Ever since running for President in 2008, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has emerged as an icon among a broad political spectrum. His rigid isolationism underscored by his opposition to the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, made him a darling on the far left and the isolationist far right. His radical free-market philosophy endeared him to libertarians. Ron Paul somehow managed to build a coalition so diverse that during the 2008 campaign, numerous callers into C-SPAN's Washington Journal enthusiastically recommended that Ron Paul select Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), one of the most left-wing elected officials, as his running mate.
Now Ron Paul appears to be going after another constituency--a far more numerous and powerful one than all his other allies combined. This time, Congressman Paul has his eyes on the Populists. The populist-wing of the American electorate is so powerful that most successful politicians tailor their talking points to address some populist concern in some part of the country. Populist themes range from anti-free trade to anti-illegal immigration to anti-Wall Street. Populists don't like Big Government, Big Labor, or Big Business. They don't like Big. Nuance is not factored into the populist equation. Neither are economic principles, empirical evidence, or history.
Populists frequently shift their allegiances between Democrats and Republicans, although they tend to be more receptive to left-wing talking points that scorn Big corporations and lament the "outsourcing of American jobs." Although many populists are centrists or independents, populists make up a much larger base than just the unaffiliated Independents or self-described moderates. Populists are, in short, ubiquitous across the political landscape.
Because populist sentiments are so prevalent, one of the most effective political tactics--especially during times of political or economic unrest--is to engage in what I refer to as populist demagoguery. If manufacturing jobs are being lost, blame free trade. If incomes are dwindling, blame banks and their big bonuses. If gas prices are going up, blame Big Oil. Neat and somewhat intuitive slogans trump facts and basic economic principles in elections. This is understandable, since most people are not trained economists, and therefore do not have the knowledge to understand how importing cheap sugar from Brazil or outsourcing labor to a factory in Malaysia can actually have a highly positive economic effect across the board. Politicians prey on these misconceptions to get elected.
Populist appeal only wears of when populist policies are actually implemented and inevitably fail. See protectionism under Herbert Hoover, wage and price controls under Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, and virtually every conceivable populist measure under Jimmy Carter. But such is human nature that as time passes and new economic concerns surface, people tend to forget about the folly of populism and are once more enamored with populist rhetoric.
Which brings us to Ron Paul. I was never particularly fond of Ron Paul , mostly because I could not bring myself to support a politician whose coalition consisted of libertarians, socialists, white supremacists, and 9/11 Truthers. If a libertarian politician could not repel socialists, neo-Nazis, and psychotics from his campaign, I didn't think he could be an effective leader. But until recently, I could not fault Ron Paul's sincerity. His philosophy was for the most part consistent and unwavering. He didn't engage in cheap populist demagoguery to win popular support.
But recently, Ron Paul has started to do just that. Last Monday on Larry King Live, Ron Paul declared that "the Stimulus obviously helped Wall Street. Wall Street is doing very, very well." I'm certainly not a fan of President Obama's now infamous Stimulus, but to say that the Stimulus (not to be confused with the bail outs) either directly or indirectly helped Wall Street is ludicrous. In fact, in the months after the Stimulus was signed into law, the stock market plummeted. The Stimulus was not designed to help Wall Street, nor did it.
Congressman Paul's claim is quintessential populist demagoguery, pitting Wall Street against "Main Street," a cheap and largely meaningless variation of class warfare, which itself is a favorite populist tactic. Ron Paul is suggesting that what is good for Wall Street is bad for Main Street and in doing so, he is positioning himself as the champion of Main Street.
As an informed free-market politician, I think Ron Paul knows that the Wall Street, Main Street dichotomy is tripe. Stock markets rise and investors make money when businesses are profitable, or at least look to be profitable in the future. This leads me to believe that Ron Paul is engaging in populist demagoguery in an effort to appeal to a broader constituency. This is a far cry from a politician who built his reputation by saying things that are unpopular, but true.
I worry that Ron Paul's flirtation with populism is a bad omen for free-market advocates. If those who admire Ron Paul's philosophy begin to imitate his rhetoric, then all hope might be lost for diminishing the insidious influence of populism on American politics any time soon.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Friday, January 15, 2010
Politicizing Tragedy and Perverting History
In the aftermath of the disastrous earthquake that hit Haiti, most in the global community are focusing their energies on relief operations and charitable contributions. But as is almost always the case, some political activists are exploiting the tragedy to make a political point. Pat Robertson inexplicably blames the earthquake on a "pact with the devil," referring to Haiti's independence from France in 1804.
