OnPrincipleBlog

Fred! 101

Much of the GOP seems to be astir with excitement over the assumed entry of Fred! Thompson into the Primary Race to be the GOP nominee for president. Since so many of you have asked about my view of Fred!, here’s summary of thoughts:

1. Reagan Reincarnated

In most news and analysis pieces, the name “Fred Thompson” is closely associate with some reference to Reagan - either that he is the closest thing to Reagan in the current Primary run or that the conservative base of the GOP thinks that he is. I have to admit, this is a curious development on 2 counts:

1. Reagan wasn’t “Reagan”: From what I see and read, I think folks don’t remember who Reagan was. Reagan was an amazing communicator and extremely strong, principled leader who got most big things right (Tax Cuts, Limited Government, Strong rhetoric to empower Communist dissidents and Military power to pursue and ensure peace). Now notice, John F. Kennedy was most of these things as well. Reagan was not the right-wing, social crusader the base of the GOP seems to want to remember him to be. He popularized the term, ‘Born Again Christian” in mainstream culture, but he simply wasn’t a leader of religious conservatives.
   

This isn’t to say that Reagan wasn’t socially and religiously conservative (private accounts of his personal friends and family certainly seem to unanimously hold that he held a very deep and very active personal faith in and relationship with Jesus Christ). It is to say that his primary objective was to reduce the size, impact and overrule of the Federal Government over the States and individuals. Pursuing “evangelical” policy through legislative or judicial fiat would have run counter to everything Reagan stood for. His lack of a stand on “evangelical” issues is most clearly seen in an old “Justice Department” memo from his administration. It calls for judicial nominees who demonstrate a solid record of:

* “disposition towards `less government rather than more”‘

* “appreciation for the role of the free market in our society”

* “refusal to create new constitutional rights for the individual” and

* “respect for traditional values”

Notice, there’s nothing here about Roe vs. Wade, Faith Based Initiatives or Homosexual Marriage. Reagan simply didn’t want to get the government involved in the issues many social conservatives care about today. In this sense, my perception is that Ronald Reagan wasn’t the “Reagan” of current nostalgia. Right or wrong. Good or bad.

2. Reagan or “Reagan”: I haven’t run across any news articles, opinion pieces or blogs highlighting Fred! Thompson’s publicly proclaimed statements of faith. I’m sure he has made some in his day, but I’m not convinced he wears this sort of thing “on his sleeve”. Similarly, I’m not overwhelmed by stories of his use of considerable stardom to campaign for Marriage Amendments, raise money for anti-abortion causes or build really large churches. Again, time may bring more of these to the fore, but experience says that if this sort of evangelical-political activism is a major vector of energy in his life, someone would have picked up on it by now. Thus, I’m not sure Fred! will measure up to the idyllic “Reagan” so many in the evangelical camp seem to worship (pun intended).

That being said, it does indeed seem Thompson is rather like the historical Reagan. In a Senate vote to establish a “Good Samaritan” law which would reduce Tort lawsuits, Fred! was the lone dissenter in a 99-1 vote. On paper, this vote is VERY non-conservative. But in his defense, why did Thompson do such a “stupid” thing? Federalism. Quoting Thompson:

I thought not, but even some of my conservative colleagues (as well as writers) get caught up in the desire to federalize an issue if they could help a “good guy” or stick it to a “bad guy.” This may be a desirable goal in the abstract but I don’t think our Founding Fathers had this in mind. Adhering to basic principles that have served our country well is much too important.

When Fred! enters the race, there will be much ballyhooed rhetoric about “The Next Reagan” - after all, he is an actor. What more proof do we need? Once folks get to know him, much of the right will face a cognitive crisis; Fred! isn’t the “Reagan” they conjure in imagination. Of course, other than Huckabee and Brownback (both hopelessly out of the real race), who in the GOP field is? But research may show Fred! to be the Reagan seen through the clearer lens of history. Will that be enough?

2. Known Unknowns

Political prognostication is fun - and dangerous. Not dangerous in the way securing a Baghdad neighborhood from state-sponsored terrorists is dangerous. Not dangerous in the way of a pastor confronting adultery in the head of the Deacon Board. But dangerous in the sense that one may leave the house without an umbrella on what turns out to be a rainy day - uncomfortable, but not life threatening.

In this game of political prognostication, we may be well served to curb our risks through some basic analysis of the things we know we don’t know enough about yet to truly support Fred! with wholehearted verve - what Sec. Rumsfeld would have called the “Known Unknowns”.

1. Skeletons: Fred! has never been before the x-rays of a Presidential campaign. This has been known to fell lesser men in the past.

2. Passion: Running for the Presidency is a grueling marathon run as if it were a sprint. The faint-hearted don’t survive. Voters are exhausted from the coverage, but isn’t it good we make sure the winner actually wanted, really - really wanted it? I think the position and responsibility at least deserve a bit of passion. I’m not sure candidates know if they burn enough for it until faced with month 6 of the campaign.

3. Leadership: We know Fred can communicate. We know he can legislate. We don’t know if he can lead. Rudy, he’s America’s Mayor. Mitt, he’s built HUGE business, turned around the Olympics and restored fiscal sanity to Tax’n’spendville, MA. Fred!? We just don’t know. Watching the campaign structure, discipline, clarity and execution will tell us a lot.

3. Unfair Concerns?

There are a few concerns starting to float around the web about early indicators of the Thompson campaign’s soft underbelly.

1. Adrift: There was a piece of reporting from “Campaign” Carl Cameron of Fox News about folks leaving the campaign due to disorganization. Fair? The campaign manager is responsible for providing daily discipline, not the candidate. The candidate is responsible to make sure the manager is doing his/her job. Thompson just ousted the informal manager and is bringing in two folks with considerable experience. Time will tell if this is a failure or a pass on the “Leadership” test outlined above.

2. Non-Launch: When the “testing the waters” committee was announce, all news sources reported a July 4th (or close to it) announcement of candidacy. Several folks I know associated with the campaign also acknowledged that this was their expectation. July has now come and mostly gone - with no announcement. Some see this as a another sign of a mismanaged campaign. Fair? I’m not sure we’ll really know.

This could be a very troubling sign of mismanagement.

It could be a troubling sign of low cash in-take. Obama and Clinton were all aglow in early July media spotlights for raising record sums of cash. If Thompson announced then, the time clock would have started ticking for his mandated disclosure of donations. Another bad sign?

Of course, the launch delay could also have been a brilliant move to keep Newt out of the race. Rasmussen Reports has uncovered a very serious block of GOP voters who haven’t sided with any candidate yet. Similarly, a July announcement would have spiked favorable media coverage heading into the distraction of Summer. Voters won’t focus on politics again until late August and September. September is when Newt was considering throwing his hat in the ring. Thus, a delayed Fred! Event, focuses media attention and spotlights on Thompson right when another vote stealer might enter an already crowded and uncertain race.

3. Lazy: A few folks have commented that Fred is lazy. Fair? Frankly, who cares. Do we want someone trying to micromanage the executive (think Carter)? Do we want someone who is completely captivated by their own political brilliance (think Clinton). Or do we want a leader with the passion to whether storms and the leadership to pick good appointees and hold them accountable? Heck, do that and set the right direction - let the appointees work all night (think Reagan).

4. Things to Watch:

I suggest there are some early indicators to watch for in determining the strength of Thompson’s candidacy:

1. Voting Record: The easiest buffet of research for and against Thompson will come from his voting record - and rest assured, most of the media will gladly feed on easy, cheap buffets. Will the record reflect Reagan? Will Thompson be able to defend “questionable” votes? There WILL be some. Senate bills are too big. There’s always some compromised being reached in nearly every vote. Thompson faces some real challenges here - he did support McCain’s Campaign Finance Law (recently found to be at least partially unConstitutional this year by the Supreme Court).

