In the comments of yesterday’s post, a good point was brought up: handing victory to the Democrats in the age of terrorism is too risky a move just to teach the GOP a lesson and advance the cause of conservatism.
This has been a final sticking point in my decision about whether or not I should just hold my nose and vote Republican in November’s congressional races. The bottom line is that I do not trust the Democrats on security.
Vermonter asked me why I don’t trust the Democrats on security. At the risk of losing my status among the left-leaning Vermont blogosphere as the most palatable right-wing blogger, I will answer his question.
In general, the ideology of the liberals, who currently frame the positions of the Democratic Party, is based on a belief that everyone can live together in harmony when we remove the political, social, and economic injustices that exist.
We hear this type of rhetoric when there is a crime committed here in the States. The left is quick to jump in and point out the tragic circumstances of the misunderstood criminal, blaming society, treating him like the victim, and making excuses for his crimes.
In the mind of a liberal, crime happens when people are treated unfairly and if we could fix the inherent unfairness of the world, crime would not exist.
This view is also articulated in the Democratic Party’s “Real Security” plan.
Eliminate terrorist breeding grounds by combating the economic, social, and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive
This is a good goal to have, and one could argue that this was what Bush hoped to accomplish in Iraq, but the Democrats seem to miss one important piece of the bigger picture: the terrorists want to kill us.
This is not just about social, economic, and political injustice. These people have been conditioned to want to kill infidels, not to differentiate between a peace-loving liberal and a war-mongering neocon.
the only thing acceptable is a conversion or the sword
I have zero confidence that liberals get that.
There is no give peace a chance with these people. They want to kill us.
The Democrats want to pull out of Iraq immediately. Will that make us safer? Let’s just ask the organization of Sunni Arab extremist groups in Iraq, the Mujahedeen Shura Council.
You infidels and despots, we will continue our jihad and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism, when God’s rule is established governing all people and nations.
Trusting the Democrats on security requires believing that these guys are merely the misunderstood product of economic injustice.
Sorry guys. Just writing this is enough to convince me to give the GOP a free pass on the big spending.
The second half of Vermonter’s question was: Do you trust the Republicans? I will answer that in part two.
(Filed under: Politics: US)
September 19th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Thanks very much Charity…
(And don’t worry, we open-minded liberals would never ban someone from our midst just because their upbringing caused them to view the world in a strange way.)
You’ve offered a lot of info here and I’m not sure if I have time to adequately respond, but I’ll try here on my lunch break…
I won’t argue that NO liberal views the world the way you lay it out… But, I think you’re making a huge generalization about so-called “liberal” views.
You write…
In the mind of a liberal, crime happens when people are treated unfairly and if we could fix the inherent unfairness of the world, crime would not exist.
I don’t know a single liberal who believes that the Ken Lays or Tom Delays, for example, of this world are products of an inherently unfair world.
There simply are bad people, who regardless of how they got that way, need to be severely dealt with…
But, it is also impossible to make the case that social and economic factors don’t play some role in certain types of anti-social behavior.
I think that conservatives like to play this both ways, too…
Blaming crime and social problems on the evils of the “welfare state” seems to me to also absolve people of personal responsibility.
Sure, conservatives don’t blame rich white guys for social ills. Instead many blame do-gooder liberals. I don’t think you can have it both ways.
In short, liberals believe that people who want to kill us exist. And that they must be prevented (yes, even by killing them — remember Osama Bin Laden? — from doing so. We’d be deranged if we didn’t.
But, again, it would be extremely simplistic to believe that social and economic factors aren’t part of the equation.
And it’s good that you seem to agree with Democrats and perhaps even George Bush that we should “eliminate terrorist breeding grounds by combating the economic, social, and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive.”
That statement doesn’t deny the role of religious and social conditioning in the creation of violent extremism. But, it correctly identifies many of the problems that create an unhealthy environment.
Are you aware, for instance, that pretty much the entire Gaza Strip is one giant refugee camp and has been that way for a half a century? Sure, you can argue that it is not entirely Israel’s fault, and that there is blame in the Arab world who have used these people as pawns. But, try living in what is basically a large concentration camp for a few generations and see how “normal” your family becomes.
And, I hope that you’re aware that saying “the Democrats want to pull out of Iraq immediately” is simply pure political spin. Yes, of course, there are some on the left who have said that, but that is far from the view from the vast majority of Dems in Congress.
You may vote as you wish in November, but please don’t make a decision based on these generalized stereotypes of liberal/Democratic thought.
September 19th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
I only have a second right now….You are right that this was an overgeneralization, but it captures the general feeling that people, including me, have about the Democrats: that they are soft on crime, and that extends to terrorism.
This might not be true, but it is the perception that a lot of people have.
It didn’t help that these same terrorist groups bombed US interests overseas (and even the World Trade Center) multiple times when Clinton was in office and there were no consequences. (And no, I didn’t get that from the ABC special; I haven’t watched that yet.)
September 19th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
Out of curiousity, what is it about terrorism that scares you so much?
