[lit-ideas] Re Forward from a Friend (did this come through the first time?)
- From: Eternitytime1@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:59:48 EDT
Hi, again...
I didn't see this come through...just in case it did not...
Marlena in Missouri
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:
- » [lit-ideas] Re Forward from a Friend (did this come through the first time?)