2. Campaign Leadership: Will the Thompson campaign emerge from the Summer with clarity, vision, disciplined execution? One early indicator is to see what seasoned veterans are jumping on board. At present, he only has about 30 staff, so it’s a bit early to find out. Then, watch Thompson the candidate for a month or two. Is the message sharp? Does he stick to it? Does the campaign effectively clarify the “research” which will emerge against the Thompson as Reagan meme?

3. Passion: Does Fred! consistently convey that he wants the job of President MORE as he campaigns longer or does he seem weary, distracted and “carried along” by the momentum of a campaign machine? The early campaign will be a LOT of retail politics and townhall meetings. If meeting with voters and hearing their passions and receiving indication of their faith via donations doesn’t stir a candidate’s passion, he needs to drop the charade before people get hurt.

4. Donations: Like it or not, politics is a money game. Fred! is the only serious contender in the race who hasn’t had to report donations to date. The Dems seem poised for another impressive quarter. Romney and Rudy are impressive in their fund raising by any other standard, but way below the Dems. Conventional wisdom says that much of the GOP’s money is being held back to assess the likely winners. This means the big $’s may not pour into the GOP until late Q3 - Q4. But the Thompson campaign will need to perform well when compared to the numbers of Rudy and Mitt in Q2 and Q3. If not, the smart money won’t come his way when it starts entering the race. If he does well here, it is very likely Fred! could exponentially attract more donors come Q4.

5. Policy: Mitt and Rudy are both starting to outline policy agendas far earlier than would normally happen. If this continues, Thompson will have to do so in Sept and Oct. Does he? Are they substantive? Are the attractive? Can they withstand the heat of battle with Congress? September is shaping up to be the perfect storm of Iraq debate. All declared candidates for the GOP nomination had better be prepared to speak into this debate with clarity, conviction and beyond platitude.

For those of you who desire to scratch a bit deeper, below are some sites which offer a raw look at his voting record - someone needs to really comb these for what the Bills actually did, not just how their titles read. Otherwise, these raw repositories of data are pretty useless:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/t000457/

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Fred_Thompson.htm

http://vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=22003

Here are two articles addressing a few of the known challenges Thompson will face explaining his past positions on a few issues - far fewer than Rudy or Mitt, but some that could be troubling nonetheless:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/6/5/91957.shtml

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JaniceShawCrouse/2007/06/28/should_conservatives_look_at_thompson%e2%80%99s_record_or_his_rhetoric

On Principle,
CBass

A Response to Gene Brooks

Gene Brooks, a long-time friend, whom some of you know and whom all of you would respect. Gene and I often go “rounds” poking at each other. In his excellence, Gene recently made an “efficient” poke via a comment on one of my Blog entries which managed to be both humorous and challenging.

“Do you think the Republican party duped evangelical conservatives and co-opted them in order to get their own agendas accomplished or do you think the GOP is still the party of the Right?”

What a great question. One which deserves a more serious answer. I’m not a historian of cultural supporting trends among US parties. So, I’m just going to shoot from the hip and heart on this one.

Principle #1: 2-Sided Politics, Multi-Faceted Ethics

America does not run non a multi-party, parliamentary system. By intrinsic requirement (and, perhaps by design) our 2-party system aggregates a meld of many nuisances under a single “big tent”. This reality of our dualistic political dual doesn’t neatly align with the complexities inherent in navigating the “Twilight Labyrinth” of spiritual ethics. The Scriptures are replete with the tension between :

• Our limited, earth-bound preferences verses the higher ways of God
• Our discomfort at facing our ethical uncertainty in a world we intuitively know to be governed by eternal, unchanging principles
• Our zeal for enlightened “rulers” despite our daily experience with the universally fallen futility of the human heart
• Our time bound assumptions verses the perspectives of Eternity

In America, our role as “citizen” catches us in the web of these competing pulls. We find ourselves needing to cast votes for imperfect people who are part of an ethically mixed platform and that we must do so out of the context of the larger perspective of what governing coalition the aggregate of all votes for all offices will weave.

