[lit-ideas] Re: forward from a friend

Hi,
 
After having read previous to my family's fussing over the fact that I have  
asked for sources, I would ask the same for these guys--though at least they 
are  saying it is their opinion.  
 
(My family, btw, is still not speaking/writing to me. We were heading East  
to DC in October, but have decided to finish remodeling the basement instead or 
 go to NYC to visit my son's uncle on the other side...<sigh>)  
 
I also enclose (after a couple of thoughts) the end of an article from the  
American Conservative (Pat Buchanan's group--who I used to think was almost as  
far-right as one could go--until the neo-cons came in.  As someone on the  
list [Andreas?] pointed out, this organization is NOT endorsing Bush this  
year...and several of their articles, as I read what is available without  
joining, 
make extremely good arguments [most with sources <g>] as to  why.  Granted, I 
would have preferred John Edwards over John Kerry--I think  he is extremely 
creative, can play the 'religious card' [so to speak <wry  look>], has passion 
for Others [did anyone read as how he refused to cross a  firefighter's picket 
line recently?]--and especially for children [as  demonstrated by his 
family's committment to the technology center they have  created, funded and 
even 
volunteer at....], has a clue as to why what he does  for a living is important 
[not just for people who are victims of  medical malpractice, but for those who 
have been victims of neglect  and abuse in nursing homes--for even the feds 
have stated that only the threat  of a lawsuit makes them even come close to 
complying with regulations...and even  there they will try to cut as many 
corners as possible...], etc. etc.
 
I agree that those who might have affected John Kerry's campaign in a  
positive way have NOT done so.  And, I do not know why.  Whether it is  because 
the 
Bush Campaign just appears to have been able to outdistance the  Kerry 
Campaign and a 'normal' Republican would not have done so, I don't  know.  
(Think of 
the $$ the Bush campaign has--given to it because of the  cronyism and 
wonderful paybacks they or their companies receive...)
 
I have also looked at John Kerry's life and have come to see that this  is a 
man who has gone through incredible personal growth and  development--and has 
learned while doing it.  Yes, he began his career  wanting to jump from point 
C to point R without going through the steps  inbetween.  But, perhaps because 
that is and has been his  life lesson, he shifted and then went through the 
steps the hard way...Thus  I have problems with this:
 
 "And then don't forget this: John Kerry grew up among the remnants  of, and 
has openly craved to be a part of, the old WASP value system in which  losing 
gracefully-especially to a 
rhetorically and culturally coarse or  barbaric opponent-is considered to be 
almost as good as winning. "
 
No.  When he came back from Vietnam, he DID try to do what he could to  get 
people out of an awful situation.  He also co-created the only  
Congressionally-sanctioned Vietnam Veterans' organization--and that 
organization  has done 
far far more to assist Vietnam vets than any other veteran  organization.  (I 
read all of what they have done--it is pretty remarkable.  And, John Kerry was 
one of the co-creators who traveled the country setting it  up...)   
 
After that, he DID have a dream of affecting change by running for public  
office--and was soundly beaten.  He then did things the 'hard way'--step by  
step.  He entered law school and eventually ran for assistant prosecutor  and 
then step-by-step worked his way upward.  
 
So, I am not sure where the opinion is coming from in that article--IF they  
bothered to look at his record, they would see that often that is what he does 
 not--look at things in a step-by-step sort of way.  And, that is very much  
a way to get things done (though not as exciting as say GWB who never held a  
'regular' job in all his life as far as I can tell...)
 
But, this is what was most fascinating and which might give your friends  
(don't recommend sending it to relatives unless you want to be chopped 
off...not  
that it matters much--but it does hurt.  I was pretty much looked at oddly  
as I am the only 'liberal arts' type in the family who has the reputation of  
thinking 'too deeply'--which came in handy the past two years as my son and I  
have driven and assisted a member greatly and walked them through a horrific  
crisis.  (We have lost friends over that one--those who could not  understand 
why we would basically put our lives on hold in order to assist--but  there 
really was no one else who could have done what we did--and both my son  and I 
agreed that we would pay the cost and that it was worth it.  The  'gift' in 
return was the thanks from the rest of the clan who also mentioned  that they 
finally understood why I had been born into the family with the rest  of them 
<wry look>)  But, they alll ought to have learned by now that  documentation is 
important unless one clearly states that it is mere opinion and  thoughtful (or 
not-so-thoughtful) musings...  We are in an "Oh, well"  situation in my house 
now...(You know...if you say 'Oh, Well" long enough and  loud enough 
internally, you will give your subconsious time to adjust and calm  your 
conscious 
mind so that you can just move on...<g>)
 
 
But, here is an argument as to WHY KERRY...and written by one of the  
Conservative Types...The article is actually pretty interesting as a whole, but 
 I 
only pass on the end of the article here...(And, actually, some of this is the  
same as what John M wrote...)
 
