Elephant Season Begins November 7

How much more fortunate we would be, were our rulers interested in flagrant breeches instead of flagrant breaches…

Bravo, Andrew.

One issue matters more than all the rest these days, and that the war against Jihadism, which aims to annihilate our way of life. This is not the time to quibble about whether or not Republicans embody conservative principles. This is a time to defend our country against our enemies. I do not see how the anti-war Democrats can do this.

i have long been wanting a conservative democrat to believe in. instead i find politicos advocating atrocities such as partial-birth abortions. but nor can i support bush’s flagrant disregard for civil rights, the environment, and unquenchable thirst for oil masquerading as a fight againts terrorism. i’m sick all around & just don’t know where to turn.

Right, so, vote Democrat, and get all the things you don’t like about Republicans PLUS pro-abortion policy.

As God-awful as the Republicans are, the Democrats are still worse and show no signs of improvement. And with the GOP in such a shambles, why should they? They just have to stay the course, wait for the GOP to screw up, make sure they maintain there votes and gain at least a few swing voters while the conservatives neglect to vote Republican. Ta-da, they win. Unfortunate, but not much that can be done. Except wait for the Democrats to screw up.

Andrew, aren’t you supposed to be delivering this speech from the hustings in your Conservative bid for the state Legislature? Is there still time for a write-in campaign?

Don’t hold your breath, Mr. Sullivan.

As bad as the Republicans, Senate and Bush administration, have been on many issues, I can not immagine how bad a Pilosi/Ried Congress would be. I will hold my nose and vote Republican as ythe lesser of two evils.

Well your vote is your own, after all. As for myself, when presented with the options of 1) a crusade for international democracy paid for in American blood and 2) radical pro-abortion social democrats I am forced to abstain. The G.O.P. will never learn unless it takes a beating itself (and even then, who knows).

I am a foreigner, so my comments are perhaps worth very little here. But I must say that not voting at all is an excellent option, IMHO, one that I have consistently exercised. Failing that, what about building up a third party? You only have to get large enough to become a swing vote, at which point both parties will be beholden.

Andrew –

I really admire your website and enjoy reading it. However, as much as I may be disappointed with the Republicans, to abstain is to vote in favor of the Democrats, the party of abortion. How could you support that?

Oh hey, great suggestion Loyalist: split the conservative vote and give the country to the Dems the way a split conservative vote in Canada gave the country to the Libs for nearly a century.

Yes, I said CENTURY. Are you guys really ready for a century of Clinton/Kerry dynasty?

Vote, and vote Republican, look to the north for what happens if you can’t be realistic about this.

No one is going to restore Christendom execpt the Christians and the Muslims will be as happy to make the churches of the US into mosques as they will be Chartres.

Sorry Andrew, but you couldn’t be more wrong.

“A crusade for international democracy paid for in American blood.” Sounds too much like Pat Buchanan, who is swimming in the deep end when it comes to the war. How about a war against Islamism? No matter what you say about about Republicans, Bush is right on the war. If we lose that war, then it won’t matter what our political options are. Republicans have been more consistent about protecting our security than the crazy Democrats. Is punishing the GOP more important than winning the war?
If you abstain from voting even though you have the right to do so, you might as well be a foreigner. Abstention from voting is politically naive, especially with the survival of the republic at stake. It’s not a matter of your personal endorsement of who espouses what domestic policy, but simply supporting the candidate that can see the war through to victory. It’s a version of the lesser of two evils approach, I guess, and the greatest evil would be to lose the war.

I’d have to agree on the importance of voting in itself — it is a right we all should exercise. One might even say it is a duty.

But the histrionic notion that unless one votes Republican all our churches will become mosques is absurd.

What alternatives other than appeasement, diplomacy and general America-hating have the Democrats offered? Look what they did to Lieberman. It is not the notion that the Republicans are strong on the war that is histrionic, rather it is KD’s characterization of it. If the Democrats had their way, we would all bow down towards Mecca in the name of tolerance and sensitivity, all the while beating our breasts about how bad the West is.

It is not the question of who is strong on war & who isn’t I speak of. Both Bush & Kerry were “stong” on the war, as it were. The very fact that Kerry was “strong on the war”, made many Democrats leary of him. But that’s another matter. What I call histrionic is the fear mongering that claims “Vote GOP” or we’ll be overrun by Muslim hoardes etc etc. This is absurd and an insult to any thinking person, Republican, Democrat, or independent.

PS: Andrew, despite our previous discussions about Gen. Franco, I much enjoy your blog. Indeed, the more I’ve read it, the more I wish to say that the phrase “a gentleman and a scholar” fits you admirably.
Kudos.