Principle #2: Evangelicals Aren’t Always “Right”

While the GOP, the party of the “Right”, is also currently associated with the majority of evangelicals, this is more a symptom of the aforementioned forcing of complex views into limited options than one party claiming to be the natural heir of faith voters.

• If most evangelicals tend to vote Republican, does that mean the GOP has always promised or must always govern in a manner favorable to those GOP-voting evangelicals (of whom most would consider me one)?
• If most evangelicals desire a certain governing focus, does that make the focus correct? While most evangelicals may be worried about a minutia of social policy, some are concerned about the wider arcs of social justice, adoption verse abortion, individual morality, bridging international, intercultural relationships, etc?

In light of Principle #1, Evangelicals must accept that they aren’t always right (meaning, correct) as they, being of earth-bound and time-bound perspective, don’t always see what is being orchestrated through the higher ways of God. Similarly, in our 2-party system, it must be accepted that some issues important to evangelicals are championed by members of the Democratic (non-right, left leaning) party.

Principle #3: Parting Party Ways

We tend to worry, fret, fight and focus on issue of importance to us in the context of the immediate voting cycle. But culture shifts, often imperceptibly, over the period of many such cycles. During the long course of these cyclical shifts, voting groups often come to sudden group consensus that they have parted ways with their past party to such an extent as to embrace much of the platform of the formerly opposing party. This is simply part of the self-correction cycle which our faith community and parties have danced numerous times in the past.

On Principle,

CBass

Happy Birthday, Uncle Sam

There are many reasons I’m thankful for living in America. Among these are certainly the obvious:

• Freedom of opportunity for everyone. (Did you know that George Taylor, a Signer of the Declaration of Independence came to the Colonies as an Indentured Servant.)

• Freedom of personal expression through the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights. (When the opportunity for self-expression is unrestrained through governmental oppression, those souls redeemed by hope can shine light in the darkness of despair. This is opportune spark for cultural revival.)

• Freedom of political participation. (Even during our most contentious elections, the public is unrestrained in advocating, neighbor to neighbor, for issues and candidates of conviction.)

On this last point, compare the following 3 examples:

1. In the Presidential Election of 2000, an incredibly hard fought, closely contentious contest resulted in a court escalation, exactly as prescribed in our system, and a smooth, non-violent ascendancy to power.

2. Also in the year 2000 election cycle, John Ashcroft, running for Senate against the sentimental memories of a beloved Governor and facing widely accepted allegations of fraud, opted to concede defeat rather than pursue likely successful litigious grasp at power for power’s sake - an example stemming from George Washington’s voluntary acquiescence of power at a time when peers were making arguments for the stability of his presence in power.

3. Now compare these examples, on the week of our National Birthday, to this example from Nigeria: “The price of machetes has halved in parts of Nigeria since the end of general elections in April because demand from thugs sponsored by politicians has subsided, the state-owned News Agency of Nigeria reported.”

Those who know me well, know that there are myriad, discrete aspects of our country that I find sadly disappointing. But my travels have also taught me that I’m thankful for a system of government and culture that are built upon some sort of foundation of traditional Judeo-Christian ethics. A journey into much of the world quickly illustrates the blessings of citizenship in this nation, as enumerated above. These are the blessings which tell each individual,

“Here’s the open door of oportunity. If you have the gumption, walk through it. If someone tries to slam it, we have processes to deal with that. If you are facing obstacles which block your way, reach out to others in your community, history shows conclusively that enough will reach back to assist. But the choice is yours. Check your conscience, come to understand the purposes of your Creator, take your chances and pursue your hope.”

On Principle,

Cbass

. . . To Beat A Capitalist. Profit is a great motivator of creativity.

Legal Loophole

Britain’s sweeping new anti-smoking law will virtually eliminate smoking inside public places on July 1.

