The following posts were intended to be posted earlier; however, the inevitable technical difficulties stood in the doorway. I draw particular attention to the first post, which echoes (or precedes) one of Dinesh D'Souza's assertions in his latest book, The Enemy at Home, wherein he postulates that the hard liberal left in America, in opposing the actions of George W. Bush in general, actually oppose not the war, per se, but the underlying conservatism. I regret that my explanation is not as clear as D'Souza's, but still...

Protests

January 27, 2007

“Tens of thousands” of protestors marched on Washington today against the Iraq War, among them an assortment of leftists and even a few active duty members of the military. The war, admittedly, has not gone as planned and critics are capitalizing on this fact.

Reps. John Conyers and Maxine Waters both stated that the president lied. One veteran claimed that we cannot win and that war simply doesn’t work. Signs carried slogans such as “I voted for peace,” and “Impeach Bush for war crimes.”

Claiming that the president lied is merely a rhetorical gesture aimed at the far left. Proclamations that we cannot win are simply false because, if we lose, we have chosen not to win. To say that war doesn’t work, ever, is simply preposterous (e.g. World War II). Voting for peace with an enemy that has voted for perpetual war might not be wisest course, and Bush’s precise war crimes—absent rhetorical excesses about other situations—remain unclear.

Sufficient time and space does not exist here to fully discuss the preceding paragraph, as I am sure critics will certainly find it easy, with some liberties, to refute my statements. However, that is not the point here.

Instead, the point is this: Much of the left’s opposition to George W. Bush’s wars is not based on opposition to war in general, or on the preference for peace (all of us want peace, especially soldiers). The left’s opposition is, in reality, opposition to the philosophy the president represents: conservatism.

Certainly President Bush is not the pure conservative that his critics on the left describe, but he does represent the more conservative party.

His critics are quick—or were quick—to support military actions in, say, Darfur or, going back a few years, the Balkans. Both of these situations do/did not involve clear US national security interests (or, at least, not as clear as Iraq and Afghanistan, as debatable as each may be to certain parties).

Here the difference comes down to motivation and, hence, ideology. Working backward: National security interests are, in essence, selfish because Americans are looking out for American interests. On the contrary, Darfur is strictly a humanitarian, or an altruistic, affair in terms of US interest. Both the national security and humanitarian motivations are valid and worthy, but it is here where left and right divide. Thus we have the ideological component.

The political component comes into play with the party affiliation. Democrat objects to Republican and probably vice-versa (though GOP opposition to our Balkan interventions and strikes against bin Laden in the ‘90s didn’t provoke the type of fury we see today). Bush’s critics demanded more troops, and when they got them, they cried foul again. Thus, it is logical to conclude that if Bush dropped Iraq altogether and sent those troops to the Sudan, they would assuredly find something with which to squabble.

So, the protestors today, for the most part, object not to a war but instead to a worldview.

Odds and Sods on the New Congress

January 13, 2007

Odd

Most conservative commentators have already brought attention to many of the following incidents, but I must do so again. First, the Democrat Party stirred its base last November in part on promises to make life better for Americans by raising the minimum wage. This citizen believes that the Democrats do, indeed, know the economic consequences of such a measure, yet they tout it as a populist, vote-getting measure. Then, as reported yesterday, a measure in the minimum wage bill will exempt StarKist Tuna—a company with a major presence in Speaker Pelosi’s district. The exemption is evidence that the Democrat Party does, as a whole, understand the downside to the wage hike.

Odd

Update from the Congress of New Civility: Speaking to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) asked, "Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."

Odd

Update 2 from the Congress of New Civility: Freshman Congressman Steve Kagen apparently has bragged about hostile confrontations with Karl Rove, Vice President Dick Cheney, and President George W. Bush. We know not if these events really happened, but whether they did or not, both the braggadocio and the incident are not very, shall we say, civil.

No Bond with Congress

January 6, 2007

Browsing the Internet news sites this morning, one can find headlines similar to the following from the Washington Times: “Democrats backpedal on 9/11 commission.” Likewise, sifting through articles, one can find subheadings like “Changed His Mind” from Bloomberg, for example. Both of these examples and the trends they represent constitute a profound statement about the new Congress. Simply put, their word is not their bond.

Leading up to November’s elections, Democrat leaders and candidates made a series of promises. For example, they, once in power, would enact all of the recommendations on the 9/11 Commission. Then, we were told that they had no interest in raising taxes. Likewise, the United States would not “cut and run” from Iraq and some prominent leaders, like Senator Harry Reid, said they would support troops surges in the short-term.

Fast-forward to the first week of January—the week the new Congress was seated. Not even three days into the 110^th Congress, we have broken promises, validating Thomas Sowell’s postulation that the 2006 Election was a case of voter fraud.

Taking the promises in order: 1) Democats now claim they will not, after all, enact all recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. 2) The Democrat majority passed a law that actually enacted some conservative ideas for budget reform, but the bill also contains a provision that will mandate tax increases along with spending increases. Spending will increase; thus, the bill is a quiet way of setting the groundwork for tax hikes. 3) Democrat leaders have expressed vehement opposition to the president’s plans for a troop surge in Iraq.

Add these three instances of “backpedaling” to the Democrats’ promises of bipartistanship, which were followed by a measure that prevents Republicans from amending bills in the early days of the new Congress. Altogether, Americans should observe a disturbing, yet unsurprising, trend.

And all of it from the self-proclaimed most ethical Congress ever.

Irony as the Gavel Strikes

January 4, 2007

Nancy Pelosi stood before Congress today as the Democrats reclaimed their perceived rightful position of power. An unsurprising series of oddities struck me as I read articles and listened to news clips of this truly historical day.

First among them is the perception that Pelosi and her ideological ilk are the smart ones; the truly intellectual and rational thinkers of our time. They are not prone, we are told, to emotional, irrational, and instinctual—barbaric—ways. Yet, this same group touted such lousy economic policies as the minimum wage and windfall profits taxes on Big Oil under the guise of emotional appeals. Raise the minimum wage and tax the oil companies, they say, so the poor can have more money. Ultimately, of course, both policies result in the opposite of their intentions.

Second, the new speaker and her team pledged a new era bipartisanship. The letter H comes to mind when one considers the past six years and the behavior of many on Pelosi’s side of the chamber. Yet the Democrats plan to block Republican amendments to House bills over the next month. GOP leaders never took such a course of action; in fact, Republican leaders kowtowed to Democrat pressure for power sharing.

Third, Pelosi and her ideological kin have hailed over the past four or five years against nonexistent imperialism, oppression, and militarism from the Bush Administration. But today there were large cheering crowds; feasts for lunch and dinner; guest appearances by some of the most popular musical performers; renaming of a street after the new leader. The list goes on, but this day sounds to me like some sort of Roman rally for the return of Caesar.