Convincing Ryan
RYAN GABBARD is asking for help from Bush supporters in his corner of the blogosphere. Looking along TAC's non-politics blogroll, I don't see too many known Bush supporters (Crescat is far too libertarian, Heidi Bond was a Deanie, Jen is a democrat) so I'm going to offer some things to help him along.
FIRST OFF, I'd have to know more about why Ryan doesn't seem to lean towards Bush. He admits that he is 60-40 for Kerry, but then goes through three of Drezner's questions and gives Bush an edge on one and ties on the other two. Then, he states that foreign policy is what he bases his vote on and says that he believes "in the neoconservative insight that our national security 25 years from now depends vitally on democratizing the Middle East." So I think that he and I are on pretty even standing in that. He disagrees with how Bush executed this strategy, which is valid, but I have to ask him - Ryan, do you think that Kerry agrees with this strategy? I don't. Oh, I don't think that Kerry will pull out of Iraq. But I do think that Kerry would stop the unequivicable support of Israel. I do think that Kerry would not put pressure on Iran and Syria. I think that Kerry wouldn't have succeeded in starting Libya and Lebanon down the path towards reform (now we just have to get Syria out of Lebanon). And those sorts of things frighten me. The fact that it doesn't seem to me like Kerry really gets that the spread of freedom and democracy is vitally important to the security of the world and to the U.S. Moreover, this is such a basic principle of the (classical) liberal world that I don't think that I could recommend someone to be the leader of the free world who didn't think that freedom was paramount. EVEN IF Kerry did - let's face it, Kerry would not be a particularly powerful president. This is based on him not actually being a particularly powerful senator. So, at the very least, I'd like for my leader to talk a lot about the wonders of America and land of the free and all that jazz. The real problem with Kerry, the real reason that he doesn't connect with anybody, is that he doesn't speak the language of American myth. We Americans like to believe that we are special, that freedom is a wonderful thing, that the fact that others (like the Chiracs, Arafats, and Husseins) don't like us doesn't actually matter. We are a light unto other nations, shining through our freedom as a beacon. We don't like being told otherwise and, quite frankly, I think that that was one of the main problems with Carter. One of the reasons why "It's morning again in America" works so well. I want my leader to instill pride in my country, not make me think that it isn't the best. I get that from President Bush and not from Kerry. AS FOR economic conservatism and Bush straying from it, well, he hasn't done anything that he didn't say he would do and, besides, you have to believe that Kerry would be more conservative than Bush, economically, for this to translate into a vote for him. I don't see it, frankly. There's more reasons why, but I'd have to hear more from Ryan to elaborate.
Comments
1
Ah, yes, democratization of the Middle East is paramount. Think any neocons can talk about that without ignoring the House of Saud? Hmm.
I want my leader to instill pride in my country, not make me think that it isn't the best. But at the same time, we can't use the blinding love of patriotism to ignore what we do that's not so great. Neocons love to yell about us liberals that we "hate America" any time we criticize it for fucking up. We're not supposed to want America to be better than it is, we just have to assume she's perfect, and God forbid you point out her errors or flaws.
the fact that others (like the Chiracs, Arafats, and Husseins) don't like us doesn't actually matter. The list of people that don't like us right now is a LOT longer than that (and a lot less ridiculous -- seriously, Chirac, Arafat, and Hussein? These are legitimately in the same category?), and to ignore that while assuming we're still a "shining beacon" is going to make it hard for us to accomplish any of our strategic objectives in the future. We'll need some allies somewhere.
Of course, my real problem is, Kerry is still a loser.
I want my leader to instill pride in my country, not make me think that it isn't the best. But at the same time, we can't use the blinding love of patriotism to ignore what we do that's not so great. Neocons love to yell about us liberals that we "hate America" any time we criticize it for fucking up. We're not supposed to want America to be better than it is, we just have to assume she's perfect, and God forbid you point out her errors or flaws.
the fact that others (like the Chiracs, Arafats, and Husseins) don't like us doesn't actually matter. The list of people that don't like us right now is a LOT longer than that (and a lot less ridiculous -- seriously, Chirac, Arafat, and Hussein? These are legitimately in the same category?), and to ignore that while assuming we're still a "shining beacon" is going to make it hard for us to accomplish any of our strategic objectives in the future. We'll need some allies somewhere.
Of course, my real problem is, Kerry is still a loser.
Posted by: Shelby at July 20, 2004 02:04 PM (twM4D)
2
Heh. I do agree that the House of Saud needs to be dealt with in time and needs to either start moving towards reform and democratization or... but surely political expediency leads us to consider Hussein, Syria, and Iran before Saudi Arabia, no?
Shelby, I wouldn't include you in the knee-jerk blame America group. Just as I shouldn't be counted in the knee-jerk praise America group. I just think that America has a long, recent history of doing the right thing and, perhaps, when confronted with the question of believing someone like Kim Jong Il or believing my President, I would believe my president first (unless there are huge reasons to believe otherwise).
I was more using Chirac, Arafat, and Hussein to point out different types in the "hate America" crowd, not as illustrations of the same category. And besides, we do have allies - U.K., Poland, Australia, Israel, most of eastern Europe, and (really - at least in name) most of the world. Maybe we need to actually realize who are our true allies... Certainly, Syria, Iran, PLO, Sudan, and other such countries are not among them. So their approval means next to nothing... no?
Shelby, I wouldn't include you in the knee-jerk blame America group. Just as I shouldn't be counted in the knee-jerk praise America group. I just think that America has a long, recent history of doing the right thing and, perhaps, when confronted with the question of believing someone like Kim Jong Il or believing my President, I would believe my president first (unless there are huge reasons to believe otherwise).
I was more using Chirac, Arafat, and Hussein to point out different types in the "hate America" crowd, not as illustrations of the same category. And besides, we do have allies - U.K., Poland, Australia, Israel, most of eastern Europe, and (really - at least in name) most of the world. Maybe we need to actually realize who are our true allies... Certainly, Syria, Iran, PLO, Sudan, and other such countries are not among them. So their approval means next to nothing... no?
Posted by: Daniel at July 20, 2004 03:25 PM (Oc6V9)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0066 seconds.
19 queries taking 0.0051 seconds, 11 records returned.
Page size 8 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.