But the London Daily Mail reports the landlord at one Southampton pub thinks he’s found a loophole — he’s had his bar declared the official consulate of the tiny Caribbean island of Redonda.

He thinks his could be the only pub in all of Britain to welcome smokers — and he’d get a break on alcohol taxes to boot.

Britain’s health department concedes that embassies are exempt from the rule. But the foreign office says Redonda is a territory of Antigua and Barbuda and not entitled to its own embassy.

As a logical being, meaning as a Constitutional conservative, I’m a bit incredulous toward anyone purporting to disavow the deterrent nature of the Death Penalty - fairly, quickly and predictably applied. Addressing the “quick” and “predictable” aspects of this equation require a comprehensive review & reform of the American legal system. Addressing the question of “fairness” in the Death Penalty, however, is another mater.

There are two root reasons for implementing and supporting the death as a “fair” penalty for murder:

1. Deterrence
2. Dignity

Deterrence:

Most opponents to the Death Penalty with whom I’ve spoken (ok, argued) claim that the Death Penalty can’t act as an effective deterrence because would be murders either commit their crimes in the heat of a passionate moment or through the type of conniving common only among those who don’t think they’ll get caught. In either case, they argue, the Death Penalty can’t pose an onerous, logical impediment - no matter how quickly and predictably applied. Those who aren’t thinking or don’t think they’ll get caught equally won’t be deterred by a dispassionate legal framework.

The error of this reasoning, in my mind, is pretty self-apparent. First, the Death Penalty is not a punishment meted out simply for murder. The Death Penalty is a separate jury consideration AFTER someone has been found guilty of murder. It is the ultimate punishment only for crimes uniquely deserving. Thus, run of the mill, crime of passion murders don’t normally merit this verdict. Second, there is nothing unfair about giving punishment to someone too so arrogant to both assume they should take human life AND that their cleverness is beyond comprehension.

Third, these two arguments lead to the absurd claim that there can be NO deterrence from punishment for someone who either isn’t thinking or who thinks they won’t fall under judgment. As I said, this is simply absurd. We punish offenders because to not punish would be unfair to the victims. If there must be unfairness, I would rather it be against a convicted offender, not an innocent victim.

“If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call.”

John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence

We also punish offenders because common sense informs us that the specter of punishment does deter some crime. The obviousness of this can be seen in the following example:

Understanding that isolated crimes of passion rarely face Death Penalty treatment, the example to consider is the diabolically thoughtful murder. Such a murder is someone full of angst enough to be consumed by hate. This person could take their own life or they can lash out to take that of someone else. Why don’t they just kill themselves to surely end it all? Obviously, they either value their own life, their own death is a matter of fear or they perversely thrill on the adrenalin rush. In these cases, the Death Penalty is a fair deterrent and equal punishment.

Dignity:

The above perspective is entirely conditioned upon this much deeper principle: Through death, a murderer commits the ultimate offense against human dignity and by extension, against the dignity of human society as a whole. If we value human life as being of ultimate value, then to snuff out that life is an ultimate offense. Ultimate offenses demand ultimate punishment. Ending the offender’s life is that punishment. In our system, this punishment is leveraged through a double finding of guilt and is administered with layered measures to seek painlessness and dignity for the guilty. We do this because just as the victim’s life is of dignity, so to is that of the offender. That’s why our system doesn’t bow to the fringe elements fomenting for pain and torture to be executed upon the guiltily as payment for their ultimate offense.

The beauty and dignity of every human is the seeming trump card in this debate.

Yes, the “seeming” trump card.

For, just as I’m a Constitutional Conservative, I am also someone who wants to pursue the path of Christ. In this, I am unnerved by the stream of investigations, reports and lobbying efforts which are uncovering and freeing numerous folks who were formerly convicted of murder, found deserving of the Death Penalty and later determined to be innocent. If the Death Penalty is “fair” because of the way it honors and balances the dignity of humanity, what do we say when it unjustly, and unfairly takes innocent life?