The professional hate-monger, Keith Olbermann, used the tragedy to justify the need for healthcare reform in the United States, while calling Rush Limbaugh a "deranged racist" and wishing he "go to hell."
But another, more insidious, strand of politicization that happens to be a staple of left-wingism is quickly taking root: blaming America and Europe for Haiti's plight.
In a New York Times op-ed, author Tracy Kidder uses the tragedy to make a larger point about why Haiti is more vulnerable to natural disasters than wealthier nations. According to Kidder, "the essence of it seems clear enough":
Kidder's interpretation of Haiti's history is oversimplified, misleading, and frankly, perverse. While it is true that the Haitian people (as have all people at some point in history) suffered as a result of slavery and occupation, Haiti's current problems stem not from imperialism but from its inability to establish a durable constitutional republic that respects the Rule of Law and is not susceptible to extreme corruption.
The 1804 Haitian revolution and subsequent independence was marked by a reign of terror at the hands of dictator and despot Jean-Jacques Dessalines, who was assassinated only two years later by disaffected members of his own administration. For decades later, Dessalines was reviled by Haitians for his cruel and autocratic rule, and only began to emerge as an emblem of Haitian nationalism in the 19th century, when generations who suffered under Dessalines died out (one might compare this phenomenon to the recent surge in Joseph Stalin's popularity among Russians).
Since its independence, Haiti has seen over 30 coups, as numerous political factions and dictators vied for power. Contrary to Mr. Kidder's assertion, the United States did not always "aid and abet" indigenous misrule. As a matter of fact, in 1986, the United States arranged the exile of the hated tyrant "Baby Doc" Duvalier, whose family terrorized the Haitian people since 1957. In 1994, U.S. forces peacefully entered Haiti under "Operation Uphold Democracy" to restore the ousted, but democratically elected, Jean-Bertrand Aristide as President. Aristide's administration was inept and corrupt, but not as tyrannical as that of his predecessors. In subsequent years, more coups followed, with the United States often playing the reluctant role of a mediator having to choose the least evil alternative.
Mr. Kidder willfully disregards these facts because they contradict his leftist world view, which holds the West responsible for the plight of third-world countries. He mentions "indigenous misrule" only in passing and in the misleading context of America's "aiding and abetting" such misrule, while irresponsibly downplaying the pervasive tyranny and corruption in Haiti. His message is simple: Haiti and its people are hapless victims. Implicit in Mr. Kidder's thesis, is the notion that Haiti bears absolutely no responsibility for its systemic economic and political failures. As I explained in The Left's Moral Absolutism, victimhood is a dominant theme in the left's world view. You're either the oppressor or the oppressed (master or slave), and if you're the oppressed, your fate is essentially sealed. Of course, this sophomoric explanation doesn't explain why some societies that went through periods of colonialism and slavery (again I stress that all societies have been colonized, oppressed, and enslaved at some point) enjoy more freedom, prosperity, and stability than others. This disparity in wealth despite a similar history is perhaps best illustrated by Haiti's next door neighbor, the Dominican Republic, which is far more prosperous and stable than Haiti.
To deny that political and economic institutions play a vital role in shaping a nation's destiny is to deny history. Yet by blaming America and Europe for Haiti's abject poverty and political instability, and by essentially exonerating Haiti of all responsibility, that is precisely what Mr. Kidder does. He cannot muster enough intellectual honesty to admit that Western institutions, most notably the Rule of Law, property rights, and capitalism, are integral to freedom and prosperity. To Mr. Kidder, institutions are of secondary importance, almost incidental. It's as if sustainable political and economic systems emerge naturally so long as they're not hindered by imperialism and insufficient aid, which are the real culprits:
As the United States devotes unprecedented military and civilian resources, on top of massive treasure, to relieve a tragedy-stricken foreign country, the "blame America first" folks like Mr. Kidder cannot even write a single sentence in praise of America's contributions. Rather, Mr. Kidder uses the tragedy as an opportunity to condemn colonialism, imperialism and slavery as the sole causes of Haiti's suffering.
The professional hate-monger, Keith Olbermann, used the tragedy to justify the need for healthcare reform in the United States, while calling Rush Limbaugh a "deranged racist" and wishing he "go to hell."
But another, more insidious, strand of politicization that happens to be a staple of left-wingism is quickly taking root: blaming America and Europe for Haiti's plight.
