~ BANNED IN EUROPE! ~
| My Webpage
| |
"The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness, both deeds of no account and deeds which are mighty and worthy of commemoration. . .Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against the stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion. "
- Anna Comnena (1083-1153), The Alexiad
"I have taken all knowledge to be my province."
- Francis Bacon, 1592
Friday, October 29, 2004
Not Much of a Blog Here Anymore
First, a mia culpa. I've been saying all along, going back to when this blog was on blogspot, "that dude is dead" in reference to Osama bin Laden. Well, upon further review, that dude isn't dead.
What does it change? In my opinion, not much. Osama's importance as a charismatic figure rallying the enemy shouldn't be dismissed. But it shouldn't be overestimated, either. The terrorist/Islamofacist movement is larger than any one man.
Beyond that, I haven't much more to say on this that someone else didn't already write better than I'm able at this particular time, in this particular situation. Just as I haven't on the political campaign, events in it (like the manufactured October Surprise), or the good but lower than expected GDP growth rate of 3.7% (which is relatively good, actually; considerably better than that of European countries that are often held up by a certain part of the ideological divide, implicitly when not explicitly, as a model for us to aspire to and emulate), the ongoing situation in Iraq and the larger war, and scores of other things that I might otherwise have something significant to say.
But I'm really still finding myself incapable of focusing enough attention on all this, absorbing the information that makes it possible, taking the time, including the mental processing time that happens in the background, "off-screen", to write what I think would be good posts. This process was more important than even I thought. Why? Well, in the past, posts were very often written "on the fly", extemporaneously in a stream-of-consciousness reaction to something that I had just read. So that made it seem like it was being born, like Athena out of Zeus' head, fully grown, without time needed for an idea or means of expressing it to mature. But, just as I was wrong about Osama being dead, that isn't really true, either.
This is regrettable to me on two levels. No, lets be entirely candid. It makes me sad. I made the right choice going into the Army, but as with the point I was planning on making, and hope to still get around to making, on the costs of invading Iraq, that doesn't mean there aren't trade-offs. The world is full of trade-offs, not perfect situations where you can "do it all" and "get it all" - something that too many people are deluded into believing (they tend to vote Democrat).
The first level upon which this is a regrettable realization to me is "The continuing crisis". Every generation has a rendezvous with destiny. It's become a cliche, dragged out almost every election, that the stakes this time are higher than ever. Well, they are - perhaps the stakes are continually ratcheting up. But I agree with Mathew Manweller that this is the most significant election of our times, a pivot point - the point at which a fulcrum is being put down, upon which a lever that will move the world will lay.
That is because of the twin wars, the war abroad and the Internal Cold War (aka Pan-Western Culture War (also enter "Pan Western Culture War" into my search engine for more explaination of this) at home, which affects the other. Referring to it without further discussion is a good way to come off as one of those "wild-eyed, crazed extremists", as culture warriors get characterized, but I have good reasons for positing such a war, just as Arthur Schlesinger Jr., no Buchananite, had reason to write the alarmist Disuniting of America years back. Seems like yesterday to me, but it's been, what, more than a decade since the book first came out. I want to do all I can to make a contribution to the ideological battle that is, in my opinion, so critical in winning both these fights.
The second reason, the personal one, is that I feel I'm in danger of losing some part of my essential nature. Yah, I'm one of those intellectuals, dealers in second hand ideas (Hayek) and wordsmyths (Nozik). I'm intellectually lonelier than I've ever felt, and that's saying something because this was and is one of the more "isolationist" blogs, not having a high degree of interconnectivity with the blogosphere as a whole beyond a few other blogs, because I have difficulty making such contacts. But the lack of such that I had is deeply felt, and I am concerned about intellectual stagnation.
But I'm not sure if I'll be able to go forward with this blog, because I'm not sure how to make the kind of posts I'd like to. Ones that are timely and insightful, that contribute something to what is, in my opinion, the most dynamic example of civic discourse at its best (at citizen level rather than institutionalized "professional" level) there is. The idea of being another blog saying the same sorts of things one can read on countless other blogs, except a day or two later, and not provocative in the best sense of the word - thought-provoking - well, I just don't think I'm writing anything worth reading anymore. I mean, if I were the one reading this blog at the moment, I'm not sure I would devote time to coming here, because I can get the same (and more) elsewhere.
