![]() |
The Weblog at The View from the Core - Friday, October 22, 2004
|
More Than an Election Hangs in the Balance "The election of John Kerry will serve notice to every terrorist in every cave that the soft underbelly of American power is the timidity of American voters." Thanks to Mark for forwarding this to me. An article by Matthew Manweller, Ph.D., of the political science department at Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA, it first appeared in their local newspaper, Oct. 15. + + + + + In that this will be my last column before the presidential election, there will be no sarcasm, no attempts at witty repartee. The topic is too serious, and the stakes are too high. 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. If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out the current occupant of the White House, the message to the world and ourselves will be two-fold. First, we will reject the notion that America can do big things. Once a nation that tamed a frontier, stood down the Nazis and walked upon the moon, we will announce to the world that bringing democracy to the Middle East is too big a task for us. But more significantly, we will signal to future presidents that as voters, we are unwilling to tackle difficult challenges, preferring caution to boldness, embracing the mediocrity that has characterized other civilizations. 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 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 who 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. They learned that a wounded America can become a defeated America. Twenty-four hour news stations and daily tracing polls will do the heavy lifting, turning a cut into a fatal blow. Except that Iraq is Somalia times 10. The election of John Kerry will serve notice to every terrorist in every cave that the soft underbelly of American power is the timidity of American voters. Terrorists will know that a steady stream of grizzly photos for CNN is all you need to break the will of the American people. Our own self-doubt will take it from there. Bin Laden will recognize that he can topple any American administration without setting foot on the homeland. It is said that America's WWII generation is its "greatest generation." But my greatest fear is that it will become known as America's "last generation." Born in the bleakness of the Great Depression and hardened in the fire of WWII, they may be the last American generation that understands the meaning of duty, honor, and sacrifice. It is difficult to admit, but I know these terms are spoken with only hollow detachment by many (but not all) in my generation. Too many citizens today mistake "living in America" as "being an American." But America has always been more of an idea than a place. When you sign on, you do more than buy real estate. You accept a set of values and responsibilities. This November, my generation, which has been absent too long, must grasp that 100 years from now, historians will look back at the election of 2004 and see it as the decisive election of our century. Depending on the outcome, they will describe it as the moment America joined the ranks of ordinary nations; or they will describe it as the moment the prodigal sons and daughters of the greatest generation accepted their burden as caretakers of the City on the Hill. + + + + + The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes. Lane Core Jr. CIW P Fri. 10/22/04 08:46:51 PM |
The Daschle Dilemma? Is he either ineligible to the Senate from South Dakota or a criminal? See A Lawsuit Waiting to Happen? Lane Core Jr. CIW P Fri. 10/22/04 08:09:19 PM |
"Remaining Pro-Life in the Political Arena" An address by Robert P. Casey, April 6, 1995. At the website of Democrats for Life of America: .... You know, I've asked this question before, but I must ask it again. Since when does America, the strongest, the most powerful country in the world, abandon in despair an entire class of people the most defenseless, innocent, and vulnerable members of the human family? How can we justify with our experience in this country our tradition, our heritage, our history how can we justify writing off the unborn child in a country which prides itself on leaving no one out and no one behind? You see, I believe the American people know the answer to these questions. They know that abortion is not worthy of a great nation. It's like few other issues we've ever faced, when you think about it. Other causes demand commitment, abortion demands complicity. Other causes survive by energy and attention. The survival of the abortion industry and it [is] an industry depends upon avoidance and silence. Look at our history. All the great causes have marched under proud banners and declaratory words that summon people to action. But this cause goes under eerie, elusive euphemisms; like "choice". They talk about the "procedure" and they talk about "termination". Antiseptic words. Words stripped of their humanity. Politically correct words that are, oh so careful not to be offensive. Other ages faced the tragedy of abortion, but at least they recognized it as a tragedy. Ours alone and think about this ours alone has dared to call it a "social good". Ours alone has dared to call the victim a "thing", the act a "service", the perpetrator a "provider". Ours alone has made abortion not only a right, but a lucrative industry. And what decent society can live with that?... Lane Core Jr. CIW P Fri. 10/22/04 07:37:48 PM |
Nostalgie Pour la Boue By Gerard Van der Leun at American Digest: Listening to John Kerry whip out his plodding French to pander to the sad Haitian vote yesterday [Thu. Oct. 21] put me in a nostalgic frame of mind. I lived in France for a number of years. I have a lot of French friends. My daughter was conceived in France. I lived in Aix, Paris, and along the Western Front. Unlike others, not all my thoughts of France are negative. But when I consider what the Democratic Party's perverted primary process disgorged as their offering in this year's election, and when I listen to half of it spout execrable French and the other half denigrate mothers and librarians after a career of hunting billionaires to extinction, it brings out the French in me. When I hear Kerry-Heinz speak, I think "Ah, nostalgie pour la boue." They say that their campaign is about the future. It's not. It is about the past; about nostalgie pour la boue.... (Thanks, Charles.) Lane Core Jr. CIW P Fri. 10/22/04 06:28:14 PM |
Chaput Calls Kerry a Coward With No Integrity Okay. Not really. But this is as close as anything will ever get to that. With simple truths stated forthrightly, Denver's archbishop Charles Chaput writes at the New York Times (!) today. + + + + + The theologian Karl Barth once said, "To clasp the hands in prayer is the beginning of an uprising against the disorder of the world." That saying comes to mind as the election approaches and I hear more lectures about how Roman Catholics must not "impose their beliefs on society" or warnings about the need for "the separation of church and state." These are two of the emptiest slogans in current American politics, intended to discourage serious debate. No one in mainstream American politics wants a theocracy. Nor does anyone doubt the importance of morality in public life. Therefore, we should recognize these slogans for what they are: frequently dishonest and ultimately dangerous sound bites. Lawmaking inevitably involves some group imposing its beliefs on the rest of us. That's the nature of the democratic process. If we say that we "ought" to do something, we are making a moral judgment. When our legislators turn that judgment into law, somebody's ought becomes a "must" for the whole of society. This is not inherently dangerous; it's how pluralism works. Democracy depends on people of conviction expressing their views, confidently and without embarrassment. This give-and-take is an American tradition, and religious believers play a vital role in it. We don't serve our country in fact we weaken it intellectually if we downplay our principles or fail to speak forcefully out of some misguided sense of good manners. People who support permissive abortion laws have no qualms about imposing their views on society. Often working against popular opinion, they have tried to block any effort to change permissive abortion laws since the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. That's fair. That's their right. But why should the rules of engagement be different for citizens who oppose those laws? Catholics have an obligation to work for the common good and the dignity of every person. We see abortion as a matter of civil rights and human dignity, not simply as a matter of religious teaching. We are doubly unfaithful - both to our religious convictions and to our democratic responsibilities - if we fail to support the right to life of the unborn child. Our duties to social justice by no means end there. But they do always begin there, because the right to life is foundational. For Catholics to take a "pro-choice" view toward abortion contradicts our identity and makes us complicit in how the choice plays out. The "choice" in abortion always involves the choice to end the life of an unborn human being. For anyone who sees this fact clearly, neutrality, silence or private disapproval are not options. They are evils almost as grave as abortion itself. If religious believers do not advance their convictions about public morality in public debate, they are demonstrating not tolerance but cowardice. The civil order has its own sphere of responsibility, and its own proper autonomy, apart from the church or any other religious community. But civil authorities are never exempt from moral engagement and criticism, either from the church or its members. The founders themselves realized this. The founders sought to prevent the establishment of an official state church. Given America's history of anti-Catholic nativism, Catholics strongly support the Constitution's approach to religious freedom. But the Constitution does not, nor was it ever intended to, prohibit people or communities of faith from playing an active role in public life. Exiling religion from civic debate separates government from morality and citizens from their consciences. That road leads to politics without character, now a national epidemic. Words are cheap. Actions matter. If we believe in the sanctity of life from conception to natural death, we need to prove that by our actions, including our political choices. Anything less leads to the corruption of our integrity. Patriotism, which is a virtue for people of all faiths, requires that we fight, ethically and nonviolently, for what we believe. Claiming that "we don't want to impose our beliefs on society" is not merely politically convenient; it is morally incoherent and irresponsible. As James 2:17 reminds us, in a passage quoted in the final presidential debate, "Faith without works is dead." It is a valid point. People should act on what they claim to believe. Otherwise they are violating their own conscience, and lying to themselves and the rest of us. Charles J. Chaput is the archbishop of Denver. + + + + + The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes. Lane Core Jr. CIW P Fri. 10/22/04 06:08:51 PM |