In a New York Times op-ed, author Tracy Kidder uses the tragedy to make a larger point about why Haiti is more vulnerable to natural disasters than wealthier nations. According to Kidder, "the essence of it seems clear enough":
Haiti is a country created by former slaves, kidnapped West Africans, who, in 1804, when slavery still flourished in the United States and the Caribbean, threw off their cruel French masters and created their own republic. Haitians have been punished ever since for claiming their freedom: by the French who, in the 1820s, demanded and received payment from the Haitians for the slave colony, impoverishing the country for years to come; by an often brutal American occupation from 1915 to 1934; by indigenous misrule that the American government aided and abetted. (In more recent years American administrations fell into a pattern of promoting and then undermining Haitian constitutional democracy.)
Kidder's interpretation of Haiti's history is oversimplified, misleading, and frankly, perverse. While it is true that the Haitian people (as have all people at some point in history) suffered as a result of slavery and occupation, Haiti's current problems stem not from imperialism but from its inability to establish a durable constitutional republic that respects the Rule of Law and is not susceptible to extreme corruption.
The 1804 Haitian revolution and subsequent independence was marked by a reign of terror at the hands of dictator and despot Jean-Jacques Dessalines, who was assassinated only two years later by disaffected members of his own administration. For decades later, Dessalines was reviled by Haitians for his cruel and autocratic rule, and only began to emerge as an emblem of Haitian nationalism in the 19th century, when generations who suffered under Dessalines died out (one might compare this phenomenon to the recent surge in Joseph Stalin's popularity among Russians).
Since its independence, Haiti has seen over 30 coups, as numerous political factions and dictators vied for power. Contrary to Mr. Kidder's assertion, the United States did not always "aid and abet" indigenous misrule. As a matter of fact, in 1986, the United States arranged the exile of the hated tyrant "Baby Doc" Duvalier, whose family terrorized the Haitian people since 1957. In 1994, U.S. forces peacefully entered Haiti under "Operation Uphold Democracy" to restore the ousted, but democratically elected, Jean-Bertrand Aristide as President. Aristide's administration was inept and corrupt, but not as tyrannical as that of his predecessors. In subsequent years, more coups followed, with the United States often playing the reluctant role of a mediator having to choose the least evil alternative.
Mr. Kidder willfully disregards these facts because they contradict his leftist world view, which holds the West responsible for the plight of third-world countries. He mentions "indigenous misrule" only in passing and in the misleading context of America's "aiding and abetting" such misrule, while irresponsibly downplaying the pervasive tyranny and corruption in Haiti. His message is simple: Haiti and its people are hapless victims. Implicit in Mr. Kidder's thesis, is the notion that Haiti bears absolutely no responsibility for its systemic economic and political failures. As I explained in The Left's Moral Absolutism, victimhood is a dominant theme in the left's world view. You're either the oppressor or the oppressed (master or slave), and if you're the oppressed, your fate is essentially sealed. Of course, this sophomoric explanation doesn't explain why some societies that went through periods of colonialism and slavery (again I stress that all societies have been colonized, oppressed, and enslaved at some point) enjoy more freedom, prosperity, and stability than others. This disparity in wealth despite a similar history is perhaps best illustrated by Haiti's next door neighbor, the Dominican Republic, which is far more prosperous and stable than Haiti.
To deny that political and economic institutions play a vital role in shaping a nation's destiny is to deny history. Yet by blaming America and Europe for Haiti's abject poverty and political instability, and by essentially exonerating Haiti of all responsibility, that is precisely what Mr. Kidder does. He cannot muster enough intellectual honesty to admit that Western institutions, most notably the Rule of Law, property rights, and capitalism, are integral to freedom and prosperity. To Mr. Kidder, institutions are of secondary importance, almost incidental. It's as if sustainable political and economic systems emerge naturally so long as they're not hindered by imperialism and insufficient aid, which are the real culprits:
The usual excuse, that a government like Haiti’s is weak and suffers from corruption, doesn’t hold — all the more reason, indeed, to work with the government. The ultimate goal of all aid to Haiti ought to be the strengthening of Haitian institutions, infrastructure and expertise.Mr. Kidder is right in the sense that foreign aid should be used to strengthen institutions, but his prescription for rescuing Haiti is too vague to be meaningful, since we have no idea what kinds of institutions Mr. Ridder has in mind. Based on his inability to grasp the root cause of Haiti's plight and his attributing all of Haiti's problems to colonialism and slavery, we can only assume that Mr. Kidder is in favor of perpetuating some form of third-world despotism.