Marlena in Missouri
_http://www.amconmag.com/2004_09_13/cover.html_ 
(http://www.amconmag.com/2004_09_13/cover.html) 
September 13, 2004 issue
Copyright © 2004 The  American Conservative
Misreading the 9/11  Report
Victory in the War on Terror depends less on homeland security than global  
collaboration.
By Paul W.  Schroeder
 
 
"...Some weeks ago, an editor of this journal  asked readers to respond to 
this question: what should voters who generally  oppose Kerry and the Democrats 
and favor Bush and the Republicans on social and  domestic issues, but oppose 
Bush on Iraq and foreign policy, do on November 2?  
The differences between Bush and Kerry in  personal qualities, beliefs, and 
abilities, though important, need not be  decisive here, and the differences in 
their announced programs, goals, and  policies for Iraq and elsewhere are 
notoriously not that far apart. But this  commissionâ??s analysis and 
recommendations call for major change on the  foreign-policy side of the 
struggle against 
terrorism, and to do any good a  change must be perceived as credibleâ??not 
just 
in America but especially in other  parts of the world. Re-electing Bush rules 
it out.  
This president cannot change himself or his  administrationâ??s foreign policy. 
That would contradict his style, character, and  self-image, and overthrow 
his whole campaign and appeal to his base. He must go  on as he has, insisting 
in the face of every evidence of failure that things are  going well, that he 
and America are right and good and that only evildoers fail  to see it.  
Moreover, even if he could change, if by some  miracle he and his whole 
administration underwent a road-to- Damascus  conversion, it is too late. No 
one 
would believe himâ??and this is decisive. Hard  though it is for Americans to 
accept, when it comes to the main front in the  struggle against terrorism, it 
matters far less whom Americans trust to ensure  their safety than whom Arabs, 
Muslims, Europeans, and even Asians trust enough  to join in the common 
endeavor. On that score, the verdict is in. Like  Belshazzar, Bush and his 
policies 
have been weighed in the balance and found  wanting. Polls, demonstrations, 
defections, diplomatic defeats, restlessness  among allies, glee among enemies, 
and continued terrorist activity demonstrate a  massive, almost worldwide 
distrust.  
Where Kennedy, Reagan, and the elder Bush could  be acclaimed in Germany as 
heroes and use that acclaim to accomplish important  ends, Bush cannot now find 
an audience there safe to speak to. Clinton visited  Dublin and was 
surrounded by 100,000 cheering Irishmen. Bush could briefly visit  Ireland, the 
most 
pro-American country in the world, only when surrounded by  10,000 security 
guards.  
It does not finally matter what caused this, and  how much Bush is to blame. 
Saying so is not attacking him personally but  recognizing facts and drawing 
inescapable conclusions. The slogan â??Anybody but  Bushâ?? need not arise from 
blind Bush-hatred but from a sober appreciation of the  international 
situation. 
Most of the world has reached that conclusion, and as  Bush says, results 
matter.  
The same facts that make serious change in the  direction of American foreign 
policy impossible under Bush make it possible  under Kerry. The crucial 
factor is not whether he is better qualified by  education, experience, 
intellect, 
and temperament. It is rather that he is not  burdened by the crushing baggage 
Bush carriesâ??the Bush Doctrine, the open  disdain for international 
institutions and law, the choice of preventive war,  the misleading arguments 
for it, 
the botched occupation of Iraq, the stains of  Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Kerry 
already enjoys in much of the world, especially  Europe, such credibility as 
a harbinger of change that some call for toning down  the praise so as not to 
create a backlash in the United States.  
One more thought, intended to sweeten slightly  for conservatives the bitter 
pill: many think that voting out an incumbent  president in wartime shows 
national irresoluteness, even cowardice. Rationally  and historically this 
makes 
no sense. It is no more a sign of weakness to change  leadership in wartime if 
success depends on it than it is to remove a baseball  pitcher who is getting 
shelled in order to prevent the game from becoming  hopelessly lost. Switching 
to the elder Pitt helped Britain win the Seven Years  War; switching to 
Churchill helped win World War II. Clinging to failed leaders  and policies 
often 
contributes to disaster. Germany might have benefited in  World War I by 
getting rid of Bethmann earlier. Exchanging Daladier for Reynaud  earlier might 
conceivably have helped France in 1939-40. Examples could be  multiplied. And 
this 
switch can be made without personal vindictiveness or  betrayal of oneâ??s deep 
convictions and party loyalties, if a greater good and  overriding need 
justify it. The case of Chamberlain and Churchill illustrates  this. Even in 
1940, 
Chamberlain was still more trusted by many Conservatives and  Labourites than 
Churchill, widely seen by Conservatives as a maverick and by  Labour as a 
warmonger. What brought Churchill to power was simply the conviction  that 
Chamberlain, though he meant well, was unsuited to lead the war effort,  while 
Churchill wasâ??and once the war in Europe was over, the voters promptly  
kicked him 
out. There would be nothing dishonorable in conservatives voting for  Kerry now 
as a necessary evil while vowing to oust him in four years.  
But enough of argumentâ??a final plea: do not let  America continue to play the 
rich landowner in the parable. There is still ample  chance to turn things 
around now. After four more years there may not  be." 
_________________________________________________

Paul W.  Schroeder is professor emeritus of history at the University of 
Illinois at  Urbana-Champagne. He is the author of The Transformation of 
European  
Politics, 1765-1848.


------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: