The Only Issue

Once upon a time I considered myself a conservative. Then 9/11 happened and things got crazy. No longer was the Republican Party committed to reducing spending and reforming or cutting taxes; the elimination of abortion, and other social evils also became secondary to the all pervasive War on Terror.

In fairness, the Republican Party had abandoned conservatism for some time; Bush simply did away with the gratuitous lip service to the principled members of his base. Since most republican voters care more for winning than for genuine accomplishment of conservative ends, few have abandoned ship. Abortion and taxes do not matter. What matters, what is integral, is that the Republicans retain Power so that we can continue to fight Terror.

There is a very thin line between being a conservative who cares nothing for the tenants thereof and a liberal who opposes all that a conservative is purported to believe in. On paper, there is a difference between, say, Bush and Lieberman; but since the former cares nothing for acting to reduce the size of the federal government and because he agrees with the latter on the War, the two candidates are, from a conservative point of view, indistinguishable.

Thus it should not be surprising that National Review has endorsed an independent Lieberman in his Senate race.

Since the race now pits Lieberman against Democratic nominee Ned Lamont, a creature of fevered liberal bloggers, and a Republican candidate who is a non-conservative nonentity, we’re backing Lieberman. We hope this experience, and his formal independence from the Democratic party, will encourage him to buck the Democrats on more issues than Iraq.

A non-conservative non-entity? So, like Lierberman, only smaller? With friends like the National Review, who needs enemies?

The logic in that second sentence is laughable. According to the Review, so long as a Democrat supports the War on Terror, no matter what his record on other issues, a good Republican ought to have no trouble voting for him. In this manner, he will "hopefully" shed his beliefs on all those issues which traditional conservatism held to be anathematic. In other words, although Lieberman has had no trouble standing up against his party for his beliefs concerning Iraq, he'll waffle and become a good little republican due to this ringing endorsement. Come to think, according to the Review, he's a good republican already. Hmm.

I do not support the War on Terror. I do not see, perhaps because I've read a little history, how forfeiting civil liberties will ensure that we become safe. I'm not optimistic on the prospect of getting my liberties back.

I do not support the War in Iraq. If democracy and terror are incompatible, how is Hezbollah thriving in Lebanon, which is democratic. Or was until Israel bombed it. Anyone want to guess what the Lebanese think of democracy now?

I can't help thinking that Americans need to get off our high horse. The biggest kid in the global playground--that be us--is usually hated. Of course, he's usually a huge jerk, too. The Muslim world does not "hate us for our freedom"--motto: ever-decreasing--or because of "who we are"--as if the word "American" itself was a trigger word, causing untold millions to strap themselves to suicide bombs. No, these are idiotic explanations, to be reiterated hundreds of times by the talking heads are only simplifications to be digested by the unwashed masses--who, incidently, no longer yearn to breathe free.

The Muslim world hates us because of our threefold influence in the region:

1) Cultural: If your religion forbade women from showing too much flesh--read: any--and a country exports the likes of Paris Hilton, how high would one esteem America, and by extension Americans who tolerate such filth? Also, Islam does not allow adherents thereto to drink. That alone is enough to make a fellow mighty angry.

2) Military: In the course of fifteen years, we've bombed Iraq countless times and invaded it twice. In between bombings, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children died because the vaccinations were blocked, lest Saddam make WMD's out of them. The rest of the Muslim world knows this, and, not irrationally, thinks less than highly of our behavior.

3) Support of Israel: Whether or not America should support Israel, and to what extent and by what means, are questions for another day. The point is simple. By supporting Israel, we are seen as co-conspirators in the bombings of Lebanon. This suspicion is strengthened when Bush and Rice seem hesitant to seek a cease fire in the Middle East.

Now, for the way home. We have three options.

1) Nuke the entire Middle East: While less than moral, this should dispel with those freedom hating terrorists.

2) Either subdue or settle the whole of the Middle East: There is no other way to acheive victory. The idea that we can go in, take out the bad guys and help set up a stable democracy whereupon we shall leave, is absurd. If we're going to war, we've got to do it right; half-efforts only end in failure.

3) Remove the aforementioned causes. By simply removing our presence from the Middle East, our reputation therein cannot help but increase. As time heals all wounds, so is an absent enemy harder to hate. The wounds run deep, and it would be unreasonable to expect sunny relations overnight, but this would be a step in the right direction.

There. I solved the crisis in the Middle East and ended the War on Terror without the help of either perty, all before finishing my first cup of coffee. You can thank me later.