As the United States devotes unprecedented military and civilian resources, on top of massive treasure, to relieve a tragedy-stricken foreign country, the "blame America first" folks like Mr. Kidder cannot even write a single sentence in praise of America's contributions. Rather, Mr. Kidder uses the tragedy as an opportunity to condemn colonialism, imperialism and slavery as the sole causes of Haiti's suffering.
Friday, January 8, 2010
The Libertarian's Fatal Conceit
Over the last several years, I have been closely affiliated with the libertarian movement. I worked for the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, a wonderful organization that supports free-market groups around the country. During my time with CGKF, I had many opportunities to communicate with prominent libertarian thinkers, who were highly intelligent and persuasive. I continue to be active in the free-market movement.
Although there are numerous strands of libertarianism, all libertarians are united by the belief that a just government exists to protect individual rights and do little else. On matters of political economy and philosophy, I see eye-to-eye with most libertarians on most issues. However, there is one area that continues to be a major point of contention.
At the risk of generalizing, most libertarians have a special disdain for Republican politicians who do not fight for transformational change. By transformational change libertarians mean a radical departure from our current mixed-economy that boasts a massive welfare state and is constrained by burdensome regulations. Libertarians vehemently oppose the strategy of incrementalism, advocating major leaps in policy instead.
The brilliant libertarian scholar and historian David Boaz, Executive Vice President of the libertarian Cato Institute, once said that he did not think Ronald Reagan was a very good President because he did not abolish the Department of Education or privatize Social Security. The free-market conservative scholars, activists and politicians who helped drive the Reagan Revolution supported these libertarian proposals in theory, but the President and his Cabinet did not attempt to implement them--and as we shall see, for good reasons.
To my shock, David Boaz also noted that many libertarians feel like Thomas Jefferson betrayed the libertarian cause by purchasing Louisiana from Napoleon and waging war against the Barbary pirates of North Africa who were terrorizing and hijacking American merchant ships, and often killing or enslaving the ships' crews.
David Boaz represents the majority of libertarian thinkers who believe that any departure from a pure libertarian ideal is a betrayal of that ideal. Furthermore, libertarians believe that political compromise and pragmatism are convenient cop outs that hinder progress towards greater liberty.
I strongly disagree with this view and it is the primary source of my beef with the libertarian movement.
To begin with, impugning Thomas Jefferson for expanding and significantly strengthening the young and fragile republic is naive, for if it wasn't for Jefferson's vision of an American navy that ultimately subdued the menacing Barbary pirates, America might have been fatally vulnerable to British aggression in the War of 1812. Moreover, do libertarians really believe that the Constitution prohibits the Commander-in-Chief from deploying the military against an enemy with a track record of murdering and enslaving Americans? The Constitution is not a suicide pact and neither the Louisiana Purchase nor the just war against the Barbary pirates violated the Constitution or betrayed America's founding principles.
To castigate Ronald Reagan for not achieving transformational libertarian change seems to me equally foolhardy. The political process is highly complex, and all politicians are constrained by precedents, rules, and procedures that make transformational change very difficult if not impossible. We are witnessing this first hand as the Health Care legislation nears its final stages. Barack Obama (and I would venture to guess most Congressional Democrats) supports a single-payer healthcare system. But due to a plethora of political constraints, neither Barack Obama nor Democratic leaders dared to even seriously consider single-payer. In fact, it appears almost certain that even the so-called public option will not be included in the final healthcare bill. And this is despite the fact that the Democrats have a super-majority in the Senate and a significant majority in the House.
Had Ronald Reagan committed political capital to the goal of abolishing the Department of Education or privatizing Social Security, he would have been thoroughly defeated by the Democrat-controlled House and humiliated. Such an ambitious goal would have made the failure all that more dramatic, and rendered Reagan largely inefficacious for the remainder of his term.
Foregoing this political suicide mission, President Reagan instead chose to eloquently defend the principles of liberty, while fighting for significant, but non-transformational change. He succeeded in lowering taxes, growing our economy, stimulating entrepreneurship, and reining in some wasteful spending.
President Reagan wisely differentiated between idealism and pragmatism. What good is idealism if it doesn't affect positive change? Libertarians resent what they view as Reagan's lackluster efforts to rein in the welfare state, but would the country have been better of if President Reagan unwaveringly embraced idealism at the expense of failing to push through any pro free-market initiatives?
