Fault of the Fringe
Practically every major political error in this country is caused by tension between the fringes of the Left and the Right. Both sides are unmovable in their respective beliefs that the opposing fringe is made up of myopic ideologues bent on destroying America. Pat Robertson & Co. are engaged in an epic battle with Maureen Dowd and her uterus. The irony is that it never occurs to these people that they're all the same. Pacifists like Cindy Sheehan will never realize that they are cut from the same cloth as hawks like George Bush. This sideshow harpy is a hypocrite, plain and simple.
George Bush:
- Gained the sympathy of the world as the result of a terrible tragedy (September 11).
- Exploited that sympathy to advance a political agenda (war in Iraq) that he could not have credibly advanced, barring said tragedy.
- As a result, Bush is morally culpable for his exploitation.
Cindy Sheehan:
- Gained the sympathy of the world as the result of a terrible tragedy (death of Casey Sheehan).
- Exploited that sympathy to advance a political agenda (Move On anti-war effort) that she could not have advanced, barring said tragegy.
- As a result, Sheehan is morally culpable for her exploitation.
Americans gave Cindy Sheehan their attention not because we agreed with the political agenda she has been trying to slip us, but because we felt for her. Honestly, how could you not? She lost her son and wants to know why, as one fellow poster put it. But Cindy apparently believes that our sympathy is license to dictate foreign policy to the rest of us. She uses her son as a shield against those who would point out the implications of her shortsighted demand that American troops be immediately withdrawn from Iraq just as President Bush resorts to 9/11 whenever he is confronted with failures in Baghdad. Without a dead son to thrust into the public eye, Cindy Sheehan is nothing more than another California yuppie with a very convenient belief in pacifism.
So here's the crux of my point. Those of us between the fringes are responsible for both the war and the advent of Sideshow Cindy. Back in 2003, the Great Moderate Middle America was straight up duped. We allowed our unrequited anger over 9/11 to get the best of us. We cast better judgment aside and followed the Fringe Right into a pre-planned war that had nothing to do with the cause of our anger...and as everyone in this country knows, we never would have tolerated this misadventure without a 9/11.
I honest to God fear that we are in the process of being duped again, only this time by the Fringe Left. The only possible decision that might be worse than engaging in an unjustified war would be to prematurely withdraw from it, as Cindy Sheehan and her mob insist that we do. Americans are seeing a lot of flag-draped caskets these days and as President Bush's pollster can tell you, we don't like it. Regardless, we cannot indulge our anger yet again and concede Iraq to the Islamo-fascists who caused 9/11 to begin with. Imagine the Taliban controlling the very heart of the Muslim world and having designs on the rest of it. The Cindy Sheehans of the world are content to allow such a disaster and then condemn the repressive Islamist state that inevitably arises as a result. If you need any proof of this, look to the Left's strenuous paper campaign against the repression in Taliban Afghanistan. They opposed what was happening there, but condemned in even stronger terms anyone who wanted to do anything about it. Individuals who intentionally divorce ideals from their implications cannot be trusted with the conduct of policy.
A buddy of mine made a good point tonight. The only people capable of running this country properly will never get elected. People just don't vote for moderates. I dunno...I still hold out a glimmer of hope for a John McCain to come to the rescue in '08 or at the very least, for the moderate middle to grow a pair and take America back. Dammit.
posted by Your Friendly Neighborhood Clark Bar at 9/28/2005 02:07:00 PM
Subscribe to Tommy Lawyer
10 Comments:
Wouldn't moderation be a lovely thing?
But sadly, it may never happen. the idiot fringe has money, power, righteous indignation and a whole lot of free time. The moderates are busy keeping the ship from sinking, the economy afloat and the radical fringes from tearing the country in two. We're busy people.
Also, it's tough to get a moderate elected because most moderates would never put themselves, their families and their reputations thru a major election mud and all. They know they can do more good in the Senate, House and Gov. Mansions, so they stay there, do their part and retire always wishing they could have done more.
But lastly, as much as my communication degrees hate to say it, the media is partly to blame. Where's the story when Chris Shays starts a bi-partisan bill to end poverty? Nowhere. But when Kennedy or Robertson or Biden or Cheney or Bush spouts off at the mouth there always seems to be a camera around. There is a lot of good work being done in D.C. by moderates fighting like hell to keep their heads above water, but no one ever hears about it.
But I'll climb down from my soap box now and return to the grind of keeping good people in office.
Media's to blame....and the nature of the primary system. We need to go back to conventions, though that'll never happen.
i thought primaries were bad before, then i met a lifetime republican who is a pretty powerful guy in Iowa, says he'd rather lose the White House in '08 than let McCain win in Iowa. All because of ethanol.
Ethanol is my newest four letter word.
Clark, I'm shocked and dismayed. I'd always given you the benefit of the doubt that you were way to smart to see McCain as nothing but a showboating opportunist. he's not interested in anything but headlines. If he had a belief structure, I'd support him. Instead, he's a maverick on parade only out for exposure, not for any real, positive change. You're right that we need a true moderate who can lead, and I may not know who that is (Romney, perhaps?) but I do know that is not the good Senator from Arizona.
My pining for a McCain presidency has never been a secret. I voted for him in the 2000 primary and I'd do it again. Political belief structures are crap. I prefer the pragmatist to the idealist. If that makes a man a maverick, willing to buck the party line when one believes its rigidity is hurting the wellbeing of the nation, then call me a damn maverick too.
ROMNEY?!?!? That's the craziest thing I've ever heard. Here's why:
People who vote in primaries are usually hard core party loyalists. In today's America, many hard core Reps are christian conservatives from the South and the Midwest. Polling shows that many of these voters wouldn't vote for a Mormon candidate, cult like was the phrase most often selected from the list.
Romney doesn't have it, and he won't be able to find it by Iowa.
I don't agree that McCain is not an idealist, and I certainly don't agree with Anonymous that he's a showboating opportunist with no belief structure. His belief structure doesn't fit any ideological template, which is why he and Giuliani probably can't win the Republican nomination.
By the way, a lot of conservatives would also support a moderate with leadership qualities, but other than McCain and Giuliani, I don't see any.
Yeah...Kinda hoping the crazies split the primary vote next time around. Gives those two more of a chance.
Like I said, McCain could do it. But even if Giuliani runs his pro-choice, pro-gun control views coupled with the fact that he's from New York City (say it like the Pace commercial) will not do him any favors in a primary. It's too bad, but those are the breaks.
Post a Comment
<< Home