weekend I had breakfast with a very liberal friend. The restaurant, a little
no-frills hole-in-the-wall, affectionately nicknamed The Greasy Spoon, is
the type of place where you often pour your own coffee rather than get served
while an ex-Navy chef works the griddle. Every Saturday morning the regulars
pile in at dawn turning the place into an impromptu business forum exchange,
a political debating chamber, a smoking room and a comedy club. On this morning
my friend’s sense of logic was overtaken by caffeine jitters and second-hand
smoke. He climbed on his soapbox and started preaching emotional liberalism
known him for 12 years, he is still convinced that he will convert me into
a liberal, or at least a Democrat. Because he was so overbearing during this
“debate”, I become more convinced that he, and liberals in general, will
take any side of an issue based on raw emotion as long as it is opposed to
anything that “W”, “rich” Republicans or conservatives in general support.
Far from being an actual, even-balanced two-way debate, it turned into a
typical one-sided tirade against the “vast right-wing conspiracy” and a lecture
on liberal “enlightenment.”
the day’s topic was “W’ and his "absolute failure" in just about every aspect
of both domestic and foreign policy. Predictably, my friend started to recite,
as if reading off cue cards, the great Presidents and the economies over
which they presided. It never fails to amaze me how each time we recounted
actual historic trends to compare the “great” Presidents, my friend would
argue passionately that the economy has always thrived under Democratic Presidents
and fallen into recessions under Republican Presidents. He must have forgotten
Carter. As usual, he cited FDR’s New Deal as ending the Depression and LBJ’s
Great Society programs of the 1960’s as proof of what makes a leader great.
avail, I countered that FDR’s policies in themselves, were not really working
to end the Depression any more than Hoover’s had. It took World War II to
kick-start the economy back to health because of the government’s huge orders
of war material. I also stated that LBJ's big government programs of the
late 1960s lead to the recession of the 1970s.
than acknowledge this fact, my friend jumped to the 1980s. I received the
“usual” dose of Reagan bashing, still a popular liberal sport. According
to my liberal friend, Reagan’s huge spending on the military and his large
tax cuts put us into the worst deficit ever. Apparently, it is because of
Reagan that homelessness increased and the rich got all the breaks to grow
their big businesses.
said I, “Reagan did cut taxes and spend billions to rebuild a military that
Carter had all but ignored.” I then pointed out that Reagan’s tax cuts were
the foundation for pumping cash back into the economy. Doing this allowed
small and medium businesses an avenue to capital that led to phenomenal growth,
which in turn created more jobs for Americans and grew the economy. I said
tax cuts were the basis for the huge economic gains made during the 1990’s
that Clinton merely inherited. As for military expenditures, Reagan’s brilliant
tactic of outspending the Soviets into bankruptcy is what led to the collapse
of the communist bloc and the end of the Cold War.
he had no defensible argument to counter with, I thought the “debate” was
finished and I had won. But the liberal came back with another “intelligent”
and “well-thought” broadside. “Daddy Bush”, he pointed out, “used the Kuwait
crisis in 1990 as an excuse to help his oil business and defense contractor
buddies and to take the electorate’s mind off the recession at that time.
The economy did not recover and pick up steam until Clinton was elected 2
years later. When Clinton was president, the entire world respected and actually
I thought. After all, in my friend’s, and just about every liberal mind,
Clinton had miraculously and almost single-handedly repaired the economy
in 1994. In fact, liberals believe Clinton’s economic policies were so sound
that his “minor affair” incident in the Oval Office and subsequent impeachment
were nothing but trivial. After all, boys will be boys.
such as my friend, believe Clinton was an internationalist of the highest
moral standing. Never mind that Clinton never created animosity toward the
United States from the “international community” because of his subservience
to the United Nations and lack of principled leadership. Liberals believe
that “Commander-In-Chief” Clinton won a brilliant victory in the Kosovo war
without a single combat fatality, despite the fact that Kosovo was not in
our national interest in any way. Until Clinton intervened, liberals argue,
the Europeans could not control the Balkans War. These are the same liberals
who today argue we cannot go to war against Iraq without support from our
believe Clinton’s missile tirades against Iraq in December 1998, a “unilateral”
act as only American and British missiles were involved, were necessary to
thwart Saddam Hussein’s ambitions for weapons of mass destruction. Today
these same liberals argue against military action against Saddam because
it is a principled Republican President that plans to take decisive action
with a true commitment to defend our interests and safety. True leadership
really baffles liberals.
Conveniently, liberals overlook Clinton’s refusal in 1996 to accept Sudan’s
offer to turn Osama bin Laden over to U.S. custody on the grounds that there
was not enough hard evidence under “international law.” Yet, they cite Clinton’s
“brilliance” at his response to the attacks on the U.S. Embassies in Tanzania
and Kenya by lobbing a few missiles at Al-Qaeda tents in Afghanistan and
aspirin factory in Sudan, the country that had made the offer to turn the
Al-Qaeda leader over to the U.S. just 2 years earlier.
in my friend’s liberal mind, it is “W” that has currently “destroyed” the
economy, by using terrorism and another Iraq war to help his “daddy’s rich
oil buddies.” Of course it is the Republican policy of “unilateralism” that
has inflamed the entire Muslim world against America, leading to the September
11 atrocities that murdered 3,000 innocent Americans. It’s our own fault
“they hate us”. Never mind that had Clinton acted when he had a chance, 3,000
Americans might still be alive today.
it is “W’s” insistence that the United States follow its own sovereign Constitutional
common law rather than submit its sovereignty to an unelected, aspiring world
government known as the United Nations. My friend probably blames every hurricane,
earthquake and tsunami on “W” and the “rich Republicans” too.
I thought through the anti-logic of my friend’s liberal mind, it became clear
that I would not be able to advance my case that Clinton had simply “kicked
the terrorism can” down the road while surfing the great economic wave that
his predecessor Reagan had built. Since he would not let me get another word
in to cross-examine his points, I decided to give up arguing and made a motion
seemed satisfied with himself. We shook hands and left. As I got into my
Pontiac family minivan, I waved to my friend as he hurried away in his SUV.
He had to hurry to make his appointment with his CPA so he could do a tax
write off for his contributions to the Catholic Church and Planned Parenthood.
Email Robert Ditmar
this article to a friend