The axiom that we shouldn't make the perfect the enemy of the good should teach libertarians an important political lesson: it is better to fight for incremental change than to stubbornly perpetuate the status quo just because the ideal is unattainable. Libertarians cannot ignore the constraints imposed by the political process, and should not view politicians who compromise in order to advance pro-free market change as spineless, or worse, perfidious. The freedom movement should continue to defend the virtues of laissez-faire capitalism and attack the folly of the welfare state. But libertarians ought to accept the immutable law that in politics, if you allow idealism to trump pragmatism, you will not advance the ideal.
Although there are numerous strands of libertarianism, all libertarians are united by the belief that a just government exists to protect individual rights and do little else. On matters of political economy and philosophy, I see eye-to-eye with most libertarians on most issues. However, there is one area that continues to be a major point of contention.
At the risk of generalizing, most libertarians have a special disdain for Republican politicians who do not fight for transformational change. By transformational change libertarians mean a radical departure from our current mixed-economy that boasts a massive welfare state and is constrained by burdensome regulations. Libertarians vehemently oppose the strategy of incrementalism, advocating major leaps in policy instead.
The brilliant libertarian scholar and historian David Boaz, Executive Vice President of the libertarian Cato Institute, once said that he did not think Ronald Reagan was a very good President because he did not abolish the Department of Education or privatize Social Security. The free-market conservative scholars, activists and politicians who helped drive the Reagan Revolution supported these libertarian proposals in theory, but the President and his Cabinet did not attempt to implement them--and as we shall see, for good reasons.
To my shock, David Boaz also noted that many libertarians feel like Thomas Jefferson betrayed the libertarian cause by purchasing Louisiana from Napoleon and waging war against the Barbary pirates of North Africa who were terrorizing and hijacking American merchant ships, and often killing or enslaving the ships' crews.
David Boaz represents the majority of libertarian thinkers who believe that any departure from a pure libertarian ideal is a betrayal of that ideal. Furthermore, libertarians believe that political compromise and pragmatism are convenient cop outs that hinder progress towards greater liberty.
I strongly disagree with this view and it is the primary source of my beef with the libertarian movement.
To begin with, impugning Thomas Jefferson for expanding and significantly strengthening the young and fragile republic is naive, for if it wasn't for Jefferson's vision of an American navy that ultimately subdued the menacing Barbary pirates, America might have been fatally vulnerable to British aggression in the War of 1812. Moreover, do libertarians really believe that the Constitution prohibits the Commander-in-Chief from deploying the military against an enemy with a track record of murdering and enslaving Americans? The Constitution is not a suicide pact and neither the Louisiana Purchase nor the just war against the Barbary pirates violated the Constitution or betrayed America's founding principles.
To castigate Ronald Reagan for not achieving transformational libertarian change seems to me equally foolhardy. The political process is highly complex, and all politicians are constrained by precedents, rules, and procedures that make transformational change very difficult if not impossible. We are witnessing this first hand as the Health Care legislation nears its final stages. Barack Obama (and I would venture to guess most Congressional Democrats) supports a single-payer healthcare system. But due to a plethora of political constraints, neither Barack Obama nor Democratic leaders dared to even seriously consider single-payer. In fact, it appears almost certain that even the so-called public option will not be included in the final healthcare bill. And this is despite the fact that the Democrats have a super-majority in the Senate and a significant majority in the House.
Had Ronald Reagan committed political capital to the goal of abolishing the Department of Education or privatizing Social Security, he would have been thoroughly defeated by the Democrat-controlled House and humiliated. Such an ambitious goal would have made the failure all that more dramatic, and rendered Reagan largely inefficacious for the remainder of his term.
Foregoing this political suicide mission, President Reagan instead chose to eloquently defend the principles of liberty, while fighting for significant, but non-transformational change. He succeeded in lowering taxes, growing our economy, stimulating entrepreneurship, and reining in some wasteful spending.
President Reagan wisely differentiated between idealism and pragmatism. What good is idealism if it doesn't affect positive change? Libertarians resent what they view as Reagan's lackluster efforts to rein in the welfare state, but would the country have been better of if President Reagan unwaveringly embraced idealism at the expense of failing to push through any pro free-market initiatives?
The axiom that we shouldn't make the perfect the enemy of the good should teach libertarians an important political lesson: it is better to fight for incremental change than to stubbornly perpetuate the status quo just because the ideal is unattainable. Libertarians cannot ignore the constraints imposed by the political process, and should not view politicians who compromise in order to advance pro-free market change as spineless, or worse, perfidious. The freedom movement should continue to defend the virtues of laissez-faire capitalism and attack the folly of the welfare state. But libertarians ought to accept the immutable law that in politics, if you allow idealism to trump pragmatism, you will not advance the ideal.