I don’t know.

Is there a way to honor the dignity of the victim, protect the dignity of society through deterrence and still honor the dignity of the accused inn light of a court system which largely gets it right, but sometimes does mistakenly condemn the innocent along indignant lines of class, race or even looks?

More thoughts to come. . .

On Principle,

CBass

(Click on the above picture to enlarge it)

Notice how one editor simply states the facts:
Who: “President” (his formal title) “Bush” (His given name)
What: “Vetoes” “Bill”

The other editor:
Who: “Bush” (Formal, respectful title is eschewed)
What: “Vetoes” “Popular” “Bill” (By cutting respectful title, space is gained for editorial perspective)

I found this perfect juxtaposition of two headlines (see above) in my personalized iGoogle homepage. I think it perfectly depicts an example of how a liberal bent in the editorial room almost unknowingly influences media. Multiply this by hundreds of stories a day being heralded through a myriad of media sources and suddenly we are happily carried along by the buoying drumbeat of a liberal cadence.

I’m not one to find a “Liberal Bias” behind every bush. But to torture an old saying: that doesn’t mean there isn’t some liberal bias behind some bushes - especially if that bush is President Bush.

I’m not a Bush fan on all fronts (Where’s the fence?, So, still sticking by that war strategy?, You actually signed McCain-Fiengold???). But he is President, he was freely elected (TWICE), was elected with more votes than any other President in US history, was the first President in decades to be elected with a majority of popular votes at all, has executed his office with dignity. Perhaps he is due just a modicum of respect prior to potshotting him with a hidden agenda and headlined opinion.

On Principle,
CBass

I haven’t found the audio yet, but the text of this speech is truly great.

Update: Found a link to some of the Video

Update: Some of my favorite excerpts - without comments believe it or not. . .

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The United States and the United Kingdom have learned this lesson both ways – in great evils ignored, and in great evils averted. We learned it from a World War that happened and, in the decades afterward, from the World War that didn’t happen.

We must conclude that the greatest test of leadership – in your country or mine, in this time or any other – can be simply stated. We must shape events, and not be left at their mercy. And in all things, to protect ourselves and to assure the peace, the great democracies of the world must stick together. We must be willing to make tough decisions today in order to avert bigger problems tomorrow. We must be prepared to meet threats before threats become tragedies.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

We must be prepared to make our case not just privately, but to the people of Europe and the world in order to build political support for cooperation. The world is not stronger if America is weaker – or is perceived to be weaker. The same is true of Britain and truer still of our NATO alliance. And we must be capable of making that case.

In return, it is fair to expect that our allies will not put their trade and commercial interests above world security. It is also fair to ask that Europeans consider the consequences if they are wrong about the threat to the Western world.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Of course political realism is back in the ascendancy since the difficulties in Iraq. It’s true that we have learned that geography, history, and ethnicity are important factors to consider in making decisions regarding today’s enemies.

We’ve also been reminded of the importance of preparation, of alliances, and the continuing support of our people.

But that does not change the fact that we sometimes must address events in far-away places that endanger our people. Or that we believe in universal values that do not allow us to ignore wholesale human suffering.

Realism? Yes. But also idealism, which is what makes us different from our enemies.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,

On Principle,
CBass

New Poll from NBC (and here - 6/8/07) on the NH primary shows good news for Huckabee, Romney and McCain and some bad signs for Giuliani.

A few thoughts:

1. 5.3% error margin???? Jeepers! We just can’t live by or make too much of these polls’ discrete findings. There will be innumerable swings and contradictions between any specific poll. The absurdity of making too much of these polls is the 5.3% error margin. According to this:

• Romney and McCain at a “tie” (a “victory” for McCain to be tied in Romney’s backyard - AFTER the immigration revolt???).

• Giuliani as being tied with Huckabee (would this make the “news of the week” that Huckabee is “tied” in New Hampshire with the national front runner?)

