorist attacks on his neighbors, particularly Iran, through groups he funded and/or founded.

Perhaps Sens. Rockefeller and Kennedy will stop their geriatric rages against the "misleading" Bush administration. Ha, ha! Sorry! Just a little Sunday afternoon humor.

When people say that critics of our Iraqi policy are "aiding the enemy," it usually doesn't sit well with me. Disagreeing with a political action isn't treason. If you see a policy you think is unjust or unwise, you not only have the right to disagree, you have an obligation to speak against it and work against it.

But there is a right and wrong way to disagree, and today elected Democrats choose the latter route. Usually, they're histrionic, but sometimes they really do cross the line and aid the enemy, e.g.:

On Capitol Hill, Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota called on the CIA to brief Congress on "just what, if anything, can be done to change the deteriorating set of circumstances."

When I say they are aiding the enemy, I don't mean that they are giving Iraqi insurgents bullets. I think they get a little thrill of satisfaction when a soldier dies in Iraq, because they think it will hurt President Bush politically. They don't want these thugs and murderers to win so much as they want the commander-in-chief to lose.

Daschle, and most of his Democrat colleagues, don't give a damn about American soldiers or innocent Iraqis. Iraqis can't vote for Democrats, and soldiers generally don't. Therefore, neither group has anything to do with the acquisition and use of political power, so to hell with them.

"Come on, Eric," you might be thinking. "You're saying that because you're a Republican and in the military." Maybe that's why I'm saying it, but it's still completely true. Here's what a loyal opposition, in the British sense, would look like: Democrats would criticize the president. They would also present their own plan of action in Iraq, one that is something a little more substantive than "U.N. in, U.S. out." They would issue press statements supporting Operation Iron Hammer, the current campaign against the insurgents. They would speak out against our French and German "allies" when they make obvious efforts to curtail U.S. power in the world. They would make it clear that when they speak against the president's policies, they do not think he is a malevolent moron, thus emboldening our enemies.

In short, men like Tom Daschle would remember that they were elected by Americans and are supposed to work on behalf of the American people.

Some men become rich and try to improve the lives of those who aren't; others become drunk on their wealth and think themselves petty gods. One of these vile creatures is George Soros, who wants to depose the president.

Now, if you don't think President Bush has been doing a good job, and if you disagree with his policies, then by all means try to remove him. Politicians should be removed often -- for incompetence, foolishness, their hair color, whatever. No man is indispensible in a democracy, and a higher turnover rate would encourage politicians to look to the common good instead of self-promotion. Let them strive for peace and prosperity, and let that be their legacy instead of wielding power.

That being said, doesn't it seem a little anti-democratic for a plutocrat to use his billions of dollars to remove a democratically elected president? And what makes people like Soros, Ross Perot, and the Rockefellers think they are modern-day Gracchi, defending us little people against the predations of other powerful, influential people? At least the patrons of the Roman senatorial class doled out money and favors directly to the poor; they had contact with the demos that extended beyond having its members serve their food and wash their clothes.

Soros became rich through currency speculation: by betting that one species of money would advance or decline relative to other species. Say what you want about the robber barons of the 19th century, they at least built their vast wealth by creating industries that brought material improvements in people's lives. Men like Soros provide no useful service commensurate with their vast wealth.

In the Third World, he supports what could be called "hard" family-planning (how I hate that euphemism!), including sterilization and abortion. He has (supposedly) spent billions on democracy overseas, particularly in Russia, and has done such a good job that there are no more independent major news media left in that country, and the economy is based on the admirable model of the mob families portrayed in "The Sopranos."

All of this success has left Soros with a keen sense of what's best for the world. He complains that Bush is "leading the U.S. and the world toward a vicious circle of escalating violence." Leave aside the sheer banality of his insights for a moment -- weren't we already in a "circle" (he means "cycle") of violence before January 2001? The terrorists kept hitting us, beginning in Beruit in 1983, and we kept ineffectually responding. The difference now is that we have a president who is dismantling the terrorists' infrastructures and killing the terrorists themselves. You can't have a "circle" if one side of the circle disappears, and Bush seems committed to making that happen.

Capitalism is the greatest system for ensuring material prosperity. If only we could get rid of most capitalists, it would be darn near perfect.

According to this article, there are many Democrats who are unhappy with the leadership of Terry McAuliffe as the head of the Democratic National Committee. He was installed by Bill Clinton and his lovely wife Bruno to ensure their continued dominance of the party. McAuliffe is a strident partisan and obnoxiously devoted to the party's least savory aspects, like homosexual activism, abortion (natch! This is the Abortion Party!), high taxes, etc., etc.

As the top political strategist for the Democrats, McAuliffe has lost the U.S. Senate, the California governorships, and as of this week, the state houses of Kentucky and Mississippi. Let me say that as a Republican, I am perfectly happy with the leadership of Terry McAuliffe, and I hope he keeps his job for the remainder of the decade.