|
What is Happening to Conservatives?
| PEACE, WAR, PEACE, WAR . . . |
|
|
| Daddy: What will it be ? |
In the heat of turmoil from this quandary of facing reality, it is understood that some voices will spout out with excessive
veracity. Honesty is fine, but distortion of the Truth is unacceptable. Since the mood of the nation has gone off in crisis
mode, we have been saturated with countless articles about the aftermath of 911. Many are from recognized sources and several
new commentators. The trend that emerges is quite disturbing. Gung-Ho was supposed to be the province of the hard core. Has
it now been adopted by the entire vast right wing conspiracy?
Such staples of Republicanism as the National Review and the Weekly Standard sound more like 'Soldier of Fortune' than
the Wall Street Journal. Even the WSJ is resembling 'Stars and Stripes'. When David Horowitz weds Ann Coulter and honeymoons
at Camp LeJune, you know something is upside down.
The longer this saga plays itself out, the more statesmanlike the Bush administration looks. What a statement of heresy
from an arch derogatory critic of the Bush dynasty! Who reflects the soul of the Republican Party at this time, William F.
Buckley or George W. Bush? From what we are all reading, let's hope it is not the cadre of propensity for a wide spread war.
When Barry Goldwater was demonized for saying:
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue",
he was not envisioning the horror depicted in that famous daisy commercial. It was LBJ who unleased the bombs, and it was
Nixon who carpet bombed Cambodia. Either can be considered to be legitimate conservatives. Could it be that some of our most
admired right-wing pundits are reading Barry literally, while confusing the syntax? In today's environment Bush is applying
moderation where it should be properly placed, and is demonstrating a remarkable restraint to avoid the extreme hysteria of
these 'so called' voices of America.
Or is the answer more sinister? Is it possible that the 'sleepers' in the al Queda network are not the only 'Fifth Column',
lurking under the sheets? Consider the recent remarks reported by the Jersualem Post, of Ariel Sharon:
"We are currently in the midst of a complex and difficult political campaign. I call on the Western democracies and primarily
on the leader of the free world, the United States: Do not repeat the dreadful mistake of 1938, when enlightened European
democracies decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for a convenient temporary solution. Do not try to appease the Arabs at our
expense. This is unacceptable to us. Israel will not be Czechoslovakia. Israel will fight terrorism."
The Bush administration to rebuke Sharon in public is significant and proper. Will our new neoconservatives support their
President or will they follow the party line of rabid advocates like Thomas Friedman, that esteemed guru of the New York Times?
Supporting a sitting President is a new experience for this observer. Not since Ronald Reagan, has there been an instance
that merited endorsement. Reagan learned a terrible lesson in Lebanon, and withdrew the marines. While the errors of Somalia
are being echoed by every Tom, Dick and Harry!
Sharon has traded his yarmulke for the cap of the 'mad hatter'. What Sharon calls appeasement, is actually balanced common
sense. No one is denying the need to bring the criminals of the September Terror to justice. How you do it, and what we do
to prevent and avert future attacks IS our interest as a Nation. When Ari Fleischer states: "The U.S. will continue to
press both Israel and the Palestinians to move forward", it is about time that we inform the recipient of that $3 billion
check each year that we want a return on our money. Bush spoke the obvious and the inevitable, when he said that the formation
of a Palestinian state has always been the long term vision for U.S. policy in the Middle East. He just said these works in
public.
Will our mainstream raconteurs experience an epiphany of a 'Conscience of a Conservative', to use Barry's words; or will
they run to the beat of the Jonah Goldberg's? Dear mama Lucianne is noted for her web censorship, so what is your excuse?
The lines are plainly drawn. The exam is established and all will be required to take the test. No more hiding from this
one. Finally a breach in the solidarity of the 'War Party', at the highest level. Now is the time to send in the reserves
to fill the gap and restore a sane direction to American Foreign Policy. Don't expect any answers from the student Left or
their natural allies. They understand the problem, but have no clue of any solutions. It is up to those who want real reform
and a restored Republic, to support every initiative that seeks to steer this ship of hope back on the correct course.
We can all agree that the firemen from the Tower disaster are all heroes. With the recent announcement that standard policy
is to be modified to recognize the true risks and potential collapse of future high rise fires, we have the affirmation that
common sense of real dangers must be considered. You don't send up mountain climbers in the face of a moving avalanche. Nor
should we continue to follow a route that allows for the destruction of all that we have built as a country. Our emergency
response public servants are correct. Prevention is worth the effort. Resources for deterrence is well spent, if it precludes
the tragedy. The debate needs to ponder the methods that will work. Patterns and habits of the former bias policy must be
discarded, if real security is to be achieved.
Barry's notion of Liberty is our prize! Transform the 'War Party' into an assemblage of Justice seekers, that promote
Liberty. The noises that are singing a tune of bloodshed are not ringing the chimes of our national bell. That famous question
keeps whispering in my ear: "Just who are those guys"? I'll keep asking, and if you know, drop a note to this recluse,
care of the gang from that hole in the wall address.
SARTRE - October 6, 2001
|