Enjoy the blog, too. But, I don’t think I was engaging in fear-mongering. I just wanted to say that we need to win the war, and it seems to me that the GOP is more likley to do that than the Dems. By the way, Kerry, Mr. I-voted-for-it-before-I-voted-against-it, was strong on war? He made a career of denouncing war and America, even when he served in Vietnam.

i have to agree with k.d. that voting is a responsibility, and refraining from doing so is irresponsible. exercise your right to vote … or risk losing it. there’s nothing worse than apathy or sitting on the fence. didn’t Christ say something about spewing the lukewarm out of His mouth? so i’ll do as one suggests: hold my nose & vote for the current party of life.

Mr Kerry was “strong” on the war in Iraq. He was, however, highly critical of the President’s handling of the war. Therein, was their “difference” (on that subject, at least), a “difference” that left many folks who were patently against the war disatisfied with Mr Kerry as a viable “alternative” to Mr Bush.

Yes, Kerry denounced the Vietnam war and America’s involvement in it, but to suggest that thus he “denouced America” is, again, absurd.

Anon, I did not mean to suggest you yourself engage in fear mongering. Another poster mentioned Muslims being happy to turn churches into mosques (which I’m sure they would, but such a scenario is, to the say the least, highly improbable), which caused me to make a general statement about the histrionic fear mongering that goes in this country, which, I believe, the current Administration does little to discourage.

Ideology is fine, but it is best to be rational.

Furthermore, to suggest that Democrats want us to “bow down toward Mecca” is as absurd a notion as leftist commentators who suggest that Republicans want to create a “theocratic” and/or “fascist” state.

I was being sarcastic. I wanted to show the absurdity of the “sensitivity” and “tolerance” we get from the Dems, notions motivated by a cultural self-hatred. These notions do not win wars because they keep us from acknowledging the enemy. But, I see how I overstated my Kerry bit.

http://subimonk.blogspot.com/
check out the comments from this gent on the Holy Name of Mary, the middle ages battle w/muslims then, & coffee.

I agree, “sensitivity” and “tolerance” does not win wars. Though defining exactly what a “war on terror” is and is not remains a “work in progress”, past wars against nation-states were certainly not won with “sensitivity” leading the way.

In response to your comment, I would also have to say that traditional Democrat ideals are not motivated by “cultural self-hatred.” Both the Democrat and the Republican parties, at their best, embody what is good and true about America. The problem is that both parties have “morphed” so much, it’s hard to tell what they really stand for.

Hot dang! Seemed to have touched a nerve here. Several interesting ideas raised, of which I offer the following comments.

First of all let me say that nowhere have I in any way suggested voting for the Democrats nor that a federal government controlled by the Democrats would be any better than the current one.

However, as much as I may be disappointed with the Republicans, to abstain is to vote in favor of the Democrats, the party of abortion. How could you support that?

I believe this is an entirely false argument. First of all, it is the people who vote for, finance, and sustain the Democratic party who are responsible for it, not conservatives so revolted by the abject disgrace that is the Republican party that they will not vote for it on a federal level.

Second of all, if the Republicans are driving conservative voters away then would it not logically follow that it is the party’s fault for not presenting a clear conservative opposition to the Democrats?

Oh hey, great suggestion Loyalist: split the conservative vote and give the country to the Dems the way a split conservative vote in Canada gave the country to the Libs for nearly a century.

Yes, I said CENTURY. Are you guys really ready for a century of Clinton/Kerry dynasty?

Well, that seems a little absurd. Not voting for them in 2006 and 2008 is one thing, but if they are as faithful believers in the free market as many of them claim, the Republicans will see their brand failing, retool, offer something new (or old, rather), and by 2010 things might be looking up.

Sounds too much like Pat Buchanan, who is swimming in the deep end when it comes to the war.

Guilt by association, eh? Would it suffice if I were to confess that I am not Pat Buchanan? I can’t really judge Mr. Buchanan since I’ve never read any of his books, nor even any of his articles to the best of my recollection.

How about a war against Islamism?

Indeed, how about a war against Islamism? Now I may be wrong, but invading a tyrannical secularist dictatorship like Iraq doesn’t seem to be the best way to wage a war against Islamism. Besides, I don’t believe in wars against ideas and -isms. Wars against states and groups, but “terror”? Good grief…

If you abstain from voting even though you have the right to do so, you might as well be a foreigner.

Insinuating I’m a foreigner won’t get you anywhere in my book. To me, a foreigner is someone from New Jersey or Connecticut. By the grace of God I was born here in New York, I live here in New York, and God willing I will die here in New York. Being as New York is (lamentably, I’ll admit) part of the United States, I am an American.