Monday, January 4, 2010
The Art of Politicization
It wasn't long after the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack that leading conservatives doubled down on questioning the wisdom of President Obama's anti-terror policies, including the closing of Guntanamo Bay and trying terrorists in American criminal courts. Much of the criticism was tempered, addressing legitimate points of controversy over how to keep America safe.
Notably, Barak Obama's foremost critic on national security matters, former Vice President Dick Cheney, was quite harsh in his criticism:
The charge that Dick Cheney is politicizing the war on terror is equally hypocritical. Take for example the unhinged and notorious Bush-hater, Mike Lupika's, latest column in the NYDaily News:
Does Mike Lupika honestly believe that it's only politicization when the right criticizes the left's anti-terror policies, or is he simply intellectually dishonest? Listening to Democrats feign outrage over Dick Cheney's comments while simultaneously blaming George Bush's policies for making us less safe, I think it's a combination of the two. Clearly, Mr. Lupika has bought into the fallacious platitude that the "politics of fear" is a uniquely Republican tactic. But not even Mr. Lupika can be that willfully ignorant.
Instead of debating the merit of Cheney's argument, the left is attacking him for daring to make the argument in the first place, as if national security matters are beyond the scope of debate. Perhaps for the sake of civility and national unity, Cheney should have offered a more subtle line of attack. But certainly, the Democrats have not afforded Dick Cheney or George Bush that same courtesy.
Notably, Barak Obama's foremost critic on national security matters, former Vice President Dick Cheney, was quite harsh in his criticism:
Predictably, Dick Cheney's blunt statement sparked wide outrage among liberals, who accused Dick Cheney and other critics of "politicizing the war on terror." I have written in the past that a favorite left-wing talking point is that Republicans use the "politics of fear" to win elections. I explained that this charge is hypocritical, since virtually every left-wing message--from global warming hysteria to blocking social security reform--is primarily grounded in fear.
As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of Sept. 11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.
He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core Al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office.
The charge that Dick Cheney is politicizing the war on terror is equally hypocritical. Take for example the unhinged and notorious Bush-hater, Mike Lupika's, latest column in the NYDaily News:
As usual it starts with a has-been like Dick Cheney acting as if that war is some party issue, as if the country is somehow more vulnerable to fanatics because Democrats have the White House and the Congress, as if all those who hate America and want to kill Americans see this tremendous opening to do that because Barack Obama is in charge now...Cheney looks at a near tragedy on Christmas and sees opportunity. When he does, he doesn't just sound like some old crank in the park. He sounds like a bum.So there you have it: Dick Cheney is out of line for suggesting that Obama is making America less safe and using the incident as an "opportunity" to attack the President. But Lupika's indignation belies the fact that the left has consistently and unrelentingly politicized every element of George Bush's national security agenda, arguing that Guantanamo Bay has made us less safe and more vulnerable to attack, as has The Iraq War, the NSA Surveillance program, CIA interrogations, etc. In fact, in a stroke of brilliant irony, Mr. Lupika repeats some of these charges in the same breath as he declares that "war isn't a party issue":
He [Cheney] acts now as if the last administration were some kind of triumph, as if the economy collapsed on somebody else's watch the way the towers of the World Trade Center did.Did you get Lupika's not-so-veiled attack on the Bush Administration, implying that George Bush is accountable for 9/11 because it happened on his watch? Adding that "the America Obama inherited is hated more now than it was pre-Bush," Mr. Lupika is blatantly politicizing the war on terror in an article condemning the politicization of the war on terror.
Does Mike Lupika honestly believe that it's only politicization when the right criticizes the left's anti-terror policies, or is he simply intellectually dishonest? Listening to Democrats feign outrage over Dick Cheney's comments while simultaneously blaming George Bush's policies for making us less safe, I think it's a combination of the two. Clearly, Mr. Lupika has bought into the fallacious platitude that the "politics of fear" is a uniquely Republican tactic. But not even Mr. Lupika can be that willfully ignorant.
Instead of debating the merit of Cheney's argument, the left is attacking him for daring to make the argument in the first place, as if national security matters are beyond the scope of debate. Perhaps for the sake of civility and national unity, Cheney should have offered a more subtle line of attack. But certainly, the Democrats have not afforded Dick Cheney or George Bush that same courtesy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)