So I'm going to have to think about what to do with this site. Unlike Steven Den Beste, I haven't lost the desire to blog. It hasn't become a chore to me, overburdened by nitpicking, something I dread rather than look forward to. I want to keep blogging but right now I'm not finding it easy to continue with this site.
Yes, there are lots of Milbloggers out there, including people who blog under the difficult conditions of deployment. Everyone's situation is different. Perhaps at some point my situation will reach such a state where I'll be able to do the kind of blogging I'd like (which has less to do with volume of posts than quality of posts). Perhaps I'll settle in, sooner or later, and find a routine that will allow me to make effective use of my time in such a way that I'm able to do just that. This is, indeed, exactly what I've been hoping will happen. But it hasn't happened yet.
Anyhow, I'm not closing the site. But it aint what it used to be, not to me at least. We'll see what it becomes, and hopefully it will get better rather than continue to slide into irrelevant mediocrity.
Aside: I was asked the other day by my First Sergeant what my hobbies were, so the Commander could mention them at the "Hail & Farewell" the unit gave last night for all the folks who were leaving and all of us recent arrivals. It didn't even enter my mind to mention writing, writing a blog, as one of them; not until later. That's how mentally detached I've become from this.
According to this story, Kerry is already in the process of putting his Cabinet together:
Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware has been asked by Mr Kerry to become Secretary of State in a Democratic administration, according to Kerry campaign aides.
That might bother some people, who could see it as presumptuous, but it doesn't bother me at all. He should be ready to hit the ground running if he wins, and if he doesn't, then no harm, no foul. Indeed, the article's headline can be taken further - I think this is one of the things we should consider copying from the Brits. Why shouldn't Candidates name their Cabinet, or at least those who will fill the major offices, during the Campaign? If they did so, they would run with a sort of "Shadow-Cabinet", and voters would be better able to judge what they are voting for. An Administration isn't just one man - it's those he (maybe someday she) will put into office as well when elected.
Candidates could name who will fill major Candidate posts during their Administration at the Conventions. That would help breathe some life into the Party Conventions, which have become decreasingly relevant in the modern era.
First read Ralph Peters, no knee-jerk defender of the Bush Administration or its handling of Iraq, on the shameless lie upon which the Media-Democratic Complex is basing their late hit. Read the whole piece, which goes point by point to debunking it. He concludes with this:
Sen. Kerry knows this is a bogus issue. And he doesn't care. He's willing to accuse our troops of negligence and incompetence to further his political career. Of course, he did that once before.
Such a candidacy, such a campaign, a political movement that would produce such a candidacy, does not deserve to be given power - whatever Andrew Sullivan says about rewarding their tactics as a means of forcing them to become responsible.
Next this piece on RealClearPolitics on the stakes of this election:
This November we will vote in the only election during our lifetime that will truly matter. Because America is at a once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs in the balance. Down one path lies retreat, abdication and a reign of ambivalence.
Down the other lies a nation that is aware of its past and accepts the daunting obligation its future demands. If we choose poorly, the consequences will echo through the next 50 years of history. . .
The defeat of President Bush will send a chilling message to future presidents who may need to make difficult, yet unpopular decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of the costs or appeal. If we turn away from that legacy, we turn away from whom we are.
Second, we inform every terrorist organization on the globe that the lesson of Somalia was well-learned. In Somalia we showed terrorists that you don't need to defeat America on the battlefield when you can defeat them in the newsroom.
Read the whole thing. Had I more time, I'd write up something more extensive myself, and I hope I will be able to do so this weekend.
The real question is why the debate moderator didn't put Kerry on the spot by asking questions like some of these instead of letting him get away with fine-sounding generalities and platitudinous handwaves.
Especially #1, and referencing this statement by Kerry in the context of it would have been appropriate (given Bush's statements were fair game for reference in questions).
Ruth Wisse on this weekend. Of course, liberating tolerance is on display:
But this enviable autonomy doesn't extend to graduate students or untenured colleagues. Recently, I had two encounters with sobering implications for the academy. A junior professor told me that when she began teaching at Harvard she resigned from several organizations that would have betrayed her conservative leanings. She hadn't wanted to give colleagues an easy excuse for voting her down when she came up for tenure; but now that the prospect of tenure was before her, she didn't know whether she wanted to stay on in such a repressive community. My second conversation was with a rare pro-Israel Muslim whose contract as lecturer hadn't been renewed, very probably because he was critical of the way his subject was being taught. This young man was in a great mood. He was leaving for Washington, where he could make a greater contribution to national security.
