We are the only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism. We find the most intriguing information and bring it together on one page for you.

Home
Articles
Headlines
Links we recommend
Feedback
Link to us
Free email update
About us
What's New & Interesting
Mailing Lists
Intellectual Icons
Submissions



 

The Ship of Fools
by Scott Shore
28 October 2003Al Sharpton

The recent Democratic debate must have brought a broad smile to President George Bush.


The recent debate of the nine Democratic candidates for the Presidency in Detroit, Michigan sponsored by Fox News and the Congressional Black Caucus must have brought a broad smile to President George Bush. Perhaps never before has there been so pathetic a gathering of would-be leaders. With the exception of Lieberman and Gephardt, the foreign and defense policy of the remaining candidates was simply “cut and run.” The remaining candidates claimed to be against the Iraqi invasion or believe that they were voting for something other than an invasion of Iraq. They must have thought that the Peace Corps was going to land in Baghdad and persuade Saddam Hussein to be a nice guy. Beyond this, they all professed a belief in the “international community.” That must mean that France, Germany and Russia, which had done business with the Iraqi regime for decades, were going to really come in and clean house. These countries had no vested interest in receiving billions of dollars from the Hussein regime. Even more outrageous, Howard Dean, John Kerry (who supported the original resolution), Dennis Kucinich and others call the nations that have supported us (Australia, UK, Poland, Eastern Europe, Singapore…etc) a “counterfeit” alliance. (Perhaps Pat Buchanan can find common ground with these “tail between your legs,” slink away isolationists.)

These folks give new meaning to “Monday morning quarterbacking.” They undoubtedly would have all had better intelligence and a well-organized plan to reform and exit Iraq. Unlike President Bush, Chirac, Schroeder and Putin would have gladly joined our merry band of reformers in Iraq. Another common refrain is that the war in Iraq is a diversion from the War on Terrorism. Never mind that Iraq was the soft underbelly of terror-sponsoring states. Never mind that weapons of mass destruction do not have to be huge nuclear arsenals but can be small and equally lethal vials of deadly biological agents. What a surprise that in a country the size of California we have not found these agents. Even more outrageous, we know that France gave passports to ex-Hussein leaders to cross the border into Syria. Syria now harbors and exports terrorists throughout Iraq and the entire region. The revolutionary impact of a democratic regime in the center of the Middle East is completely lost on these dolts.

Most repulsive is the candidacy of Wesley Clark. Hiding behind his four stars, he berates the Administration for policies that he did, in fact, endorse until his presidential ambitions took hold of him. He has flip-flopped so many times on his assessment of the wisdom of the Iraqi invasion that he should be a contortionist in the circus rather than a candidate for President. Never has there been such brazen opportunism than the candidacy of Wesley Clark. Like the others, he would have had a brilliant plan for organizing the international community and establishing a speedy and safe exit for American troops. He laments the innocent civilian deaths in  Iraq but takes pride in the operations in the Balkans which saw the most brutal slaughter of innocent civilians chased from their homes in Kosovo by US bombs. If there were ever a case of indiscriminate bombing, Allied Commander Clark was the master. When faced with the accusation by his peers that he was not promoted for reasons of “integrity and character,” General Clark dodged the charge and simply labeled it “McCarthyism” -- just pathetic!!

As for the other major candidates, Lieberman is a kind of walking anesthesia. Howard Dean comes off as an arrogant, bombastic version of George McGovern. Kerry is the aristocratic snob posing as the pal of Joe Six-Pack. It just doesn’t sell. I thing everyone is getting sick of the “My dad worked in a mill” or “My dad was a milkman” variety of log-cabin populism.

When the debate turned to domestic policy, there were truly no taxes or massive government programs these Democrats did not want to pander to their entitlement constituencies. Universal health care, universal nursery and kindergarten, building infrastructure (nobody bothered to ask John Kerry about the disastrous “Big Dig” in Boston), more money thrown at the education system, universal opposition to free choice (vouchers) in education, more Pell grants, more food stamps, more Medicare, more Medicaid…virtually more everything, except national defense, homeland security and police protection.

The fact that the Clinton administration was responsible for sleeping at the switch regarding Iraq’s violations, the growth of Al-Quaida or the development of North Korean nuclear capability was conveniently forgotten during the entire debate. Instead this was a brazen display of “soak the rich” class warfare and “bread and circuses” for every group in America that has been convinced that they are victims of something or other. These Democrats have also developed an entire new theology. Suddenly, in their minds, everyone is entitled to “affordable health care,” “quality education,” “decent living conditions”…etc. Did I miss something? Did Moses come down from Mount Sinai and declare these inalienable Rights? Are these rights not really privileges of living in a prosperous, capitalist system which has excess to give to these programs. Does anyone think that “soaking the rich” to give to partisan constituency is something other than outright stealing??? Do hard working American exist to be work-slaves to support the ambitions of these unscrupulous charlatans?

I think President Bush can rest easy given his rag-tag group of opponents. Of course, if the economy were to tank -- even the most egregious pond scum could get elected. Should the Democrats attack a sitting President in the midst of a serious war, this is a sure recipe for disaster. Given the economy and the slow but steady progress abroad, the outlook for the President looks good. Given the outrageous excess of the Democrats on domestic policy, this is an auspicious time for the President to assert traditional Republican values of limited government and drop his foolhardy plan for socialism-lite in Medicare and other domestic programs. The Bush administration is going to have to answer to his own base for the growth of the non-defense portion of the Federal budget. Frankly, the war covers a multitude of sins and one of Bush’s is his near abandonment of conservative domestic policy. The milquetoast response of the Senate Republicans to the unprecedented filibuster of conservative jurists is another point of shame. If Senate Majority Leader Frist is right and he’s trying to save the Republican version of Medicare and support for the War on Terrorism and thus does not want to alienate Democrats, this is a strange strategy indeed. On the contrary, Frist should push through a change in Senate rules, confirm the Federal judges and then let the Democrats take the blame for the failure of the Medicare Prescription boondoggle and for cutting the rug out from under the President in the middle of the war.

The weakness of the Democratic field should allow the President to avoid unnecessary “triangulation” and stand strong for the foundation principles of the Republican Party and get a true and unambiguous mandate for conservatism.

Scott Shore is a political commentator and management consultant in Providence, Rhode Island.

Email Scott Shore

Send this Article to a Friend