"I'm a Democrat for Bush" So says Sarah Baxter at The London Times, Oct. 17: .... Thanks to my mother, a lifelong Democrat from the swing state of Ohio, I have dual citizenship. I live in New York now and will be casting my vote in America for the first time. My decision is based on a straightforward proposition: I do not want the global jihadists and women-hating fundamentalists to be celebrating Bush’s defeat. They do not deserve to win, even if Bush deserves to lose, a position I am not quite willing to concede. Tax cuts for the rich? Kerry can roll them back with my blessing. It is not a matter that affects me greatly. The deficit? Perhaps he will reduce it, though I’m sceptical. Abortion rights? By all means, let’s hang on to them. Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research? Good idea, I hope it works. Health? I would love to see more people insured. The death penalty? I’m against it even for terrorists, which puts me to the left of the Democrat candidate. But, if Bush is ousted, there will be victory celebrations across the undemocratic Arab world. More “martyrs” will step forward, eager to play their part in the decline of the West. The fundamentalists are playing a long game: is Kerry? I suppose pollsters could classify me as a “security mom”: I have two children, aged four and seven. After the attacks of September 11, I feared we were entering a new, war-torn century. The peaceful years of my childhood, in contrast to the violence experienced by my parents’ generation, suddenly looked like the historic aberration. I was standing next to the World Trade Center, gazing in horror at the torment above, when the towers collapsed. I was showered with pulverised masonry and the ashes of nearly 3,000 people. I decided fairly quickly that America was a beacon of freedom that needed defending against the anti-western, freedom-hating religious bigots and death cultists. I am determined my children will grow up in a world of increasing democracy where terrorists are captured, tyrants overthrown. When Bush said in last week’s debate: “We can be safe and secure if we go on the offence against terrorism and if we spread liberty around the world,” I felt he spoke with conviction. When Kerry said he was going to “hunt and kill” the terrorists, I heard a politician’s soundbite.... .... As for Kerry, he has been sounding more and more cynical with each passing suicide and car bomb. He is giving Iraqi insurgents — who, true to their form under Saddam, relish killing their own people most of all — every reason to step up their attacks in the hope of sabotaging their own elections and replacing Bush in the White House. It is the behaviour of a politician with more ambition than conscience. Kerry’s comment that Saddam would “not necessarily” be in power today if Bush had not gone to war made me think back to 1991, when I was at the New Statesman. I was virtually the only person there who thought that the ruler of Iraq’s “republic of fear” should be kicked out of Kuwait. Kerry voted against the 1991 Gulf war, despite his present blather about the United Nations, global tests and international alliances. There could not have been a broader coalition then. Had Kerry been president, Saddam would not only be in power today; he would be richer, more powerful and running Kuwait.... Lane Core Jr. CIW P Fri. 10/22/04 05:58:34 PM |
Interesting Examination of the Evidence for John Kerry's Intelligence And compared to George W. Bush's. An insightful beginning to this article by Steve Sailer at VDARE, yesterday: .... On this tenth anniversary of the publication of the much-denounced The Bell Curve, it's amusing to reflect on one of the enduring ironies of American political life. Liberals tend to believe two things about IQ: Lane Core Jr. CIW P Fri. 10/22/04 05:29:21 PM |
Re: Group of Billionaires A reader writes: If I remember my Roman History aright, in the last decades of the republic, the "plebian" cause was bankrolled and championed by the Roman super rich who used the plebes to take on the more patrician senatorial party. I think at one point Cato was the leading figure in this effort. And why were these rich guys so into helping the little guy? The plebes were much easer to manipulate and buy off than their more upper crust fellow citizens. I know the analogy is a bit weak as 21st Cent. American politics are a lot different from those of the dying Roman Republic, but I think in this case a similar motivation may be at work where those with vast fortunes try to turn their wealth into political power. Lane Core Jr. CIW P Fri. 10/22/04 07:30:52 AM |
Black-Robed Masters Strike Again Earl Appleby blogs at Life Matters! yesterday: Reuters reports today that the Florida Supreme Court has refused to reconsider its 7-0 ruling overturning Terri's Law, a state statute supported by Gov. Jeb Bush that put a halt to the forced fatal starvation of Terri Schindler Schiavo by her unfaithful husband. In a 4-3 opinion, the court rejected a request by Bush's attorneys to rehear the case. The court ruled unanimously last month against the hastily crafted law that prevented Michael Schiavo from withholding food and water from his wife, Terri. She has been on life support since suffering a heart attack in 1990. It is not known what action Gov. Bush will take next to continue to protect Terri's life from Florida's killer courts. According to Bush spokeswoman Jill Bratina, "Our lawyers are looking at the legal options before us. We will be looking to make a decision on our next step very soon," possibly today.... Hey, Jeb! Here's an idea for ya! Grow some balls, stand up for justice, and tell the judges to shove it. That's what you are there for! As I wrote a year ago today:
Lane Core Jr. CIW P Fri. 10/22/04 07:10:02 AM |