That's why this stuff is self-perpetuating. There's more illustrating the same phenomenon. Check it out.
Almost everything falls into that category. Iraq's messy. So? What isn't? America has no Colonial Office, no political administrators with decades of experience in far-flung climes; its occupation of Iraq was learnt on the fly, because there was no other way. But the ludicrous defeatism over what's at worst a partial success is unbecoming to a great nation. If the present Democratic-media complex had been around earlier, America would never have mustered the will to win World War II or, come to that, the Revolutionary War. There would be no America. You'd be part of a Greater Canada, with Queen Elizabeth on your coins and government health care.
The sad thing is that I think that there are many in the "citizens of the world" (AKA Kerry supporters) gang among us who would be happy to make that trade. At bottom it's an attutude that comes out in a variety of ways, that this country isn't that special, not particularly worth defending, and is the source of the world's problems rather than a force for good in resolving them.
Anyone who thinks I'm going too far in making such an assertion is free to write me and I'll be more than willing to discuss it further. In the meantime, I refer to these previous posts that touch on it in part, and in particular to this and this and the Of Course You Know, This Means WAR! post.
I was going to make a post on this topic when I got back to regular blogging, and was reminded to do so reading this John Leo piece that Glenn Reynolds linked to. That is, if the shoe is on the other foot, what should the Right do?
Should Kerry win, as I predict, should we be petulant, cantakorous, and see the war mainly in terms of how we can use it to our own partisan advantage in regaining power? In other words, should we behave as the Democrats and Liberals have?
Someone, I can't remember who, asked a question along these lines on their blog when I was at AIT. Unfortunately I can't find the link back to it, but they asked conservatives to candidly and honestly say whether they would behave the same way we have seen the Liberal-Left behave, behavior we have deplored. It was a good question: will we be hypocrites? Are we really serious about the war, to the point of setting asside partisan interest?
We should be. I've written on that topic before, as well. But the question itself is somewhat telling, and highlights something that is very corrossive. That is the apparent fact that the phrase "politics stops at the waters edge" is only to apply when Democrats are in power.
In his efforts to convince us all to vote for Kerry, Andrew Sullivan makes this argument ("Forcing the Dems Into Responsibility" - as if giving a notoriously irresponsible teenage boy whiskey and car keys was the way to make him responsible). His further statements ("Kerry As Good Cop") along those lines highlight a form of political blackmail by the Left. This "Let the Wookie Win" attitude, give them power and stop contesting their presumption that it's theirs by right, or they won't help on matters of national life and death is an ill omen. That's hardly a sign of a healthy political movement that deserves to be in charge. It's not a sign of a healthy national political dialogue. It's not a signpost of sound civic discourse. Sullivan's argument that we should give them power in order to "call their bluff and force the Democrats to get serious again about defending this country" may be the best he can come up with. But it's a distrubing argument to make.
As is the fact that we have to raise the question of how we'll respond if Kerry wins, and whether we'll support the war when we should, when policies are pursued that we would otherwise support, if they're pursued by "the other side" but not us. It's a good question. The fact that I don't believe Kerry will follow sound policies in prosecuting the war is a big reason why I can't vote for him, and why I think the question is somewhat hypothetical. But at least for this blogger, I will support him in the same way I supported Clinton when he (finally) took action in the Balkans, and when he tried to rally the world against Saddam in the late '90s. If by some chance Kerry supports the FTA the way Clinton pushed for NAFTA, I'd support him on that. Certainly, as a soldier I'll obey the orders of my Commander in Chief. I do reserve the right, as a Blogger, to be critical when I think things are being mishandled, just as I have when "my guy", Bush, has mishandled things.
But poisonous politics where the only way something can be "bipartisan" is if one side (the Democratic Left) is in charge, well, as I said that's disturbing. We should not emulate their behavior, but the fact that they are behaving the way they have is not an argument in favor of giving them power. Not to me, and it's shocking that Andrew Sullivan thinks it is a good argument for electing them. Don't let the Wookie Win unless they deserve it on the merits. Their behavior shows they are not so deserving.
Note the title of this post. It's not "who should win", it's who will. In this world, outcomes are often imperfect at best.