Is the chance you or a loved one might die in a terrorist attack? You know that’s extremely unlikely.
Is it that other people are going to die in a terrorist attack? Yes, they are. But deaths from terrorism ranks very low on the list of common causes of deaths. We lost 3,000 people on 9/11 but we could save 4,600 people annually if we reduced auto accident deaths by 10%. We could save 5,500 lives if we reduced cancer deaths by 1%. Wouldn’t we better off with a War of Cancer if your concern is to minimize all deaths?
Are you afraid that terrorists are going to succeed in overrunning the US government because they attack us? I don’t think you truely think our republic is in danger of falling.
So, what exactly is it that you are afraid of?
I’m afraid of losing my job and not having health insurance for my family. Being uninsured is a much more likely occurence than any impact from a terrorist attack.
I’m not saying we should ignore terrorism. I just don’t think it should dominate our national discussion, send us into poorly chosen wars of choice and soak up such a large portion of our national tax base.
September 19th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
Despite the anti-Clinton rhetoric, there certainly were consequences under Clinton…
Many of the first WTC conspirators were rounded up…
According to Wikipedia…
“In October 1995, the militant Islamist and blind cleric Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, who preached at mosques in Brooklyn and Jersey City, was sentenced to life imprisonment for masterminding the bombing. Rahman, whose Islamic Group organization is believed to have had links to Osama Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network, was later convicted with a number of others of conspiracy charges to bomb several New York City landmarks (see New York City landmark bomb plot). In 1998, Ramzi Yousef, said by some to have been the real mastermind, was convicted of “seditious conspiracy” to bomb the towers. When Ramzi Yousef was brought back to America, he was flown over the still intact twin towers, making a statement to the FBI that he regretted not having enough explosives to bring down the WTC towers and adding that his fellow terrorists would try again to destroy them. One of the other men tried alongside Yousef for the bombing was Eyad Ismail. In all, ten militant Islamist conspirators – including Ramzi Yousef – were convicted for their part in the bombing and were given prison sentences of a maximum of 240 years each.“
And unlike Bush and today’s Republicans, Clinton never blamed the bombing on inaction by Bush Senior…
Just saying…
September 19th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
I’m not blaming Clinton; I am saying that his inaction is what contributes to people thinking that Democrats are soft on terrorism.
September 19th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
flatlander raises an interesting point – how worried about terrorism should we be in terms of letting it frame the political debate?
September 20th, 2006 at 12:51 am
Hi Charity,
I didn’t mean to suggest that you blamed Clinton… I said “Bush and today’s Republicans” (by which I meant the national party), who perpetuate falsehoods and seek to cast blame for something that happened (9/11) on their watch.
But, doesn’t rounding up the first WTC bomber plotters count as action in your book?
Especially when contrasted with Bush’s inability or “I just don’t spend that much time on him” inaction on Bin Laden?
So, in reality, it is not Clinton’s actual inaction on terrorism that causes people to think Democrats are “soft” on national security….
It is the constant misinformation campaign that seeks to re-write history that causes people to believe things that are factually incorrect.
Clinton may not have been perfect, but he took the threat of terrorism far more seriously than Bush did prior to 9/11. And there is absolutely no factual dispute about that.
It seems like what you’re saying is that because there is a perception by some that Democrats are “soft” on national security, you’re going to vote against them, even if that might not be true.
The truth is, the vast majority of Democrats are simply not soft on terror.
They just believe that using global law enforcement and human intelligence is a better way to fight people with box cutters than funneling billions of dollars to big defense contractors for weapons that have nothing to do with stopping terrorism (which is exactly what has happened during the Bush years).
September 27th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
It is true that Bush did not take terrorism seriously in the eight months he was president before 9/11, but Clinton did not treat it all too seriously either. Yes, the first World Trade Center bombers were tried, but he treated it as a criminal matter, not a military one. There was also the issue of cuts to the intelligence and defense budgets. A party cannot champion defense cuts for years and then want to be the tough on terror party.
I watched the Clinton clip on What’s the Point? and listened to what he said. It was an interesting take. Convincing, almost, until I read the point by point refutation, complete with dated quotes, on the national GOP website, here.
September 29th, 2006 at 10:49 pm
“Yes, the first World Trade Center bombers were tried, but he treated it as a criminal matter, not a military one.”
Perhaps because it WAS a criminal matter. If I walked into a building with a bomb, are you saying you wouldn’t call the police first? Apparently not. You’re saying you’d call the Pentagon first. So what, pray tell, would the military have done after the first Trade Center bombing? ‘Shock and Awe’ New York?
It’s flawed logic that defies reason. Unless your reasoning is that you prefer a military state….
September 30th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
It took me a while to respond to this because I didn’t want to say something rude.
Let me put it this way: Didn’t Bush treat the 9/11 attack in New York as a military matter? Yes. He viewed it as an attack on our country. An act of war. He launched an operation in Afghanistan and examined other areas in the world that posed a threat to our security. He didn’t “Shock and Awe” New York.
Your comment was…um, strange.