Anti-Bushites for Bush

"If you don't agree or understand my point of view please feel free to give me a good reason to vote for Bush????? Because I really want to understand why the good people of this country would feel comfortable with re-electing this 'War' president?"

That is the closing plea from an anti-Bush (not pro-Kerry) email my wife received from a friend in New Mexico. I won't reprint it, but it was a series of one-liners critical of the president's faith, "his" war, missing WMD, the Patriot Act, the "worst economical state that our country has ever been in, and others.

This is an ideal segue for the blog I've been musing since I read Robert Tracinski's essay, "Anti-Bushites for Bush" in the September issue of The Intellectual Activist. (Full article available only in the by-subscription print edition.)

How can we support a president who defended Yasser Arafat from the Israelis in 2002; or subordinated America's national defense to the whims of the UN for over a year, delaying the inevitable and unavoidable invasion of Iraq; or worst of all, capitulated to 'negotiated settlements' with terrorists in Najaf and Fallujah, thereby forfeiting all the progress made before that toward destroying them? The answer to this question is predicated by the answer to another question: What is our alternative? Tracinski writes:

"If Bush faced a pro-war opponent, a politician who promised to crush the insurgents and confront their sponsors in Iran and Syria, we would endorse him without hesitation."

But Bush does deserve some credit: For the "Bush Doctrine" which demands that the other nations of the world choose sides, either with us on the side of civilization or with the terrorists on the side of tyranny and slaughter; and for his "forward strategy of freedom." Again, from Tracinski:

"The "forward strategy of freedom" is the name Bush has given to his grand strategy - the administration's highest plan of action - in the War on Terrorism. It is a grand strategy that necessarily puts America into conflict with its chief enemies, committing us to spreading representative government and free institutions to overhaul the political system of the Middle East.

September 11 demonstrated that it is necessary to topple and destroy the Middle Eastern regimes that use terrorism as a weapon against the West - the principle behind the Bush Doctrine. President Bush has applied that doctrine to two regimes, and though he deserves criticism for not doing more, he deserves credit for doing that much.

But even military campaigns are not enough, over the long term. Even if President Bush applied the Bush Doctrine consistently (against Iran and Syria) and backed it up with the maximum force available, that would still leave the question: then what? What would prevent the re-emergence of new terrorist regimes to replace the old ones?

The only long-term answer is that the Arab and Muslim worlds must be civilized. They must have imposed on them a better system of government, one that allows, for the first time in the Arab world, the material vibrancy of a relatively free economy and the spiritual vibrancy of the free exchange of ideas. This would do exactly what the clashing examples of East Berlin and West Berlin did in the Cold War: it would provide an unanswerable demonstration of the benefits of a free society on one side, contrasted to misery and oppression on the other side. To replace at least a few despotic Middle Eastern regimes with relatively free governments is the most important thing that can be done in the military and political realm to defeat the philosophy that animates Islamic terrorism."

And how does this contrast with the alternative view offered by Kerry? Tracinski:

"The unfortunate choice is this. George W. Bush is a candidate who stands for a vigorous projection of American power to reshape the political structure of the Middle East, destroying the political underpinnings of Islamic terrorism - whose execution of that goal is continually undercut by compromise and appeasement. John Kerry is a candidate who stands for American withdrawal and passivity - for whom any expression of American strength would be an act of compromise.

George W. Bush cannot be trusted to fight the war properly, but John Kerry can be trusted to surrender."

My wife's friend wrote, "Your vote will affect my children's children." In this election like few others, she is preciselly correct. And that is why it is so critical that we stay the course we have begun. The War on Terrorism is a war of self-defense. Like the great wars before it, America was drawn into it by tyrannical acts from beyond our borders. It's conduct was mandated by others. The resolve to win it must be ours. We must all vote to keep the president in office. To do otherwise would truly be acting in the nature of an ostrich.

Tracinski's essay goes on to explain the ramifications of being Anti-Bushites for Bush.

"Both parts of the slogan 'Anti-Bushites for Bush' imply the need for sustained action. By being 'for Bush,' I meant that we should actively advocate and promote Bush's re-election, but do so on specific, narrow grounds: that it would be a disaster to retreat in the War on Terrorism. But we should also be prepared, after the election, to immediately and vigorously oppose everything that is wrong with the Bush agenda - to demand that he live up to his fierce rhetoric in prosecuting the war, and to oppose his attempts to expand the welfare state and to inject religion into politics."

It is an excellent essay, and TIA is an excellent monthly journal. I highly recommend it.

Posted by JohnGalt at October 30, 2004 11:17 AM