The election is going to be close enough that illegally cast votes, boxes of cast ballots "found" late on the Res (New Mexico, '00; South Dakota '02), and massive turnout in certain inner-city precincts controlled by Democratic election officials, where "massive turnout" is turnout exceeding 100% of eligible voters residing in the precinct and 99.5% counted as Kerry votes will tip the balance. That is why a massive effort is underway to block any effort to insure that votes counted are legally cast votes.
But Kerry's win will not be exclusively do to the Democrat's efforts to increase the number of votes they get by such means. Lets face it - Bush will have lost the election because he failed to grasp the opportunities he had to win it.
These opportunities were opened in the debates. The first debate was key. His failure to point out that Kerry voted against the first Gulf War, and that Kerry's reaction to the first WTC bombing was to try to cut intelligence funding by billions of dollars, was a major error. One that cannot be belatedly recovered from in advertisements in the closing weeks of the campaign. Those are just two examples. Another would have been to highlight the fact that Kerry claims to want us to be more multilateral in our diplomacy and involve our allies in major negotiations, but in North Korea he wants to exclude them. Bush failed to do that in the first debate, only making that point (somewhat clumsily) later.
He missed opportunities in the third debate, too. He should have brought up the fact that the majority of small businesses created during his Administration were created by women, and that Kerry wants to raise taxes on them - which will make it difficult for them to succeed. Kerry pandered to women in that debate, and Bush failed to respond. Instead he simply restated his education policy (several times).
But it is the first debate that really turned the campaign. Bush's failure to articulate his policies and the flaws in Kerry's is what allowed Kerry to close the gap to the point where the Democrat's "get out the manufactured vote" campaign will succeed. There's no point bemoaning the later after the election, and ignoring the former - the Bush campaign's own failure.
In Greek tragedy, every heroic protagonist has an "Achilles Heel". All along for Bush his has been an inability to articulate his policies. This hasn't been universal - Bush has shown, on several occasions, that he can give a good speech, effectively outlining and explaining his policies, effectively speaking to the American public. His speech writers have, at times, done their jobs well. Bush is often very good speaking off-the-cuff as well. His interview with Bill O'Reilly which aired on Fox News Channel the same week as the first debate shows that Bush can think on his feet. (By the by, that interview was closer to a real debate than the "joint-press-conference" format used for Presidential debates).
But at key moments he has not done well. That first debate was the key moment in this campaign. In the other two debates, Bush did well enough that one might say he won them, despite the opportunities that were missed then (no one is perfect).
I don't make this prediction with any satisfaction whatsoever. I don't think Bush has handled the war perfectly, as I mentioned yesterday and will discuss again soon. But I think he has handled it better than Kerry would have, and better than Kerry will. One can see that in both large and small things. One example from this morning is the statement of one of Kerry's campaign handlers on Fox News this morning that they're going to use Clinton to remind people that during the Clinton era, we were at peace.
Were we? Or did we, bipartisanly, ignore a war that was already being waged against us? Now, as I've written before, I don't fault people for that attitude then, at the time. But I do think that those who still think that way, rather than understanding that the peace was a faux one, are not the kind of people we need leading us now. Why does the Kerry campaign want to remind people of the "peace" of the '90s, if it isn't to build up a desire for a return to that state of mind? Is this any way to wage a war going forward?
Then there's domestic policy as well - if the economy is soft, raising taxes on those who would invest and create jobs is hardly a way to stimulate it. And no, that didn't work for Clinton - GDP growth dropped after his '93 tax raises, and interest rates rose. It was only after the Republican take over of Congress, and a shift in policy, that growth picked up again. Bush's economic policies are much better if one wants strong economic growth. The fact that I, or a number of other bloggers, could make this case (as I've done before) better than the Bush Administration is pathetic.
Then of course there's the Courts, where a Kerry Administration would be a disaster (unless you're Pro-Abortion Choice and that's the only Court related issue you care about). Prospects for reform and modernization on a whole swath of issues would be snuffed out, and our walk down the path of a nation whose domestic policies are set by trial lawyers using court cases to create de-facto legislation would advance significantly. But if Bush wins, and Republicans carry Congress, then there is a real opportunity to start some long-delayed and long-needed reforms of government-run programs.
But this post isn't about why you should vote for Bush. It's not about why you should vote against Kerry. None of that matters, because Kerry will win. There's also the tanking Stock Market, rising oil prices, and other things that no President has much influence over which will influence the outcome, but it's hard to take lessons from that except "don't be unlucky". So I focused on what we can learn from the next time around.