2. The only item of value to be gained by this incessant polling is a rough feeling for each candidate’s relative placement vis-a-vis the others and an idea for the size of their backing. From this very surface analysis we can determine a few winners and losers for this round:

• Huckabee - Surprise of surprises, Huckabee is the top winner from these findings. He has no money, little press and no organization to speak of and yet he’s actually within some sort of striking distance of the 2nd placers.

• Romney - With ALL his money, major press coverage and intense organization focus in NH, he has to win, but the good news is that he is winning there - by any measure. Good for him.

• McCain - Another gaping surprise. Despite disappointing money, a hemorrhaging organization and negative press, he’s about equal with Giuliani - the national leader.

• Giuliani - NH is in his home region. He’s the national front runner. He has solid resources and 5 years on organizing. Yet, he’s about even with the base’s nemesis (John McCain) and is well behind Romney.

Without living and dieing by these exact & shifting poll data, its easy to see why primary prognostications can’t be made the easy way by looking only at broad national polls. Each state is a new race and each candidate has a to live or die by the realities of that market place.

On Principle,
CBass

Now that we are deeply mired in the campaign season for Presidential Primaries, our current engagement in and conduct of the “War on Terror” is oft questioned by pundits and waxed a little less than eloquently by brave campaigners.

It amazes me that 6 years into our realization that this battle was launched upon us, we still don’t, as a collective people, have a better grasp as to the nature of our warfare. With all the pomp, circumstance and inflated self-importance which is so integral to blogging, I will here attempt to set the record straight.

Misnomer #1: War on Terror

We are not waging a war on “terror”. Terror is an internal, emotional reaction to a frightening or dramatic event. Sir Winston Churchill could be said to have waged a war on terror, in this sense, during battle of London in WWII. Through his example, decisiveness and stirring rhetoric, he sought to confront the reactive terror which gripped the hearts of his citizens. While this sort of reinforcement of the American psyche would be an advised addition to the Administration’s battle plan, an addition badly lacking of late, it simply is not core to the “long war”.

Misnomer #2: War Against Terrorists

CAUTION: Liberal content warning!!!!

Battling Terrorists, as an end goal, is not, primarily, a job for our military in its full weight and stunning lethality. Terrorists, folks who try to invoke terror in innocents for self-selected purposes, are thugs and criminals. Confronting them is largely, in most (no, not all) cases, a job for law enforcement. What? Isn’t this sacrilegious for a deeply committed conservative? No, as a conservative, I deploy the full force, fury and frustrating bureaucracy of my government on an extremely limited basis. And I have some examples to back up this point:

1. The Unabomber and Timothy McVeigh. Both were terrorists, both were confronted by law enforcement.
2. The mob / mafia. Organized terrorist families, clans, cells ranging from Prohibition Bootleggers to today’s highly structured, multi-state Latino gangs. All of whom have been effectively confronted by law enforcement.
3. Iraqi Police. Its seems as though many of us have taken for granted that when America talks of training up Iraqi “security forces” some of the major focus of this work is on raising competent, non-compromised Iraqi police - often to a greater degree than the Iraqi armed forces.

Conservative readers, you can come back now.

Before moving on I should note that surgical strikes by small groups of highly trained and well armed Special Forces units may be one very appropriate tactic in battling terrorists, but when conducted on foreign soil absent a larger military campaign, these raids are probably far more effective in the long term when coordinated with that country’s law enforcement. Conservatives do like to uphold the integrity of national borders of nation states - our own apparently excluded from this otherwise truism.

Misnomer #3: We Can’t Declare War on an Idea or Tactic

Ok, admittedly, it did take the Administration far too long after 9/11 to craft some definition around the sort of terrorism against which we would battle. But please don’t miss the point, this has been done and the selected definition correctly aligns with who we are as a people both historically and in the modern world. Our long war is not against the idea of terror or terrorism as a tactic. Our long war is specifically against “state-sponsored, international terrorism”.

