Norman Podhoretz has a piece that illuistrates what this war is about, how we get here, and what to do next. Belmont Club also has some astute observations on this present conflict.
It all comes down to this, either we are willing to do whatever it takes to win this war, or we bow down to our own defeatist impulses and accept the death of thousands every few years. We cannot afford the latter, yet there are all too many who see America as the evil aggressor and are perfectly willing to gloss over the horrors of Islamic terrorism.
If that side prevails, our society and the values it stands for could well be lost.
It’s simple: Bush is Churchill, and Kerry is Neville Chamberlain…
Kerry is literally one of the worst candidates ever…
If Kerry is one of the worst candidates ever, that doesn’t say much for Bush… 🙂
Nicholas: Kerry is indeed one of the worst candidates ever, but that speaks more to the bias of the media than to any deficiencies of Bush (although I do think he could be a better communicator…see Reagan for an example of how to defeat the liberal media)…
Evan Thomas of Newsweek admitted that the press wants Kerry to win, and he theorized the media was worth 15 points to Kerry…I’d say that’s about right…give us a truely objective press and Bush would be leading by about 15 points…
I like the term “western nihilism” to describe much of what the political left represents these days…and the contrast with the idea that Western civilization is worth fighting for in a contest with an ideology which aims to destroy it.
That really sums it up; the political left is determined to pass a sentence of guilt upon the west, without regard to what that would really leave as the alternative.
Bush is not Churchill. When the British were getting pounded by the Nazis in World War II, he told the British people how bad it was. His addresses to the nation would say they are getting pounded but to keep on fighting. Bush does not do the same with Iraq. And now I am not comparing British loses in WW II to Americans in Iraq. What I am saying is that Bush and his camp do not have the same brutal honesty in dealing with the American people about the war. This sort of thing does not bode well for him. I also find it amusing that in an interview when he asked if he had done anything wrong, his response was “I can’t think of anything.” That sort of unbridled arrogance does not sit well with me. Kerry has his problems and certainly won’t get my vote. But comparing Bush to Churchill is a massive insult to Churchill. He has a long way to go if he is to earn such praise. For one he could start to stop the rise of anti-intellectuals in the GOP. That would make people like me feel a lot more comfortable with the party.
Justin: I understand some of what you write.
I certainly agree that Bush could be a better communicator. However, with regards to Iraq…even you admit that there really can be no comparison to what has happened in Iraq and getting one’s own homeland bombed day after day as with Britain in WWII. Churchill had a much more grim truth to convey, so if he came off as brutally honest, that is certainly one reason why. Also, Churchill always offered his people hope and did in fact urge them to try to live normal lives, even during the bombing campaign.
As to that interview and his refusal to admit mistakes…I think Bush was in a no-win situation. If Bush admits any mistakes he will be crucified with his own words by the media and the Democrats. Remember when he stated that the Irag uranium claim in the SOTU should not have been included…that didn’t help him, that only made the feeding frenzy worse. And ironically, that claim has been vindicated at least in part. The current political and media climate prevent Bush from admitting any mistakes. However, judged in proper historical context, the Iraqi campaign has gone amazingly well.
Also, I don’t recall Churchill exactly being remembered for admission of his mistakes. After all, he nearly was sacked after Dunkirk, Singapore, and Tobruk defeats. But I don’t remember reading about how he rallied his people with his stunning mea culpas. Leaders who go around constantly apologizing for mistakes don’t exactly inspire alot of confidence.
As for the “rise of anti-intellectuals within the GOP”…exactly what the hell does that mean? There are many brilliant thinkers and theorists within the GOP ranks, and so I wonder if you aren’t falling prey to some media-driven myth.
I do think Bush has been like Churchill in being resolute against our enemy, and in grasping the magnitude of our conflict and what it really is all about. As for communication skills, certainly Churchill has a rhetorical flourish Bush lacks, but then again Churchill didn’t have 24 hour TV news coverage to deal with, and the Churchill legacy has only picked up lustre over time.
Bush isn’t Churchill (although Blair comes close). How I wish he were.
However, he does have far more Churchill in him than Kerry does, who comes directly from the Atlee/Chamberlain mold.
As for anti-intellectualism with Republicans, I see far more of it on the left side. How many Republicans would know of William F. Buckley, Russell Kirk, or Edmund Burke? How many liberals have read John Rawls? That isn’t to say it doesn’t exist, but it is the left that is doing the most to degrade rational public discourse in this country at the moment. Not even during the Clinton years did I see such widespread hatred for a political figure.
Eh, afraid I’ve gotta disagree with you. Those of us who read the real intellectuals behind the ideologies are a rarified bunch. Most are too busy reading demagogues like Franken, Coulter, Moore and Hannity…
As for the “rise of anti-intellectuals within the GOP”…exactly what the hell does that mean?
How many times has Kerry been made fun of for being multilingual, or for using precise, complicated language?
That’s what he’s talking about. To the GOP, being intelligent and cultured is worthy of derision.