Nelson Ascher @ EuroPundits Two monumental blogs. First, The Future? Oct. 2: .... A Kerry presidency will, at best, resemble Clinton’s and, at worst, Carter’s. It was during both these administrations that several dangers were allowed to grow and get out of control. Clinton was responsible for not taking them seriously as, by the way, Reagan and the first Bush were too. Carter on the other hand saw not only those specific dangers, as in the case of the Iranian Revolution, but even the Cold War (and its last chapter, the invasion of Afghanistan) through his own prism. According to him all was America’s fault. The most active ideologists of the Democratic party think exactly like that. Now, the WoT is winnable. One can make many mistakes and still come out the winner. Israel’s case is the best example. The Israeli’s left most remarkable victory took place in 82, when Peace Now began acting and managed to hinder Sharon’s plan to destroy the PLO completely in Lebanon. But that was only the first disaster. Then came Oslo, then Israel’s political and diplomatic establishments came under European influence. But, when in 2000 the war began for keeps, the Israelis, though slowly, changed their minds and went on to fight for their country’s existence. For over twenty years we’ve been hearing that terrorism is the result of legitimate grievances that have to be addressed and that, anyway, there’s no military solution for it. For over twenty years the Israeli liberal establishment and its MSM have avoided saying that the country was under Jihadist attack. For over twenty years there has been talk there about the necessity to distinguish between a fanatical minority and a moderate majority of Palestinians. Though all these mistakes didn’t doom Israel, they made the whole thing terribly costlier in lives and money. Does the same apply to the US? Probably. A substantial part of its population is still unconvinced of the nature of the dangers. That means that there’s the probability of an administration being elected that will begin to retreat in all significant fronts. As a result, the Jihadists will get a badly needed respite, they will regroup and launch their counteroffensive. Then the Americans will be reminded about who their enemy is and will either force the administration to act or will vote in a different one in the next elections. In the meanwhile, the US mainland will be imperiled and the human and financial costs of fighting the Jihadists will sky-rocket. Still, the US is a big, rich and powerful nation and maybe it can afford such losses. However emboldened the Jihadists become in the short-term, in the long one the odds are against them. Blame has to be laid at the door of the current administration. The truth is: it hasn’t been candid with the American people due both to lingering political correctness and to some kind of elitism. Thanks to the first, I’m coming to believe, it didn’t objectively define the central enemy, a Muslim but mainly Arab movement based on extreme nationalism and a supremacist religion. Thanks to the second, the administration didn’t think it fit to present the whole data to the public. In ways similar to what the MSM did, Bush and his people didn’t want to exacerbate the American population’s anger. They talked much less to the general public than was needed. I understand how complex the game is, how they tried to avoid being branded “Islamophobic”, how much they didn’t want to alienate potential Muslim allies or even Old Europe.... Second, Why I Won't Vote for Bush, Oct. 20: .... I remember when a friend of mine came to visit me, maybe 15 years ago, with the newest issue of “Veja”, the Brazilian equivalent of Time magazine. He was outraged. That had to do with a teenage girl who lived in one of Sao Paulo’s most exclusive residential closed suburb had been gang-raped and killed. No, it wasn’t the crime that outraged my friend, but the fact that the magazine gave the story its cover-page. You see, he told me, had it been a poor black girl from the slums, she wouldn’t have made it even to the magazine’s most hidden page. I told him: of course not, but it’s not the slum-dwellers who subscribe to “Veja” and if such a thing can happen in the town’s wealthiest place, that’s a sign things are getting really bad and that’s news. I also told him: if you happen to find a roach at night in your kitchen, that means there’s at least one roach in your house. But if you find one at high noon in your living-room you can be sure your house’s roach-infested. That’s one of the meanings of 9/11. That you cannot be safe in Darfur or Beirut, in the Phillipines or Indonesia, that’s a problem. But if you can be murdered by Islamic terrorists while you’re on the top floor of the WTC, then that’s not a problem anymore. That’s much bigger. The progressive idea was to turn, for instance, Beirut into NY. If that’s not being accomplished, this is bad enough. But when people start turning NY into Beirut, we’re definitely moving backwards. And fast. An attack that manages to ground all US and most of the world’s air traffic and close down the stock markets around the planet is something qualitatively different from a bomb in an Ulster pub. Human life is fragile, so is democracy, the world economy, globalization etc. The US can absorb U$ 1 trillion in damages. The rest of the world cannot. The US can survive a nuke in Manhattan. Brazil can survive a nuke in Sao Paulo. But Brazil cannot survive a nuke in Manhattan. What most of the world’s anti-Americans fail to understand is that whatever harms deeply the US harms us even more. Were Africa to suddenly disappear, it wouldn’t make much of a change in the life of New Yorkers. Were NY to disappear, Africa would go along. So, this is what I have to say for those who think that Americans have overreacted to 9/11. Actually they have under-reacted. One more attack on America and Latin America will be condemned to a further hundred years of solitude and misery.... Lane Core Jr. CIW P Fri. 10/22/04 06:56:57 AM |
A Western Heart (Thanks, Bill.) Lane Core Jr. CIW P Fri. 10/22/04 06:27:41 AM |
The Blog from the Core © 2002-2008 E. L. Core. All rights reserved. |
Previous | Week | Next |