What does this mean? Let’s start with what it doesn’t mean. This doesn’t mean that we have declared direct war on remnants of the Irish Republican Army, Colombia’s FARC, Spain’s ETA or Aum Shinrikyo of Japan. They all invoke terror (see Misnomer #1 above), but they are all best confronted by the law enforcement efforts of each country. The US may support these efforts through military aid, US military hardware, etc, but we are correct to NOT confront these terrorists (see Misnomer #2 above) through Shock & Awe.

War on Terrorism: What It Means

Our war is against organized groups (things against which we can really declare war) which utilize the legal safety, cultural support and enormous resources of nation states to mobilize terrorists in waging terror tactics against innocents, often in other nations, to secure the self-selected purposes in which they find value. I find it difficult to believe anyone can’t grasp this difference between the tactic of terror, the rather limited resources and reach of “local” groups of terrorists and well structured, well funded, well trained, well armed, well coordinated, internationally structured, far-reaching state-sponsored terrorism.

Since history has a whimsical way of smacking us on the collective rear when we ignore it’s lessons, I highly recommend the short article “Jefferson Versus the Muslim Pirates” by Christopher Hitchens. Much of what today defines us as “Americans” was born out of our nation’s first officially declared war oversees - a war against, gasp!, the idea, nay - the tactic, of piracy.

Gotcha! Not so!

Our Congress declared war and our President Jefferson executed war against state-sponsored piracy. The difference is very, very important. Since the piracy was not some independent group of thugs to be policed, but a coordinated attack of terror upon innocent people (entire cities were raided and possibly 1.5 million Westerners were taken captive as slaves) coordinated from, funded by and under the protection of the nation states of northern Africa. As such, we wage war against the physical arms (slave ships), soldiers (funded pirates) AND the sponsoring homelands of the pirates. By stemming the flow from the state-sponsor, Islamo-piracy eventually receded to irrelevance for centuries - courtesy of a good ‘ol butt kicking.

As the T-shirt says: “WAR NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING: Except for Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism”

Hitchen’s alludes to much of what is “apple pie” America as having arisen from the fight against state-sponsored terrorism:

1. Our grievances against England as captured in the original draft of the declaration of independence - for his support of the “slave trade” which mirrored the tactics of state-sponsored piracy.

2. The only mention of Armed forces in our Constitution - a Navy for battling the state-sponsors of the Barbary Pirates.

3. The original stanza’s of what would later become our national anthem

4. The Marine Corps anthem

5. The liberal tradition of appeasement - John Adam’s stance that we should bribe the Muslim states to the sum of 10% of our National Treasury.

Ok, But What Exactly Does It Mean:

Our Constitutional structure arose out of, in part, a struggle similar to ours today. It was designed to support the following principles when battling state-sponsored terrorism:

1. Unite domestically to raise a fearsome military to end the ability of enemy states to sponsor terrorism.
2. Encourage development of friendly governments (since terrorism is also feed through the defacto “state” of culture - ie the KKK in the post-Reconstruction South).
3. Support the local law enforcement efforts of these newly constituted governments to confront the now de-funded and orphaned terrorists.
4. Return home to enjoy the 2 centuries of peace which can only be won through such displays of strength - at least in this fallen world.

One last question.

If you buy into any of the arguments above, what would be the appropriate response to Iran, Syria and the defacto autonomous regions of Pakistan? The answer is obvious, but it would require the same efforts as were required of our Nation’s founders - raise an armed force, sufficiently capable of executing the task at hand with sufficient lethality and provide a demonstration of nation will through Congressional declaration.

Then, let’s remember, this is a “long war”.

Of course, we may learn a lesson from other wars as well:

1. Sometimes we need to commit the same level of resources to rebuilding what we utterly destroy.
2. Sometimes we need to flood defeated foes with the best Ambassadors we have to offer, hundreds of individuals carrying and demonstrating the Love of God for the populace shaken free of terrorist sponsors.

Proud American,
Christian