Abstention from voting is politically naive, especially with the survival of the republic at stake.

You’re speaking to someone who believes that the republic died one-hundred-and-forty years ago.

As for Kerry vs. Bush on the war, I’m not even touching that with a ten-foot pole.

But then what is “the war”? When I say the war I mean the war in Iraq. The larger “Global War on Terror”, as our government officially calls it is not really a “war” in the proper sense of the word, but rather a series of military and political engagements aimed at defeating al-Qaeda and its allied organizations. I believe fighting al-Qaeda would have been immeasurably easier had we never invaded Iraq.

Wherever there is a real and tangible threat to the territory of the United States, then that threat should be pursued and eliminated. But so much of the President’s rhetoric has been about democracy this and democracy that. Our foreign policy should be one of overall restraint, peppered with strong military preparedness. I think American soldiers shouldn’t have to die for anything other than American freedom.

puh-leez. what do the parties stand for? power, control, complacency. i was a protocol officer in washington during the clinton administration, and like now as then as i’m sure for decades, politics has been less about helping others as helping the selfish to more $$$. when did we stop demanding purity of heart in our politicians?

“If you abstain from voting even though you have the right to do so, you might as well be a foreigner.” I’m sorry, but I didn’t want to insinuate that you’re a foreigner or insult your loyalities. I just wanted to show that by not voting, one is in a sense making onself foreign to the whole political process. I also realize that democracy is a bad system. But, even if the Republic may have died a long time ago, isn’t it best to work with what we’ve got? As far as the war is concerned, great points, especially about Americans dying for American freedoms.

Wonderful post. Exactly right. (And wonderful rebuttal to the responses, too.) If all one ever votes for are Republicans like Mr Bush all one will ever get are Republicans like Mr Bush.
And as for abortion, Mr Bush is exactly pro-life enough to retain that portion of his constitutency for whom it important. But not pro-life enough to actually change anything substantial.

Cheers,

-John-

Though the Liberal Party has dominated Canadian politics in the 20th century, Canada has really not fared much differently than has the U.S. In some cases, it’s fared better–abortion, for example, took longer to legalize north of the border.

Again, bravo, Andrew.

Republicans may be against abortion (as I myself am), but to call the Republican party the “party of life” is…well, strange, to say the least. Does that make the Democratic party the “party of death”? Absurd.

*absurd* is advocating a procedure where one pulls a child through the birth canal and, just before the head emerges, stabs it in the base of the skull with shears. partial-birth abortion … that’s absurd.

I certainly have no argument with you about the sheer ugliness of abortion. But that’s not my point.

An aside. I knew a prominent Republican family in Houston whose elder daughter became pregnant while in college. With her family’s help, she obtained an abortion. What the reasons were, I can only guess. Reputation, expediency. Perhaps. I won’t judge them. The last I heard, she was a successful attorney, married, with children. Her husband is a respected businessman, active in the Republican party. The abortion is still, for the most part I imagine, a family secret.

When I was a senior in high school, I knew another family, Catholic, and politically very liberal (it was 1970; they sided with many other Catholics against the war in Vietnam, & were active in the Civil Rights movement, etc), whose youngest daughter became pregnant at sixteen. With the help of the church, she had the child and gave it up for adoption. She was happy with her decision, and though she (and her family) indeed felt sorrow and remorse over her pregnancy, they never felt shame. As Christ taught them, we are flawed beings, and forgiveness is best.

The actions of human beings are complex, no matter their religious or political affiliations.

kd, very well expressed. thanks.

Yeah, but I don’t get it. “The actions of human beings are complex, no matter their religious or political affiliations.” Please. This is something Oprah would say. Whoever implied that human actions weren’t complex and what does that have to do with the “party of death”? Ramesh Ponnoru has written a whole book on the “party of death,” which is not as absurd a moniker as you might want to think.

Both “monikers” are reactionary & absurd.

One can (and should) have strong opinions about the Republican & Democratic parties — on the subjects of domestic & foreign policy, war & peace, welfare, the commonwealth, taxation, regulation, law enforcement, etc etc — but “monkiers” such as “the party of life” & “the party of death” are inflammatory, no more, no less. It is always best to be reasonable.

Also, why the belittling tone? (ie “This is something Oprah would say.”) If you disagree, then simply disagree.

Moreover, as to my statement concerning the complex actions of human beings, what does it matter whether or not Oprah might say that? It remains true, and all too often forgotten in our self-righteous rush to judge others.

It is best to be reasonable, yes. How is being reasonable inconsistent with calling a spade a spade? By and large, Republicans are pro-choice, or pro-life. By and large, Democrats are pro-abortion, or pro-death. At some point, one must draw the line and take a side. The “Part of Life”/”Party of Death” distinction I think is a politically brilliant way of doing this.

Didn’t mean to belittle, and sorry if I offended. But, that general insight into human actions does not belong in politics. Yes, human actions are complex, and if you want complexity, read novels. But, politics is relatively simple: It is war by other means and involves taking sides and acting decisively against a clearly defined political enemy.

Sorry, in my rush, I mistyped the above. Should read “By and large, Republicans are pro-life. By and large, Democrats are pro-choice, or pro-death.”

I appreciate your apology. No, I wasn’t so much offended, as questioning of the need, as it were, for a belittling tone. Perhaps, it’s always been part of the political debate, but it seems to me that it has become more & more prevalent these past five years. Vulgarity in debate has increased too, I’ve sadly noticed. Nasty name-calling, accusations — maybe it just comes with the territory now.

Obviously you & I see the world much differently.
Not to belabor a point, but I’ve read numerous articles that seek to turn the tables on the “Dems are the party of death/ Repubs are the party of life” thing. It goes on & on.

Yes, war is relatively simple in the sense fo two sides fighting to win. But politics deals with complex issues, and in that sense is different from war. As long as one sees domestic politics as war, then “all’s fair” I guess. I’m not sure that’s a good approach.

Thanks for your responses.

Same thing happens to me — typos, garbled sentences — when I rush!

One thing about the “party of life/death” monikers, is that it implies that one party is essentially “good” while the other party essentially “evil.” This is troubling, and, of course, not true to life.

Well, if abortion is evil, then advocating it has to be seen as an evil, too, even if the advocate has the best of intentions. Contemporary liberals will advocate the most monstruous actions with the best intentions. If liberals (and therefore democrats) weren’t so “nice,” it would be less troubling to call them evil.

Oh, enough of this jibber-jabber!

Thank you, Andrew. I agree.

Andrew, while your points about the lack of true conservatism among the Republicans is well taken, I protest your ideas on absention. As said before my other posters, to not vote Republican in this election is to grant victory to the most repugnant elements and people of our world, not just the terrorists. What about the ACLU, Michael Moore, the Communist Party, the Socialist Party, the Industrial Workers of the World, the Anarchists, the Anti-Globalists, the Anti-Capitalists, Fidel Castro, Chavez, Mugabe, Ahmenajhad et al? They all want to see the Republicans out, they want America to be humilated and defeated. And do you want to see the partial-birth abortion ban repealed? My dear friend, hold your nose and vote for the Right. Your voice will be heard much louder when we are in power, then when we are in opposition.

Actually given Mr. Cusack’s particular circumstances abstaining from voting Republican probably won’t matter.

Given:
1) He lives in a congressional district of suburban liberals which has a solid Democratic majority.
2) His state hasn’t gone Republican in a presidential election since the year he was born.
3) Living in New York, he’s probably never voted Republican anyhow since New York has the Conservative Party line.

C Moreland, you said it! Thanks.

Also, as far as that mischaracterization of the war as a “crusade for international democracy paid for in American blood” is concerned, I would suggest reading Tony Blair’s speech as quoted in this weekend’s addition of The New York Sun and available here.

Here is a quote:

“We will not win the battle against global extremism unless we win it at the level of values as much as force.We can only win by showing that our values are stronger, better and more just than the alternative. That also means showing the world that we are evenhanded, fair and just in our application of those values.

I am amazed at how many people will say, in effect, there is increased terrorism today because we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.They seem to forget entirely that September 11 predated either. The West didn’t attack this movement. We were attacked.

This brings me to a fundamental point. For this ideology, we are the enemy. But “we” is not the West. We are as much Muslim, as Christian, or Jew or Hindu. We are all those who believe in religious tolerance, in openness to others, in democracy, liberty and human rights administered by secular courts.

This is not a clash between civilizations: it is a clash about civilization. It is the age-old battle between progress and reaction, between those who embrace in the modern world, and those who reject its existence; between optimism and hope on the one hand, and pessimism and fear on the other.
…
The danger with America today is not that they are too much involved. The danger is if they decide to pull up the drawbridge and disengage.

We need them involved. We want them engaged. The reality is that none of the problems that press in on us can be resolved or even contemplated without them.”

Blair gets it. Indeed, Americans *are* dying for American freedoms because it is in America’s interest to vanquish Muslim extremism abroad. Blair’s speech explains why with an eloquence and lucidity that are in high demand these days.

And I misspelled “edition,” darnit.